Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies variance to allow accessory dwelling at 29 Hubbard Street
Summary
At its February meeting the Middletown Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request to Section 4.11 of the Middletown zoning code that would have allowed an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a two-family property at 29 Hubbard Street, citing lack of a hardship and code constraints.
The Middletown Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4–1 at its February meeting to deny a variance that would have allowed an accessory dwelling unit at 29 Hubbard Street, the board said during a public hearing.
Hugo Dones, who identified himself as representing his uncle, Luis Bautista, told the board the plan was to convert a detached rear garage into a small apartment so the applicant’s grandmother could live there. “My name is Hugo Dones. I’m representing my uncle, Luis Bautista,” Dones said when he came forward to describe the proposal.
Town planning staff (referred to in the record as Tom) told the board the property is in the DVD zone and the code provision the applicant cited—Section 4.11—allows accessory dwelling units only in single-family situations. Tom told the board the zoning department had not yet finalized a unit layout, and that a variance was necessary because the lot currently contains a two-family dwelling. “It’s just a garage with a workshop,” Tom said of the rear structure, noting the department would still have to review size and other details if a variance were granted.
Board members focused discussion on two central points: whether the applicant had shown a hardship tied to the land, and how any approval might set a local precedent. Several members said the situation described—providing housing for an elderly relative—appeared to be a family need rather than a hardship attached to the property itself, a distinction members said is relevant to the legal standard for a variance. One member said the code’s owner-occupancy requirement and the property’s existing two-family configuration made the request problematic under current rules.
A motion to approve the variance was made and seconded. The board then voted; the clerk announced the result as four votes against and one in favor, and the chair said the variance did not pass.
After the vote, staff told the applicant the planning office could meet the next day to discuss options, including potential revisions or whether a text amendment route would be more appropriate for broader code changes. Tom directed the applicant to Planning and Zoning, Room 111, for follow-up.
