Why Milford's Planning and Zoning Board Says Yes to Projects Neighbors Hate

If you spend any time on Milford community Facebook groups, you have probably read some version of the same complaint: "Why does Planning and Zoning keep approving all these apartments?" "Who is allowing this to happen?" "When does it stop?"

The frustration is real, and it is widespread. But the answer to "why does this keep happening" is not the one most people seem to assume. The Planning and Zoning Board is not waving these projects through because it wants to. In many cases, it is waving them through because, by law, it has to. To understand why, you have to understand the framework the board actually operates inside.

The Phrase You Need to Know: "Zoning Compliant"

At the March 17 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the board took up a settlement involving a project at 5–21 Pond Point Avenue. The developer, Smart Life Homes LLC, had sued the city after running into opposition. The board was being asked to approve a settlement.

Board member Brian Anderson said on the record that one of the reasons he had run for Planning and Zoning in the first place was to see something done at that site. He had heard from neighbors. He believed the project could be improved. He said he could not vote for it as written.

City Planner David Sulkis, the staff member who advises the board, did not mince words. According to the official minutes, Sulkis told the board:

"The project is zoning compliant. The project is a Site Plan Review and meets all the zoning regulations, and as such, it is not a negotiation. By law, the Board does not have the discretion to turn down an application that is zoning compliant. The city has no defense in the turn down of this application."

The settlement passed 6–3. Anderson and two colleagues voted no anyway. But the legal reality Sulkis described did not change.

That phrase — "zoning compliant" — is doing almost all the work in any conversation about why projects get approved in Milford. If an applicant's plans meet the existing zoning regulations for the parcel, the board's room to say no is narrow. If the board denies the application anyway, the city gets sued, and based on what its own staff is telling it, the city loses.

What "Zoning Compliant" Actually Covers

The zoning regulations are a long, technical document. But the key categories an applicant has to meet are roughly these:

• Use: Is the proposed use allowed in this zone? Apartments in a Center Design District, single-family homes in an R-7.5 zone, industrial uses in an Industrial District — each zone has a list of permitted, special permit, and prohibited uses.
• Density and dimensions: How many units per acre, how tall, how much lot coverage, how far from the property line.
• Parking: How many spaces per unit, where they go, and how they connect to the street.
• Drainage, sewer, and utilities: Does the project handle stormwater properly, connect to municipal sewer, and meet engineering standards.
• Environmental: If the property is near coastal resources, wetlands, or floodplains, it triggers additional review and conditions.

If the answer to all of these is yes, the application is "zoning compliant." And once it's compliant, the question in front of the board is not really whether to approve it. It's what conditions to attach.

The 64-Unit Boston Post Road Example

On March 17, the board heard an application from Bob Smith of Metro 801 LLC for a 64-unit apartment development at 801 Boston Post Road — the old Paul's hamburger stand site, which had sat dilapidated for 17 years. The application included two three-story buildings, 76 parking spaces, eight EV charging stations, a landscaped park, and zero affordable housing units.

Board chair Ross Satti asked the applicant's attorney, Thomas Lynch, why no affordable units were included. According to the minutes, Lynch responded that "Planning & Zoning Boards are bound by regulations. He also states the Board revised Section 3.1.6, which removed the affordability component. If the Board wants to make this a condition, then he suggests they amend the regulation back."

In other words: the board, at some earlier point, had removed the requirement that projects in this zone include affordable housing. Now an applicant was building under those revised regulations, and the board could not retroactively impose a requirement it had previously removed.

Satti said on the record he was hoping for more affordable housing. He said it was difficult for people who live in the city to live in projects like this one. Then he voted yes. So did every other member present. The motion passed unanimously.

If you want to understand why this kind of vote keeps happening, the answer is in that exchange. The board's discretion was spent years ago, when the underlying regulations were written and revised. By the time an application gets to a public hearing, the substantive decisions about what is and isn't allowed have already been made.

