Jared, will you please call the roll?

Sure.

You have your change.

Right.

Uh Teresa Stokes.

Here.

Paul McGravy.

No.

Patricia Antonelli.

Yeah.

Kevin Misho.

Frederick Hensbury.

Here.

Jared Pimentel.

Margaret Komopolski.

Here.

And no Rick.

Well, we have a core.

All right.

Thanks for that.

We have a busy night tonight.

We have some board business to do.

And we have two applications before us, a unified development review for a minor subdivision application on COGShell.

And uh unified review for development plan on Gerard.

Um we'll get to that in a minute.

Um if there are members of the public here who plan to speak this evening, if you have not signed in, please do so now.

Um otherwise, let's turn to the minutes of our previous meeting.

So everyone had a chance to review those.

Uh all right, motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion of the minutes?

I find uh the need for just one correction, and that is the liaison to the uh EEC is uh Jared Pementhal rather than uh Dick Crowell.

That's the only thing I saw.

Any other discussion or corrections?

Okay, all in favor?

I any opposed.

Okay, let's move right along smartly.

Uh let's take a look at communications housing 2030.

So um our housing planner could not be here this evening, but he prepared the slides in the PDF presentation that was distributed to you guys.

So what we are going to do is upon review of that, if you guys have additional questions about the housing 2030 and how it relates to Newport, feel free to reach out to the housing planner or planning staff, and we can kind of run that through with you at a more technical level.

Okay.

Anything else you want to?

We're not going to try to present the slides or anything like that.

Nope.

I will not do that.

Do members of the board have any questions about the PowerPoint presentation?

Anything they want to start at this point?

Okay.

Let's move along to the public business.

Um may I have um a motion to continue the unified development review for the development plan review application preliminary plan app number 2025 DPR 102 to 108 Girard Avenue.

So moved.

Second.

Uh any discussion?

Any concerns about moving this?

Peter, are you trying to say something?

Madam Chair.

Yes, sir.

Yes, you need a date.

You would do it.

Uh yes, move it to the December meeting.

Do you want to amend your amend that and motion?

I need a second.

Second.

Anything further?

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I guess we've got it.

So we will continue that application review to the December meeting.

And so now let's uh move along to the uh minor, the unified development review for minor subdivision application preliminary plan, uh 173 to 175 Cogshell Avenue.

Okay, Mr.

Jackson.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the board, uh Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott Holbrook and Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

Um before I get started with a couple of sort of introductory remarks, um, just a couple, I guess, points of housekeeping.

I do have affidavit of notice that I submitted previously or earlier today, I should say.

Staff wanted me to make sure I presented it as an exhibit this evening.

So do you have the original?

You wanted at least one copy, maybe.

I have a couple copies of that as well.

So we have it um submitted to the board, and then if a board member could just run it over to staff afterwards so we can record it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jackson, if you would uh submit that to Jared Pimenthal, and Jared, if you would record that as exhibit A.

And Jared, if you would record that as exhibit A.

This is exhibit A.

Okay.

Thanks, Mr.

Jackson.

And then along a similar note, um, at the end of last week, I did submit um an updated site plan with with some minor revisions that we'll go through during the presentation.

Um I know I did email them in, they got uploaded to the portal, but again, I was asked to bring in some hard copies as an exhibit.

So I suppose if I could submit that as exhibit two.

Okay, please do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jared.

All right.

Um thank you.

So I have with me this evening um the project engineer, Seth Lemoyne from Principe Engineering, as well as our real estate expert Jim Poole.

Uh, unfortunately, I discovered this afternoon that uh the applicant, if you will, the project manager for Fleury Properties, who was scheduled to be here with us this evening, had a death in the family.

So Mr.

Mark Barrett was going to be here to answer questions and um participate in the presentation, but unfortunately he could not be here this evening.

Please pass on our condolences to your client.

I will appreciate that.

Um so I'm sure you're familiar with the materials.

Uh, we've been behind a couple larger projects on the agenda and waiting for the last couple of months to get reached.

So I know you've had an opportunity to take a look at what we presented uh back in July.

Um, this is an interesting project.

I'll give some as uh indicated in the application materials.

Uh I'll give some context to this.

Um the applicant acquired the property uh shortly thereafter, we submitted uh to the city planning staff uh a demolition application.

