After a Board of Adjustment hearing last week, Zack King appeared before Milford Planning and Zoning to request a conditional use to expand the commercial portions of a building he planned to construct at 111 North Walnut Street from the allowed three to six. King requested the additional commercial spaces so that he could construct 16 affordable housing units in the building designed for working people in Milford.
“We’re only here to ask you for one thing, and that’s increasing the potential number of commercial spaces from three to six. We don’t even know if we’re going to be putting six commercial spaces in there, but we would like to have the flexibility. These are all spaces that’ll be for lease to other businesses,” King said. “We don’t plan to open businesses there ourselves at this at this moment, so we need the flexibility in case tenants come to us and want smaller spaces, the ground floor could potentially be four spaces. The basement could potentially be a separate business, and the rooftop could potentially be another, potentially up to six. The same number, same logic, goes for the apartments we were asking for, up to 16 units, which would be the maximum. We haven’t gone through full engineering with this project, so the density we requested seemed high, but that’s a case scenario.”
Board of Adjustments granted a request for higher density as well as a request to subdivide the property, but denied a request for a height variance, something King said would make it difficult for him to make the apartments affordable. The compromise King offered was to allow him to add six retail units, three more than permitted in the code, which may make up for the reduced height. King provided details on the successes he and his wife, Marissa, had in Milford.
“As you know, my wife and I have EasySpeak, fondue, quite a few mixed use buildings in town. We brought over 20 business tenants to Milford. Two of those tenants were here previously, and one of those two were about to leave Milford due to lack of space. Downtown has been fading for the past couple years. It was falling apart,” King said. “When we moved here, we bought the Penny Square building. It was falling off into the street, literally. I think every project we’ve done has improved the town. We’re trying to continue that, and we’re trying to continue that under the guise of affordable housing.”
King continued, pointing out that many of his employees have struggled to find housing in Milford.
“We have over 40 employees between our restaurants and construction business and housing is a real issue. We have employees that live with ex-husbands. We have employees that live with their moms and they’re 45 years old, people that live in basements that aren’t finished,” King said. “We have some residences with employees that live in them. Some of them are tenants that were there when we bought the buildings that we’ve not displaced and not raised the rent on as we are really trying to figure out this problem. We’re not experts at it, but what we proposed at the Board of adjustments meeting was simply something to provide someone a place to live with bare necessities at the cheapest cost. When we start slashing floors, cutting business tenants out, every single thing we do to that effect, increases the cost of the apartment for that person that needs affordable housing.”
King pointed out that the historic features of the building seemed to be a sticking point for those who spoke at Board of Adjustments.
“We designed this specific building with historic attributes to mimic the several buildings to the north of it. The plan to be able to do this getting extra height, which we did not get at at BoA, was that more units and commercial spaces would make the apartments more affordable. Hence, we’d be able to afford to make the building look historic and fit in with the area,” King said. “With all due respect, we don’t need approval to build a 35-foot building. We don’t need approval to build a mixed use building. We can build anything we want there. There’s no regulations on that. This was kind of our trying to fit in with the community, trying not to upset people, trying to keep it as historic as possible.”
King stated that the request for the height variance was to make it easier to create affordable housing.
“As we shrink the building or cut tenants out, the rooftop restaurant was a sticking point for a lot of people as well, as we cut those things away, we lose budget for making the building look historic. So we’re going to keep trying to fine tune this project and trying to make it perfect and get the approvals we need. But I just want to run down one that as we cut units, we will have cut things that look pretty and the building may not look as nice.”
King summarized that adding residential downtown was becoming more and more important.
“We need to support our business tenants. Just because we have 20 business tenants in Milford doesn’t mean every single one of them is profitable. It doesn’t mean every single one of them can pay their rent every month. Doesn’t mean they can make their payroll every month. Some of them are struggling,” King said. “You know, a lot of people that live in greater Milford do support downtown, but a lot of them don’t. They go to Amazon, they go to Walmart. So, living in town where people can walk to the businesses and support them, is extremely important, and it’s what we’ve been trying to do since we got here, is build up downtown, and now we need to support those businesses.”
