Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infill Single Family Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves area and dimensional variances for two infill single‑family homes
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved area and dimensional variances for proposed single‑family homes at 3415 Glencoe Avenue and 2227 Wynton Street, citing nonconforming lot conditions and minimum‑necessary findings.
The Middletown Board of Zoning Appeals approved area and dimensional variances Thursday for two infill single‑family projects at 3415 Glencoe Avenue and 2227 Wynton Street, both in the R‑4 attached residential district.
City staff said both lots are roughly 7,500 square feet and about 50 feet wide, smaller than the R‑4 minimums: 9,000 square feet lot area and 70 feet minimum lot width. Staff advised the board the proposed 3415 Glencoe dwelling would have roughly 1,377 square feet of livable area, below the R‑4 minimum of 1,500 square feet per chapter 12 o 4‑10 b of the Middletown development code.
Mark Mattingly, the applicant for 3415 Glencoe, and Dennis Beatty, architect for multiple applications, described the properties as infill lots where modern development and market demand make some older lot configurations difficult to develop under current code. "We're trying to conform as best we can with the variance to put this property on there," Mattingly said, describing a standard ranch design with a two‑car garage.
On the Glencoe application staff noted three requested variances: reduced lot area, reduced livable floor area (approximately an 8% reduction), and a reduced lot width (about a 20‑foot reduction from the 70‑foot standard). For the Wynton Street application staff reported an approximate 16.6% reduction in minimum lot size and a roughly 28.5% reduction in lot width relative to code requirements.
Board members discussed the prevalence of nonconforming lots in the neighborhood and whether the variances met the review criteria, including whether the variances were the minimum necessary to make reasonable use possible. Both motions to approve cited the board's review criteria (members referenced criteria 1 and 4 or similar tests) and passed on roll call: David Cash, Stefan Wanamaker, Gary Gross, Jerry Heidenreich, Thomas Evans and Mentel voted yes on each application.
Staff reminded the board that if variances are granted a site landscaping plan consistent with section 12 16 o 7 must be submitted and reviewed before a certificate of zoning compliance can issue. No public opposition was recorded at either hearing.
The approvals permit the applicants to proceed with their building permits and site plan submissions subject to staff review and compliance with any conditions required by code.