And after filing that demolition application, proposing to remove the existing structure on site.

Uh I had a pre-filing sort of conceptual rebuke uh meeting with staff regarding the subdivision of the property.

And it was during that meeting that um staff sort of made it pretty clear that they were um that main six salvaging and then um sort of rehabilitating the existing structure was a priority for the city.

So it wasn't really part of the original plan uh from the applicant's perspective when they acquired the property, but we agreed to uh go down that avenue and explore what options might be available to redevelop this property in a way which was consistent with at least in part with the original intent of the applicant when they acquired the property, as well as um achieving objectives that were clearly important to the city.

So that's that's how we arrived at the application that's before you this evening.

Um the structure itself, uh what makes this whole project kind of interesting is property is not in Newport's historic district.

So the demolition of this structure is not subject to jurisdiction by the historic district commission.

And based on recent changes within the last year or two to the zoning ordinance, it's no longer subject to your jurisdiction on demolitions.

So fundamentally, this structure could be removed uh through the technical review process, uh essentially by right.

Uh we did, and I've consulted with Trish Reynolds on this, and I've explored um uh not just the Newport Historic District, obviously, but also whether or not this structure was identified anywhere uh as a contributing structure on an existing national register, and although it may be eligible, it is not currently.

So um, and those are that's information that my client was aware of when he acquired the property.

So in moving forward and trying to figure out a way to meet the desires of the city to maintain this structure, which is considered to be a historical asset because it's um has been identified, although not formally in any register, it's obviously been identified by city staff as being um uh identified as the Harry Payne Whitney carriage house constructed approximately 1897.

So the concept that was developed was to take the property, which is a significantly sized parcel for this neighborhood.

So a 10,000 square foot lot is conforming in terms of area.

So this is a this is a parcel which is significantly oversized for the zone.

So the proposal was to come up with a uh to propose to subdivide the parcel to create two lots, so that the again the two main objectives I referred to could be achieved.

One would be carve out a parcel which would uh at least meet the land area required for the zone be in excess of 10,000 square feet and provide an opportunity for the applicant to at least um achieve part of what the original intent was when the property was purchased, and that was uh new construction, and so there'd be an opportunity for new construction of a single family um residence on the vacant lot, which is proposed and before you this evening, and then maintain the existing carriage house and maintain the four dwelling units that exist in that carriage house, and go through the process of restoring rehabilitating the carriage house.

So, in in doing that, because the carriage house is really quite large in terms of footprint, um any type of modification for the lot as it exists would fundamentally result in what you have before you this evening, variances that arise with the creation of these two lots, and in particular the um the lot which will contain the carriage house.

As it relates to the the bacon lot, the only variance we're looking for has to do with frontage.

Um we've carved out the whole northern um linear uh section of the existing parcel to serve as the permanent access for the new vacant lot, but aside from that, uh frontage issue, it meets land area and by having permanent access to the street, uh it's large enough, it can be developed, there's no constraints to development.

So, in many respects, that is a conforming lot other than the frontage that we're requesting.

But what becomes interesting is the new lot which will continue to maintain the four dwelling units in the carriage house, becomes um non-conformities arise when uh that lot is reduced in size because just the positioning and the enormity of the existing uh carriage house.

So those are the those are the variances that we're looking for in relation to the subdivision of this parcel.

And in addition, as you saw in the in the um staff report, there is um there are some modifications being proposed with the original application.

You can see there's a proposed pool in the backyard of the uh the lot which will contain the carriage house.

The site plan that I presented to you this evening has made a couple changes.

So the pool has been reduced in size a little bit, uh, and also there are elements of the carriage house which will likely no longer, you know, we're proposing to remove as part of the redevelopment of the structure.

And um, although we're still in the conceptual phase, we do know that there's a couple elements here which which sort of contribute to the lot coverage of that carriage house that the applicant does not desire to maintain.

So, for instance, if you look at the updated site plan, there is um in the southeast corner, you can see a designation, it's referred to as an overhang, and and the engineer also through his testimony or some of his um materials may refer to it as a carport.

There's essentially a shed roof that hangs off the building, and it and it goes right up against the property line.

And so I know that although the design of the redevelopment of this is still in the conceptual phase, there's no intention to hang on to that carboard at the front of the property.

