IMPORTANT INFO TO MILFORD PROPERTY OWNERS

Proposed Zoning Change : On December 21st the Planning & Zoning Board will hold a public hearing to make a text change to the regulation for fences and walls.

If your property abuts the Long Island Sound or rivers, streams, or tidal wetlands you will not be allowed to have any type of fence wall or shrubs within the area located between the mean high water mark (boundary) and the applicable wall of the principle structure. A line extension is projected as being perpendicular from the side property lines to the rear corners of the principal building. The only exception is if a fence is required by the state building code.

It should be noted this regulation, Section 4.1.7.3, was adopted in 2005 to prevent property owners abutting the Long Island Sound  from erecting fences, walls, or shrubs that would obstruct the water views by other property owners.

I do not agree with the proposed wording, of just saying you "cannot," because it does not consider situations and conditions in which some types of barriers for the protection of children, pets, wildlife, buildings, natural land resources and/or personal property would be needed. There should be wording to allow for when such situations and/or conditions are an issue. I am not a big fan of fences or walls, but they do have purpose. Also, as a note FEMA allows fences in floodways when designed to allow water to flow thru them. [i.e.: channel of rivers, streams or tidal wetlands and the adjacent land used to contain flooding]

I also disagree with the wording of the current regulation in that if a fence/wall is required by the building code you have to have it approved by the City Planner and the P&Z Board.

It should be noted the building code specifies the fence construction type and minimum height.
To me this procedure is a waste of time and money to the property owner. The City Planner and P&Z Board do not have the authority to change the building code. So, since the building code specifies the type of construction and height, the regulation wording should be changed to read that the zoning enforcement officer should review it to see if the fence/wall is located to meet the specified need and minimize obstruction to residents views, and get them approved at time of the zoning application.

Last on this subject is that privacy style fencing is prohibited. This wording should also be updated. There are times you just do not want things to be visible.

In all, the text change as proposed, should be voted down. The existing regulation and wording needs to be thought thru and options investigated by the board members themselves to achieve a regulation that can work and not just say ‘no you cannot do this’.

As always the people on the board asked to represent YOU and you voted them in to do so. Contact your representatives on this and other matters to let them know your views on zoning issues. Do not let them guess want you want or do as they or the city wants.

John Grant

Milford Land Use Department Erupts into Chaos, Confusion and Grievances

Three top city land use officials have since April filed a total of 10 grievances against the administration, alleging the interim director of a newly created land use agency illegally changed their job descriptions on multiple occasions.

City Planner David Sulkis, Assistant City Planner Emmeline Harrigan and Chief Building Inspector Thomas Raucci have all filed grievances against Department of Permitting and Land Use Interim Director Douglas Novak and Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr.

After years of study and reports, the city in October approved creating a new Department of Permitting and Land Use agency, which provides administrative oversight over the building, planning and zoning, and inland wetlands agencies. The new DPLU was created after years of complaints by developers and residents about a lack of service and long waiting periods to receive permits.

In Sulkis’ first of seven grievances, he wrote that the job description and functions of the new DPLU overlap and usurp his job description.

“This is bargaining unit work that has been transferred to a non-bargaining unit appointed position,” Sulkis wrote.

Click here for Brian Mcready Story at the NH Register

Developers Project May "Rake Taxpayers Over The Coals."

The name is a gentle and yet wonderful name "Rolling Meadows" sounds like the kind of place to retire to or the place where Grandma and Grandpa may retire to. However, there is more to this construction boondoggle than meets the eye. (besides the fact that its in an industrial waste area on top of I95.)

Whenever a developer uses the word "Affordable" its time to start organizing Taxpayer protests. The very word "Affordable" is code for we are going to "Rake The Milford Taxpayers Over The Coals."

How so one may be wondering? Well lets start by saying that Milford has more affordable property than any city I personally ever lived in in the past. All one has to do is look at the real estate transfers over the last few years and you will see how many properties sold for around $200,000.00. Take this figure, add the $8,000.00 home owner credit, a super low interest rate, and amortize it over 30 years, and that home payment is around $1,000.00-$1,500.00. This is very affordable, especially since the manager of a Dunkin Donuts makes about twice that in a month.

So what is with the shady construction project called "Rolling Meadows?" To begin, unless this is a HUD subsidized housing project or under the scrutiny of the city of Milford (Like Jagoe Court, or DeMaio Court) the term "Affordable" is really nothing more than a "con man's pitch."

Hopefully the people in Zoning and planning, and the Zoning board of appeals will know the truth about this development and its inherent characteristics of a 28 unit negative income property. For those of you who do not know what that is, simply put its a two fold attack on Milford's residents or a tax increase combined with cluster housing and congestive living.

David Sulkis, our Milford City Planner, pointed out that "State law says that you can't utilize industrial land for affordable housing, so in effect, they want to change the use of the industrial land,"

Lois D'Amato has been fighting with the city to get this burdensome clustered development approved, but thus far has lost his case before the Zoning Board of Appeals who denied him an easement through the neighboring industrial park.

Sadly, this project is very close to being worked out, and if it is approved it could bring upward of 20-40 new kids into the already struggling school district. These kids will cost the city an additional $500,000.00 in educational costs. This number does not include the garbage pick up to this location, or the "wear and tear" costs that are aggregate to the tax base, like sewer maintenance, emergency services, and road repair.

Even in the best case scenario, 30 units with an estimated $4,000.00 in tax each will net the city $120,000.00 leaving a projected $400,000.00 "gaping tax hole in the city budget." For this reason alone, this should be considered the wrong kind of development for our city. Anyone at Zoning and Planning who even considers approving this project may just as well vote for a Tax increase on the majority of citizens here in Milford who oppose this kind of costly development.

The city of Milford has no shortage of affordable housing, if anything we need larger lots and more sustainable properties. The Environmental Concerns Coalition, and Smart Growth initiatives have already made several presentations to the municipalities on how best to create a sustainable community. I would highly recommend that this project be "nixed" or at the very least downsized to 500-700SF one bedroom and Studio Apartments if it is to exist in its current form and honestly be "affordable" to those who need it most... 18-30 year olds or seniors.

The site in question is 183 Quarry Rd. (90 Heenan Drive)