Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies side-yard recreational-court variance for Dunham Drive property
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to place a full-sized recreational court in the side yard at 4729 Dunham Drive, citing available backyard configurations and uncertainty over review criteria.
The Middletown Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny an area and dimensional variance requested by Sean and Wendy Rollin to construct a recreational court in the side yard of their home at 4729 Dunham Drive.
City staff described the request as an area and dimensional variance because city code permits outdoor recreational courts only in rear yards (Middletown Development Code table 12 o 6-1). The Rollins told the board they have four children and limited backyard space; the proposed court footprint would sit in the side yard where neighbors and a nearby pool are located. Staff said the city received three comments from adjacent property owners — one opposed, one neutral (requesting screening) and one in support.
Sean Rollin testified that his family uses the side area for play and that the court installer recommended the submitted placement. Members of the board and the applicant discussed alternative layouts; a few board members noted that rotating or reorienting the court east–west could place it further into what would be considered rear-yard area and reduce encroachment into a neighbor’s yard. Board members also raised tree preservation concerns after staff pointed out a mature pine in the backyard that could be affected by a backyard configuration.
Several members said they were sympathetic to the family’s needs but could not find a variance review criterion that clearly justified approval for the proposed placement. One member suggested tabling to permit redesign; another moved to deny the application while encouraging the applicant to return with alternative configurations. The motion to deny passed on roll call: Stefan Wanamaker — yes to deny; Gary Gross — yes to deny; Thomas Evans — yes to deny; David Cash — yes to deny; Jerry Heidenreich — yes; AJ Mintel — no (vote was to approve). The final tally recorded five votes to deny, one against.
The board advised the Rollins to pursue alternative layouts (including rotating the court to reduce side-yard intrusion) and consider screening and other neighbor-friendly measures if they reapply. The denial resolves variance case number 2325.