Um section of the building, and you go to the back, there's decking that currently exists on the back side of uh the building, which we intend to reduce in size significantly.

And as you go into the sort of the midsection of that building, there's there's another deck that exists that we intend to remove.

So I bring this up because between removing certain uh elements that were clearly add-ons later in time uh to this building and reducing the size of the pool a little bit.

We we're getting the lot coverage requests down to 29 percent, which is a little less than what was originally in the application.

So again, I mean those are those are um sort of the basics of the plan that's before you.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions.

If not, I can have um Mr.

Lemoine come up and testify as the project engineer.

Okay.

Any questions before we hear from the engineer?

Okay, thanks, Mr.

Jackson.

Thanks, Montreal and Jared, I feel surrounded.

Good evening, members of the planning board.

Be sure to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Uh good evening, members of the planning board.

Sure.

So Mr.

Lomoy, um, you are a civil engineer, correct?

Yes.

And how long have you been sitting initially?

Uh since 2008.

Okay, registered in Statewood Island.

Correct.

Okay.

And who you currently were reported?

Principally company.

Principally engineering is the firm that was engaged to handle the project, correct?

That is correct.

So you've been the point person, the engineer with uh with it, correct?

Yes.

All right.

So um through the um, I know that when the original application was submitted, there was uh the three-page um submission from your department, correct?

Yes, and so the first page of that submission showed existing conditions, right?

Yes, okay.

So why don't you just if you could just walk walk through the existing conditions as they as you can find on site now and describe it?

All right, uh currently the the property is about 29,576 square feet, contains a single structure of approximately 500 5800 square feet, uh, inclusive of their decks that Mr.

Jackson was referring to earlier and the carport.

Um it also includes some walkways, a concrete driveway, um, and the remaining lot being lawn and landscaping, a lot generally slopes from east to west at about approximately four percent grade.

Um there is some um drainage structures on the front of the property, um, unclear uh where they drain to at this point.

Other investigation will be needed on that, and then uh proposed development.

Sure, uh and so just quickly, what is the uh what is the distance?

If we look again existing conditions, um and we looked along the northern boundary, we just want to make sure it's clear the distances between the existing structure and northern boundary one approximately 29.

So you were taking this the existing structures is 29 feet from the northern battle, right?

Yes.

So when you start describing the proposed subdivision, uh there's still to be um at least a 10-foot side setback available to the existing structure versus the new composed value, right?

That is correct.

Um, the existing site is in relative proximity to the OmniPond.

Yes.

And um did you have an opportunity to take a look at the staff report?

I did.

Staff report mentioned um made some observations regarding the proximity of the sites, the Allen Pond and the concept of uh dedicated preservation and into that nature one just walk through that with this a little bit to describe the condition on site and whether or not those conditions are impact at all in relation to the overlay that reference in the staff report.

Uh so the site currently is mostly lawn, the exclusion of the structure and the concrete um driveway, mostly along with some limited landscaping along the perimeter.

Uh there is little natural habitat within the property itself, possibly along the borders within that non natural vegetation.

And do not see any effect to the natural heritage corridor.

Okay.

All right.

And this again is any portion of this parcel in the buttons to know that.

It is not.

So there's no there's nothing that would impact the modification of the existing structure of all potential uh construction of a new residence on the back lot.

It would back lot.

It would not know.

So why don't you go ahead and walk through the proposed subdivision behind it?

Mr.

Jackson had mentioned earlier, it's a flag type lot with a uh 15-foot wide frontage on Cogshall Road or Av.

So the lot is a flag shaped lot with a 15-foot long frontage on Cogshall Ave.

That'll provide access for um to the rear lot, the lot two for the uh future development of potentially a single family home.

Uh the setbacks on lot one, which would contain the existing structure.

Uh we're going to maintain the 10-foot side yard setback to the north, as previously mentioned, uh maintain greater than a 20-foot rear yard setback, and the existing um non-conforming south side yard setbacks will remain as they are, which is approximately five and a half feet.

Um, and then the front yard setback with the uh existing overhang, the car port that we're mentioning earlier, that currently has a 1.8 foot setback.

Uh with the removal of that, we'll be able to maintain the 15-foot front setback.

Uh the rear proposed lot would have an approximate lot area of 10,702 square feet and a approximate setback area of 2,607 square feet.