Commissioner Mark Redden noted that there did not seem to be parking for up to 30 cars, admitting that code did not require it for this area, and that there seemed to be no green space for tenants.
“The building is taking up the majority of other land around it. We were attempting to build this on this parcel. There’s green space behind it that potentially could stay there. As for the parking I did some the studies that were done on parking were six years old, seven years old, but I did some numbers on parking before the Board of Adjustments meeting, there are 125 spaces between the two parking lots immediately adjacent and the one block of street parking,” King said. “The two different times that I went there, one was at nighttime, one was in the morning, there was 102 vacant spaces, and 107 vacant spaces at those two different times, 18 were utilized at one time, and 23 another.”
King stated that those were just the parking lots in the immediate vicinity of the building.
“As far as the green space, we own the lot and we’re able to build on that. We don’t need approval to have five foot setbacks. That’s part of the code, I know. After the Board of Adjustments meeting and hearing some people speak, we believe we’re going to set the five foot front setback, because it would be a better line with the other houses. That was something we didn’t think about before. But, as a property owner and someone trying to provide affordable housing and have new business tenants, it’s not our responsibility to provide green space, especially in the zoning district. We believe the city has ample parks and there’s green space all over that will not impact us building on this lot. I don’t think it’s negative to other properties, because we’re removing green spaces. It is our right to build on that lot.”
Several people expressed opinions during the public hearing.
“Marissa King commented that their tenants are struggling, both residential and commercial. They have not evicted any of them. They talked about how their commercial properties are struggling. They also spoke about they think Milford needs to be a walkable community where our employees can live, walk, dine and shop. They also talk about their tenants,” Reinhold Longenbach said.”They don’t talk about downtown Milford already is a community, and they only speak about their tenants. They don’t speak about the residents who live there already, who have been living there since, like my wife and I since 2017.”
Longenbach continued.
“When I was going through the minutes of the meeting that was on the eighth they also talk
about security, the tenants will just “have to deal with it” at one point. “I’ll make sure that’s not disruptive to my tenants, which also means disruptive to me.” But again, there’s community there with residents that live there, not just tenants,” Longenbach said. “They also said today, they are not experts. They don’t have any plans set up yet. They’re just throwing out ideas. I really wish that they would have set up already, considering their tenants, both commercial and residential, are already having troubles, but hope that they have plans for this. We don’t know if there’s an ability to do a basement, because he hasn’t done any land tests on soil, as he commented on May 8, and today, he said the building may not look as nice.
Longenbach pointed out that this seemed like a threat to the neighbors.
“Technically, he about it because it is understandable that some things must be eliminated due to costs, but that’s kind of spiteful. And the same thing his wife said that “I could just build a mirrored building,” at the Board of Adjustment meeting,” Longenbach said. “That just seems a little spiteful, considering there is a community of residents, there tenants already bringing those comments up.”
Joan Rand expressed concerns about a bar going into the location, although King had already stated that was simply a suggestion and that no tenant planning to add a bar to the building was in mind for the building.
“I just wanted to bring up a point about the bars, because I went through the list of the neighborhood bars, there are seven of them within a half a mile. And then there are three restaurants that cater to food and drink within a half a mile. So you got Arenas, Park Place, fondue, Milford Tavern, WTF Meadery, Cured Plate and the billiard parlor,” Rand said. “I don’t drink, but enjoy going out on occasion and having 11 bars in one neighborhood seems excessive,” Rand said. “I also was curious about this as worker housing, because the point keeps coming up, and I understand you’ve got employees, and it’s really tough to afford any kind of rental housing, but is this going to be employee housing, which, that’s a legitimate thing, obviously. I wonder, Is it open to other people to apply? But it sounded over and over again like it was directed at people that were working in your establishments.”
Dr. Mitch Edmonson felt that this was an excellent project, but not in the historic area it was proposed.
