Middletown Zoning Board of Review

-Minutes-

DATE: September 24 2024

Time: 6pm

Administrative:  Meeting Called to order 6pm

1.      Roll Call :Silveira (Chair), Rosenthal, Huttler, Lombardi, Donahue all voting members and Viverios alternate.

Absent: Kirton and Heaney

2: Adoption of Minutes from August 27^th. Continued to next meeting.

New Petitions:

• Petition of Victoria Byrd (Owner) for a Variance from 603, 701 & 803(G) to construct a 6’x12’ covered front porch and stairs 9’ feet from the property line where 25’ is required property is located at 5 Wood Rd. Lot 111 and plat 107SE

The owner represented herself and there was minimal discussion, and there were no objectors present.

1.      That the hardship petitioner faces are not the result of any prior action of the petitioner;

2.      That the motivation for the petition is to construct a porch for the added enjoyment of the property

3.    That the relief requested was reasonably necessary;

4.    That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.

 Huttler motion to approve, second Rosenthal. Passed 5-0

• Petition of Christopher and Kerry D’ Angelo (Owners) for a Variance from 603, 701, and 803 (g) to construct a covered porch located 17.7’ from the southern property line and western property line where 222.5’ is required. Property is located at 29 Oak St. Lot 319 and plat 108NW.

Property owners represented themselves and there were no objectors present. There was minimal discussion from the board.

1.      That the hardship petitioner faces are not the result of any prior action of the petitioner;

2.      That the motivation for the petition is to construct a covered porch to further the enjoyment of the property.

3.    That the relief requested was reasonably necessary;

4.    That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.

Huttler made motion to approve, Lombardi seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.

 

• Petition of Valley RD MOB, LLC (owner) and Michelle R DeRoche (applicant) for a Special Use from 1212(A) seeking relief to install additional wall sign for the business. Said real estate is located at 34 Valley Rd. lot 402(B) plat 107NE.

The property owner representing University Orthopedics asked that they be allowed a second wall sign to be located on the cupola’s South facing side. This is addition to a wall sign on the West facing side and is in addition to a monument sign that would be located adjacent to the front entrance to the building on Valley Rd. Mr. Huttler argued that the additional signage would detract from the general characteristics of the area and that the signage the applicant is allowed by right would be more than sufficient. Ms. Rosenthal agreed with Mr. Huttler as did Chair Silveria. Mr. Lombardi and Mr. Donahue both argued in favor of the relief with the belief that not granting would present a visual hardship particularly at night to identify the building and it would not diminish from the general characteristics of the area which is commercial in nature. After further discussion Lombardi moved to approve, second by Donahue.  There were no objectors present. Motion failed 3-2.

• Petition of Charles Bodeman (owner) for Special Use from 803 &902 and a Variance from 603, 701,803 &903 to construct a 344 sq ft garage addition 3’ from the West property line where 8’ is required. Said real estate is located at 19 White Terrace lot 62 plat 122.

Mr. Bodeman represented himself at which time he represented that he was living on the property and that he needed the additional space to store his summer lawn furniture and other items. He did not present any plans or drawings of the proposed addition to the garage.  Mrs. Janet Harley and here husband John who reside at 9 White Terrace and are the abutter to the West property line presented an objection the plan, stating that the addition and its proximity to her property would cause a hardship in that it would diminish their property value. She also had a concern of the present use of the property as a short-term rental and the possible expansion of that use in the future.

Mr. Huttler, Ms. Rosenthal, Donahue and Mr. Silveira all expressed concerns of the close proximity to the property line as well as the diminution of the abutters property values. Mr. Lombardi questioned Mr. Bodeman regarding his application in which he represented that he resided in Middletown as well as in his initial testimony. Upon further questioning from Lombardi, Bodeman admitted that the property was a short term rental and that he resided full time in Massachusetts.

 

 Following further discussion among board members, it was determined that:

 

1.        That that the denial of this would not constitute a hardship.

2.        The granting of relief would cause a diminution of property values and would alter the general character of the surrounding area.

3.        The relief requested was not reasonably necessary.

 

 

Lombardi moved to approve, Huttler seconded the motion and the motion failed 0-5.