The 8-30g Cases Are Different — But Not in the Way You'd Hope

Connecticut has a state law called Section 8-30g, the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. It applies in any municipality where less than 10 percent of the housing stock qualifies as affordable. Milford qualifies. Under 8-30g, if a developer agrees to designate a portion of their project as affordable, the burden of proof in any denial flips. The town has to prove that denying the project is necessary to protect a substantial public interest — health, safety, or other matters — and that those interests outweigh the need for affordable housing.

At the April 21 meeting, the board approved a 10-unit 8-30g development at 261 Meadowside Road. The vote was 5–2. At the same meeting, the board approved a 364-unit mixed-use development at 470–488 Wheelers Farms Road that includes 15 percent affordable units. That vote was 6–1.

In both cases, the legal framework gives the board even less room to maneuver than it has on standard zoning applications. A denial of an 8-30g project that meets the affordability threshold is almost certain to be appealed, and the developer usually wins on appeal.

What the Board Can Actually Do

This is not to say the board is powerless. It has real authority over:

• Conditions of approval. Almost every approval comes with conditions — drainage requirements, engineering sign-offs, affordability plans, monitoring requirements, traffic mitigation. The 364-unit Wheelers Farms project was approved with a condition that the developer file an Affordability Plan with the city.
• Applications that aren't compliant. At the April 21 meeting, the board voted 6–1 to deny a special permit application at 1 Bayshore Drive — a project that staff had identified as having serious unresolved problems with a coastal wall stabilization plan. Denials happen when the staff report identifies real issues.
• The regulations themselves. The board, with public hearings, can amend Milford's zoning regulations. This is the actual lever. If Section 3.1.6 no longer requires affordable housing in a particular zone, the way to change that is to amend Section 3.1.6.

It can also recommend that the Board of Aldermen make changes that fall under the aldermen's authority — for example, the 8-24 referrals for projects that involve city easements or city property. Those go to the aldermen for a separate vote, as happened May 4 with the 40 South Broad Street project, which the aldermen denied 10–5.

The State Is About to Make It Harder Still

At the May 5 meeting, Sulkis informed the board that the city has engaged a consultant through the Council of Governments to review Milford's zoning regulations and make sure they comply with Public Act 25-1, a recent state law. The consultant will be working through July.

Public Act 25-1 is the latest in a multi-year push by the Connecticut legislature to require municipalities to allow more housing — particularly multi-family housing and accessory dwelling units — and to limit the tools cities can use to block it. Whatever Milford's regulations currently allow, the trend at the state level is to allow more, not less.

This matters because the loudest version of the "stop the apartments" argument assumes the problem is local. It mostly isn't. State law sets the floor. The city can be more permissive than state law allows, but it can't be more restrictive — at least not in the ways residents most often want.

What Residents Who Want Change Should Actually Do

If you have made it this far and you still want fewer apartments, more affordable housing, better neighborhood character protections, or some combination of the three, here is the honest answer about how to get there:

• Show up to Planning and Zoning meetings where regulations are being written, not just where projects are being voted on. By the time an application is being heard, the substantive decisions are usually already made. The places where the rules actually get written are the subcommittee meetings on CDD-2 and CDD-3 regulation drafts, the public hearings on text amendments, and the workshops where the city is updating its Plan of Conservation and Development.
• Engage on the regulations the city has discretion over. Section 3.1.6 of the zoning regulations is not set by Hartford. It was changed locally, and it could be changed locally again.
• Contact your state representatives about state-level legislation. Public Act 25-1, 8-30g reform, and the broader state housing framework are decided in Hartford. Milford's Planning and Zoning Board has no authority over any of it.
• Read the staff reports before public hearings. They are usually the best indicator of how a vote will go. If the city planner says an application is zoning compliant and has no adverse impacts, the board's path to denial is narrow.

The Planning and Zoning Board meets twice a month. Minutes are public. Agendas are posted in advance. The complaints on Facebook are a real signal that residents care. The next step is to take that energy to the meetings where it can actually move something.