Middletown zoning board approves shed variances after debate over future ADU conversions

The Town of Middletown Zoning Board approved two variance petitions to enlarge or replace accessory sheds this month after extended discussion about neighborhood impacts and potential future conversion of accessory structures into accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

At 1 Edgewood Drive, petitioner Timothy Barrow asked to extend an existing 10x14 shed by 8 feet on a nonconforming, undersized lot. Barrow said the addition is for storage — garden equipment and household items — and provided letters of support from two adjacent property owners. Attorney Michael Richards, speaking for abutters Peter and Abigail Dunn and DMB Valley Associates LLC, asked the board to continue the matter so neighbors and the petitioner could negotiate a recorded declaration preventing the shed’s future conversion to an ADU, or, alternatively, to impose binding conditions on approval that would prohibit plumbing, cooking facilities or separate rental occupancy. Barrow declined a continuance and said he did not want deed restrictions that would bind future buyers.

Board members debated the competing concerns. One member noted that state law allows conversion of an existing accessory structure to an ADU if it is brought into compliance with building codes, and the solicitor said zoning conditions do run with the property and may be the more enforceable route than private covenants in some circumstances. The board focused on the petition as filed — an addition to a shed on a nonconforming lot — and, after deliberation, approved the variance by a 4–1 vote.

At 13 Livingston Place, Daniel Sylvester sought to demolish a deteriorated 10x12 shed and replace it with a 15x25 structure, which increased calculated lot coverage in the application to 44% where 25% is normally allowed. Sylvester explained the house is a two‑family with limited internal storage and argued practical need for the larger shed. The board discussed stormwater/runoff implications and whether a taller structure with a smaller footprint might reduce impervious coverage; the petitioner said the proposed shed will remain on blocks (no foundation) and that neighbors on both sides had indicated informal support. The board approved the variance; members noted the petitioner used the town’s lot‑size reduction calculation for undersized lots during review.

Why it matters: These cases highlight a common tension in local land‑use decisions: property owners’ storage and use needs versus neighbors’ concerns about future conversion and neighborhood character. Abutters’ requests for deed restrictions underscore the limits of local control once state ADU rules allow conversions of existing structures if building‑code upgrades occur.

What’s next: The board recorded approvals on the meeting record. Abutters and applicants retain the option to negotiate private covenants, and future owners would be bound by any zoning conditions recorded at approval unless they return to the board to seek changes.