“I think there is a need for small units in a dense area, but not on a block where there are historic homes. So, my concern is how this would affect the quality of the historic homes in the immediate area. The other thing that worries me is being on Walnut Street, if you put in five commercial properties, you could have delivery trucks all day long, not only taking up parking spaces, but traffic,” Edmondson said. “And I would like to point out that Walnut is quite narrow in that area as it is, but I think it would be detrimental to have that density of commercial property in that particular area. I very much value the work that the Kings have done in downtown Milford. I’m a patron of theirs, and they do some terrific things, and I hope they might be able to find another spot in downtown for this.”
Dan Bond, who spoke against the project at the Board of Adjustment hearing, spoke in favor of the changes the Kings had made to the plan since that meeting.
“I still have concerns. Setback is an important one. I think it’s Zack has indicated that he’s willing to set the building back. I had talked to Zack and suggested even further setback with a park in front would be nice, but my major comment is that this is in the north Milford historic district that should have some significance, because if you are in a historic district have certain obligations and privileges in the sense, they’re very minor in a legal sense, but one thing you can do is seek assistance and how to make an appropriate building,” Bond said. “I would start with the National Park Service, which really administers this.”
Bond stated that the building design should match the historic character which can be done. He also explained his comments at the Board of Adjustment meeting.
“At the Board of adjustments meeting, I said I thought the city should try to contact the State Historic Preservation Office to seek assistance to help in the design of this building should look how it should fit into a historic district, to bring up their views as to what would be appropriate. I have tried to call Susan Savory, who heads up that division of the state every day for the last since, well, almost every day since the last meeting. And I don’t know if she’s on vacation or what, but I go to her voicemail. I have not got any response. I serve as a citizen representative on the state historic Review Board, which looks at applications to put buildings on the National Register, so I am knowledgeable about how they operate,” Bond said. “I’ve done a number of historic restorations in Milford, followed National Historic guidelines on restoration. So basically, there’s no formal process that I know that we have in place now to review the design and if it is appropriate. Rob has worked hard to develop some guidance in setting up the review process for Milford which should be pursued.”
Bond stated that, as of yet, there was no requirement that a building in the historic areas of town retain the historic look which means that is not something that can be required of the Kings at this time.
“I think Zack is doing the right thing by trying to keep the exterior as close to historic as possible, and I trust him. He has done so much for downtown Milford already. I don’t think that we should block his effort to provide affordable housing. To block his effort to do infill development, and to do so in a way that he doesn’t go bankrupt, because it is extremely expensive, with the cost of consumption, high interest rate, unless you’re a big developer,” Bond said. “To keep a project like this economically viable and contribute to the downtown is extremely difficult. So, I think that you should let him go forward.”
As for the rooftop bar, Bond did not see that if it did come to fruition, it would be detrimental to the area.
“I think we should trust someone who has a track record of managing this type of business, which probably means he’s gonna have a nightclub up there on top, because he is trying to do smaller apartments and there is a tremendous demand for apartments downtown,” Bond said. “If you put a nice, rooftop bar up there, the younger generation would be attracted to live, shop and frequent downtown businesses. We should encourage this, not absolutely block this type of development.”
Bond did admit that parking could be viewed as a concern, but in his experience, the only time parking was difficult downtown was during festivals. He also felt creating a second entrance as well as a way to manage deliveries.
“Zack is a good person who does the right thing,” Bond said. “He has restricted the height and, in normal situations, I would find the change in density egregious, but in order to make the apartments affordable, that is what has to be done.”
Commissioner Shelby DiCostanzo asked if they could give approval with the requirement that the building retain the historic exterior that blends with the area. Solicitor David Rutt explained that they could not as there was no requirement for the applicant to make the exterior historic. DiCostanzo felt that a lot of what was said against the project were unknowns that may or may not occur. Rutt stated that all the commission was permitted to do was to decide if the request met the requirements of the code which described how the conditional use could be permitted.
“I would make a motion to approve this request based on what is written in the code and the variety of mixed-use buildings already in the area,” DiCostanzo said. Commission Chairman Marvin Sharp called three times for a second, receiving none.
After asking what the pleasure of the commission was, Redden made a motion to deny the request based on traffic and parking. That motion was seconded. The motion passed with a vote of three to two. DiCostanzo and Sharp were the only votes against denying the motion.
