Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves small height variance for accessory garage at 306 Charles Street
Summary
The Board granted a 2-foot height variance allowing the owner of 306 Charles Street to add a second floor to an existing detached garage for a personal woodworking shop.
The Middletown Board of Zoning Appeals approved an area and dimensional variance to allow an accessory structure at 306 Charles Street to reach 21 feet 2 inches, exceeding the 18-foot local limit for accessory buildings.
City staff described the property as legally nonconforming within the B-3 General Business District; the owner seeks to add a second story to an existing detached garage to create space for a woodworking shop. Staff said the applicant confirmed primary exterior materials of the accessory building would match the principal structure and that no public comments were received.
Board members asked whether the proposed accessory structure would become an additional residence or be used for retail; staff and the applicant’s representative clarified the structure would not house a dwelling unit and would be used as a personal woodshop. Members discussed the relationship between the accessory structure height and the main house; staff did not have a precise calculated height for the principal residence on the record, but confirmed the garage addition would be largely screened by the primary residence.
A board member moved to approve the 2-foot variance citing that the change would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and that the request was the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the lot. The motion passed unanimously on roll call: David Cash — yes; Stefan Wanamaker — yes; Gary Gross — yes; Thomas Evans — yes; AJ Mintel — yes; Jerry Heidenreich — yes.
The approved variance (case 25-25) allows the property owner to proceed with the second-floor addition to the detached garage; the board conditioned nothing further in the motion but noted building-permit review and code compliance remain required before construction.
