Milford, N.H. — An applicant seeking a use variance to build a four‑story, climate‑controlled self‑storage building on a 2.63‑acre corner parcel at Nathaniel Drive and South Street withdrew the application during a June 19 hearing after Zoning Board members questioned whether self‑storage fits the town’s commercial corridor plan.

Chris Swinjarski, an attorney for the applicant identified in the record as Bulldog Ventures, told the board the lot is constrained by wetlands and that much of the parcel’s dry area fronts on South Street. He described the proposed facility as “very, very low impact” and said the use would complement planned and proposed residential developments nearby. “Self storage has, you know, no school impact, no infrastructure impact really, no police impacts,” Swinjarski said while presenting the application narrative.

Board members pushed back on whether the proposed use aligns with the town’s master plan and zoning intent. Several members observed that the zoning and recent voter‑backed zoning decisions place self‑storage uses in industrial districts rather than in commercial corridors intended to support mixed‑use and retail activity.

Design and scale were central concerns during the discussion. Swinjarski and Matt Peterson of Keach-Nordstrom Associates said a conceptual building footprint under consideration would produce about 50,000 square feet across four floors; potential four‑floor heights discussed included an eave height of roughly 46 feet 11 inches, where the ordinance’s allowed height is 40 feet. The applicants acknowledged they had not completed architectural design and that they would return for any needed height variances. The applicants also noted existing site constraints on parking — the current conceptual site-plan showed roughly 10 on‑site spaces, while board members cited the planning‑board/site‑plan parking standard that could imply many more spaces for warehousing-type uses.

Multiple members recommended the applicant first pursue design review with the planning board or consider a mixed‑use design with ground‑floor commercial frontage to better match the character expected on South Street. One board member said the parcel’s zoning “offers a wealth of opportunity” for commercial or mixed‑use development and that the master plan envisioned a different character for the corridor than a storage facility would provide.

In response to those concerns, the applicant asked to withdraw the variance request without prejudice. The board took a motion to accept the withdrawal and voted in favor. The board and the applicant discussed returning with a revised proposal after completing design work and further coordination with the planning board.

No formal variance was decided; the record shows the application was withdrawn with the applicant free to reapply.