Uh huh.

And as far as the lot one goes in the existing building, there will be some removal of the existing decks, uh, the car port in the front, and we'll be replacing some of those pervious or poor uh impervious areas with forest pavers, uh, and then the installation of a small deck um in the replacement of that rear deck at the lower southwest corner of the lot.

Uh proposed pool is uh approximately 420 square feet, and when you put all these numbers together, um we're looking at a proposed lot coverage on lot one of 29 percent.

So why don't we um you get to lot coverage in a second?

Is just as far as the layout, um from your perspective, given the size and the positioning of the existing structure, if that structure is being preserved, there really aren't many options in terms of creating a second lot, really like a land area in terms of its configuration and maintaining access to clouds labor.

Oh, that is fair to say, yeah.

Okay.

Now, in terms of the 15-foot strip along the northern boundary of the existing parcel will serve as access for lot two.

Uh 15 feet is sufficient for uh single family driveway, correct?

That is correct, yes.

All right, and that between the 15th uh foot uh portion of lot two as well as uh the remaining land area, which is on lot one before you reach the structure itself, there's ample space there to access utilities for lot two as well, correct?

That's correct, in excess of 25 feet.

Right.

So whether it's on lot two itself, if you're using it for the lot along the way, uh readily accessible utilities along Cogshell, correct?

That is correct.

Um so let's also you mentioned block coverage.

I'd like to walk through that a little bit.

Um so if you could just to sort of uh clarify and explain more how we've arrived at our current proposal of 29 percent.

Could you sort of discuss what the lot coverage would be in the existing structure after the subdivision if no modifications were made to the structure and no pool, and then kind of walk through the uh the elements of the structure that are being removed, added in the pool, and and discuss roll here by that.

Yes, absolutely.

Uh so the existing building is approximately 5,827 square feet.

Um with the subdivided lot, that would give a lot coverage of 30.9 percent.

Um on the proposed uh modification of the building with the removal of the decks and the carport, the inclusion of the small uh rebuild deck on the rear and a 420 square foot pool, that would bring the lot coverage to 5,474 square feet equaling 29 percent.

Um this is just to be clear, this is a little that's a little inconsistent with what I put together for the original application, correct?

Correct.

We did have some modifications since then with removal of some decks and some reconstruction of the revisited these numbers uh between last week and earlier today to confirm that what's being proposed was for the board this evening uh would be updated site plan is a proposal for the net 29% lock buttercome proposed lot, correct?

That is correct.

Um, aside from lock coverage, um you're also we'll go through some of the other elements that I think we should uh testify to to assist the board with their deliberations on this.

So let's start with um the category six special use permit.

There is a there is a requirement for a category six special use permit, which I think you can speak to.

Um category six special use permit discusses uh no increase in stormwater runoff.

So there are this subdivision plan does not specifically have a stormwater management plan submitted currently, correct?

That is correct.

Um, and again, partially because lot two, there's no it's a vacant, we're just proposing a vacant lot at this time, correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

And so if you look at lot one, uh what are the changes, what are the net changes and and what impact, if any does that have on a stormwater versus the existing conditions?

So we're showing a net increase of impervious area of approximately 154 square feet, which is a uh fairly negligible amount when you're considering stormwater runoff.

However, mitigation methods can be implemented on that site to uh take care of that.

Right.

So, in relation in relation to the requirement for a category six special use permit, you're confident in your testimony that um that this proposed lot one will not generate any increased stormwater runoff versus existing conditions.

No, it will not not be on the site.

And again, there are mediation steps, stonewater management practices that can take place on this property uh during redevelopment, correct?

No, that's yeah, absolutely.

So whether that's uh dry wells or rain gardens, is various sort of really simple low impact ways to manage stormwater from this site, right?

That's correct.

Yes, um so also let's take a look at um the requirements if we could in relation to minor subdivision.

So the first one I know that you're we'll fold up Mr.

Bull can speak to that relates to consistency with the comp plan.

But the second requirement indicates is the proposed development in compliance with the standards and provisions of the city of Newport zoning code retained zoning.

So again, uh this is consistent with uh the requirements under the zoning code.

Was that very excited?

That's fair.

And the creation of both these lots does call for uh variance of the walk through those.

Yes.

So again, in relation to your testimony as a project engineer, um, this plan comports with uh requirement two that we're asking for the variance of maybe community in the issue of creation of these lots, correct?

Yes.

Number three, will there be a significant negative environmental impact from the proposed development as shown with submitted planning?

In my professional opinion, no.

Why don't you if you could just sort of describe to the board just generally how do you arrive at that conclusion?

The the modifications to the existing structure are fairly minor in nature, an improvement to safety at least for the site, uh, as far as the decks are concerned, and a small pool in the rear uh in an existing lawn area.

Uh I do not see any negative impacts to natural habitats or stormwater runoff or adjacent neighbors due to this property.

Number four, does the subdivision as proposed result in the creation of individual lots with such physical constraints to development that building on such lots according to permanent regulations codes and building standards would be impractical?

Lots with such physical constraints may be created only if identified as permanent open space for permanently reserved for public purpose on the including the border plans.

So if you could discuss the applicability of that standard to this and what it needed is uh so the proposed lot two um has appropriate setbacks uh in a buildable lot area in an open lawn area currently uh mild slopes.

I do not see any um constraints to developing a future building on that site.

Um and lastly, do all the proposed lots have adequate and permanent physical access to a public street?

Yes, through the creation of that flag lot with that 15 foot wide access to culture, I guess.

So I have none chair of the board has any questions.

Any questions?

Yes, uh thank you very much.

Um my questions pertain to the um driveway on the north side.

Could you just describe that driveway in a little bit more detail?

In other words, today when I look at the plans, I think there is a hedge line it's referred to.

Correct, uh, which seem seems to sit partially on the neighbor's lot as well to the north.

Um, to uh what is it 161?

I think Cock Show.

Um, or 171.

I may have the numbers wrong on this one, just on the corner there.

And uh, and so I'm trying to understand once the driveway is in place what is that boundary now look like?

Because it presumes that hedges probably will need to get removed, or you do not foresee that.

I don't see the hedges needing to be removed, uh at least to the fullest extent.

They will need to be pruned.

Um, I don't anticipate a 15-foot wide driveway there for most single-family homes, you can um go as narrow as a 12-foot.

Um, that doesn't that does not necessarily need to be centered within that 15-foot wide strip of land.

So I would propose to um keep that as close as you can to the southern portion of that leg of the property so you can maintain as much of the existing vegetation and screening as possible.

Okay.

Do you have do you have a landscape plan that comes with this as well?

Or it hasn't been developed.

Uh lot two at this point in time.

Okay.

So there hasn't been any real conversations yet about what to do about that that line at the top with the hedges, what that will ultimately look like.

No, we have not had any discussions on that.

All right.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

Thanks.

So we've got uh Mr.

Wool with us this evening.

Welcome, Mr.

Hole.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Madam Chair, I mean, Mr.

Holmes appeared before this board and the Newport Zoning Board on many occasions.

Um I can actually go to CD if you'd like, uh, or I would just reflexely have uh accept Mr.

Wool as an expert.

The real estate expert witness.

Unless someone on the board has questions, I'm willing to accept Mr.

Hole as an expert witness.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So Mr.

Wool, you you were engaged by the applicant, you had the opportunity to review uh the application materials with both within the subdivision as well as the requested bearing since the special use permit.

Yes.

I have so why don't you if you could sort of walk through your analysis in relation to this project and then discuss uh your conclusions of the developments.

Okay, so of the nature of this, it's a little bit complicated, and I'd like to kind of bore you by going through all of the standards for each of the applicable uh parts of the code.

Um when I look at this, where look, you know, the the proposal is to divide the existing 29,576 square foot lot into two lots that each would be conforming in size, although lot number two, which is a new lot would be short of road frontage, and the existing lot well, the front lot, which would be lot one, is going to require items of relief because of the building that's going to be left on site.

So when I look at this project overall, um, I really think first of all, it is a good idea to save this existing four-unit building for a couple of reasons.

One, because of the fact that Newport needs dwelling units, and I actually think along that line that adding the extra lot in the back will also serve to increase the number of dwelling units.

But at the same time, this is a building the city is deemed historic.

Uh, it is an important part of the area streetscape.

And so I do think that the overall proposal is very good, considering the enormous shift from the idea of removing this building and dividing it to a number of building lots, either two or three building lots that would be then used for single family houses.

