Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

ZBA approves variance for 40 Adams Avenue, requires three trees after neighbor complaints

January 02, 2026 | Middletown, Orange County, New York


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

ZBA approves variance for 40 Adams Avenue, requires three trees after neighbor complaints
The Middletown Zoning Board of Appeals approved an area-variance request for 40 Adams Avenue on the condition that the applicant plant three trees on the lot.

Mario Montalvo, who said he purchased a lot that previously held an approved single-family plan, told the board he intends to build the same house and live there. Neighbour Kathy Flesa (41 Adams Avenue) told the board she has lived next door her whole life and alleged the previous owner had proceeded with construction without proper permissions, leaving an unsecured site and failing to maintain sidewalks after storms: “the last variance was approved on false pretenses, as the last applicant lied about having permission about taking that garage down.”

The applicant said the garage issue had been rectified and that he would live in the house. Staff confirmed a footing is in place and that prior permits and inspections exist; the building inspector reported the footing was poured and inspected per drawings. Board members pressed the applicant to ensure fencing, sidewalk maintenance and site security are addressed and discussed whether tree plantings could mitigate previous tree loss.

The board’s motion — recorded on the docket as an area variance (the record references a 77-foot variance and a 1.54 area variance) — included a condition that the applicant plant three trees (the applicant suggested placing two in the rear and one in front if feasible). The motion, made by Mark Woody and seconded by Wendy, passed 4–1 (Tracy Racine opposed). Counsel advised the applicant to comply with the variance and coordinate next steps with staff and the Planning Board for site-plan review.

The board attached the planting condition to address neighborhood character and to respond to the neighbor’s concerns about previous noncompliance; the variance does not eliminate the applicant’s obligation to satisfy building and inspection requirements.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep New York articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI