The Board of Zoning Appeals voted July 2 to grant a variance allowing a detached storage shed to remain in the side yard at 5635 Stone Path Drive, finding the steep lot and physical constraints supported an exception to the rear-yard-only rule.

The variance (case number 17-25) was requested by property owner James Henson. Planning staff member Miss Savage told the board that Middletown Development Code Table 12.03-1 and section 12.06.01 permit detached storage buildings only in rear yards in the city's R-3 medium-density residential district. Savage said the applicant cited the lot’s narrowness, steep rear slope and site utilities as the reasons the shed could not be placed in the rear yard and that the community and economic development department issued a notice of violation after a complaint and site inspection on May 28.

Neighbor William Colston testified in favor, saying "the shed he's built is very attractive, matches his home very well, and does not distract from the neighborhood beauty." Henson told the board he had purchased the house in January as a bank repossession, described building the shed because the house has no basement and said utilities and a steep hillside limited placement: "The reason the sheds pulled forward instead of farther back is my utilities are right there... so if you go back too far behind the utilities, you're into the hill," Henson said.

Henson said the structure under discussion is a 10-by-12 shed he built to provide storage while he finishes additional home repairs and yard work. He provided a neighbor letter and photos, which were entered into the record.

Board members discussed the BZA review criteria, including whether the variance would change the essential character of the neighborhood. Several members said similar sheds positioned to side yards were common within the plat; one board member said he counted approximately six similar existing side-yard sheds nearby. The board also noted the complaint that triggered the review was anonymous.

A motion to grant the variance cited the lot steepness and the absence of substantial detriment to adjoining properties; the motion passed with a 4–1 roll-call vote (David Cash voted no; Stefan Wanamaker, Thomas Evans, Jerry Heidenreich and AJ Mentel voted yes). The board approved the variance conditioned on code compliance for other regulations; staff noted parking on grass remains a code-enforcement issue and must be on a paved surface if pursued.

Why it matters: The decision affirms that physical site constraints — grade, utilities and lack of basement space — can justify a dimensional variance in Middletown’s residential districts. It also underscores that similar deviations exist elsewhere in the subdivision and that neighbor support influenced the board’s view.

What’s next: The owner may proceed with the shed remaining in place; any future paving or vehicle parking on the lawn would still need to meet the city’s code requiring a paved surface.