This will at least preserve two additional dwelling units, the four plus, I suppose three if you include the new lot, um, as opposed to just having two single family houses.

Um, however, the petition is looking for relief in the three distinct areas, the minor subdivision, the dimensional variances and the special use from that category six.

Uh, in terms of the uh minor subdivision, we look at minor subdivision again.

I repeat that I think it's a good idea to add it in.

Um, specifically, I referred to the housing, the comprehensive land use plan states, and I realize it's older now, but it states that we actually went um, we have dropped the number of dwelling units significantly in the from 2010 to 2017 when the plan was um approved.

Um, I've looked at it again and uh with the housing housing works of Rhode Island to see how much is actually changed.

And the apparently we are down 693 dwelling units since um 2010.

So with all the um pressure that's been on the housing market over that period of time, we've actually reduced the number of dwelling units by almost 700.

So the idea of preserving those four units is clearly critical.

Um, looking at the standards, the design standards for a subdivision, um, the shape and orientation of the lot shall be appropriate, the location of the subdivision and the type of development contemplated.

I believe that's um met the lot sizes, the setbacks and minimum front and shall conform to the zoning ordinance.

Um they do primarily uh there are variances that are being requested, and within those um, because the zoning ordinance allows for this type of variance uh to be requested, I think that um it does conform to the standards.

The lot shall be served by public water and sewer.

We've heard the engineer state that that's going to be the case.

All lots have satisfactory access to the public uh street.

Again, the engineer is testified that that's the case, and the side set line side lot line shall be substantially at right angled to the street line, which is true.

Double frontage and reverse frontage should be avoided, which there are not going to be any double lot with double frontage.

Then we review the standards for the administrative subdivision.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan, satisfactorily address the issues.

Again, I refer to the fact that the comp plan calls for additional housing.

Um, there are several other areas.

The staff report addresses this very well with the number of conformities to the comprehensive land use plan.

However, I think what's really important within the companies the preservation of the streetscape and the preservation of the historic structure.

Um, and that is um really the whole basis for this proposal, and I think that that's important.

The proposed development is compliance with the standards of provisions of the zoning code.

We've addressed that.

There will be no significant negative environmental impact.

The engineer has stated there would not be subdivision will not result in creation of individual lots with physical constraints to development.

Again, the engineer has stated that to be the case.

All proposed subdivision lots shall have adequate and permanent physical access.

So I think that in looking at all of those standards in each case, I believe that the subdivision conforms to what is the standards required.

In terms of the special use permit, category A, I'm a category six.

We have the alteration change, enlargement or intensification will not increase the dimensional nonconformity, or the variance will be requested again.

Those are being requested.

The request will not alter the nature of the surrounding area.

I believe very firmly that it will not.

The two lots are certainly of uh the average size of the neighborhood.

Um the uh lot to the immediate south also has a small narrow frontage opening to a larger area in the back.

This is just to the other side of what will be the um lot one in this plan.

Um I look at the uh staff report.

Staff report states emphatically that it will actually improve the neighborhood by preserving the streetscape, and I think that is really very important.

Um I see no factors at all that will actually reduce the will alter negatively the surrounding area of the 200 feet, no increase in stormwater runoff, and all proposed lighting will be dark sky compliant.

Uh, there's not going to be any change of lighting on the existing structure.

So that does conform.

In terms of the dimensional variances, we have proposed lot with uh 80-foot frontage, I mean 15 feet frontage where 80 feet is required.

Um, the zoning setbacks, um, the you heard the engineer talk today about the front property line now being conformant in conformance.

Um it's only the south side property line, which is five and a half feet, which will not change uh 10 feet required, and then the lot coverage is not 30%, but will be 29% after all is calculated.

So we look at the standards here.

The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area.

There is no question that this is entirely based on the hardship of structure being asked to remain where it is.

Um, all of the uh every other, every single one of the variants is in terms of frontage, terms of setbacks, terms of lot coverage are completely created by the fact that the existing building has to remain.

Um that is not prior action of the applicant.

Um this existed this way for years.

Uh, the building has been there.

The granting of the requested variants would not alter the general character of the neighborhood.

Um, this is an area that has ranges from modest density to fairly intense uh density uh development.

The these lots will be pretty much average in size for the area.

Again, it's preserving the streetscape, uh, and I feel that it conforms to the uh several issues of the comprehensive land use plan.

Uh we're preserving existing housing resource, um, which is goal H1.

Um the policy H13, that is the city shall continue to promote the repair, revitalization, or rehabilitation of residential structures, um, which uh certainly is that case here.

And in granting the dimensional variance, the hardship suffered by the owner of the subject property is not granted, would amount to more than a mere inconvenience, meaning that the relief sought is minimal to the reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use to which the property is proposed.

And I believe very firmly that that is the case.

That is the city shall advocate for the appropriate private sec uh section action protecting and enhancing the community's historic and cultural resources.

The staff report says through the process, the staff has worked with the applicant, a private development team to find a way to preserve historically significant structure on the proposed lot while achieving the applicant's goal.

And I think that really sums up the entire process of what is being requested here.

So I think that overall uh the plan uh considering the request by the city to preserve this.

I think the plan uh addresses it and still keeps the aim of the original development.

Uh Mr.

Poole and just give a little additional testimony discuss uh proposed edition of that pool.

So um as testified to by pool is 42 represents 2.2 percent law coverage of the new proposed lot.

Um correct, yes.

How would you characterize uh the prevalence of pools, especially over the last five years?

So many properties in Newports.

You know, in in every single town in Newport County, pools have become, but in Newport, especially um it's become a standard item.

There's a brand new construction at 84 Cogshell Avenue uh that is being sold currently, and that was absolutely the first thing they added, and the lot only has 8,000 square feet.

It's a very common addition.

Uh it's only adding uh a little over two percent for the actual law coverage here of an 18,000 square foot lot, which as the engineer specified, is dominated by an over 5,000 square foot footprint existing.

Um, this is the minimumist to the overall package, but I think one of the other things you have to bear in mind is that when we're talking about lock coverage, in conjunction basically with dimensional setbacks, you're also talking about the massing on site, ultimately it leads to massing pool is actually no different effectively than a patio.

It is not going to block light and air, it doesn't have any blocking of views, it's really uh not any massing at all above site.

So typically, you know, for a long time in Newport they did not consider pools uh as part of law coverage.

That was a relatively new thing over the last when Guy Weston was still here, added that um and changed it because they used to not include it, and it really because of the massing and because of the fact that it really will have no impact um other than the quiet enjoyment of the existing property.

Um I I don't see any issue with that at all being added.

So again, your testimony is that pools are essentially standard men to residential use.

Yes.

So again, just to confirm your testimony, going through uh other fire finance for a minor subdivisions or conclusion of the application system.

Yes, and you've gone through all the elements of the category six special use permit, and your testimonies the project meets those elements as well.

But yes, and lastly you're going through the elements for the granting of dimensional variances, the ones requested for this particular project, and sure it's your exercise those uh standards we write to the other national variance have been as well as that correct.

It is correct.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Hilk.

Any questions of Mr.

Hulk?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Boole, uh, do you have your report in front of you?

I do.

Please turn to page four.

Yes.

And you see in the second paragraph, I'm saying that your conclusion uh forward view of the petition is that's the beneficial proposal, one which conforms to all standards and needs.

Did I read that correctly?

Yes.

Uh, Madam Chair, it's the question.

Yes.

Other than an attorney, who are you?

Who do you represent?

Why are you here?

We just don't normally have people come up here and ask questions.

So I submitted a letter previously to the board, which I believe is part of the record writing.

I represent a butter, actually, two of butters, Alexandra and Dr.

Beneth and Belt.

And my letter was dated uh August 5th, 2025, which I'll get to just uh Mr.

Mano, just for the board.

Could you identify the location of butter so their property is 179 talk show F, which is they're looking at the plan on the southwest side of the football.

Thank you.

And we do in fact have your letter, Mr.

Minau, and uh we have that in our materials.

So going back to that sentence that I just read, which you confirmed the right directly.

Uh when you state that the uh proposed plan conforms to all standards, it's it doesn't though.

Well, I think that in my testimony, I think I clarified the point that the zone the zoning standards actually allow the request variance, and therefore it does conform to the standards.

Similarly on page five of your report when you list the standards for uh design under the subdivision regulations under number two, lot size and setback lines and minimum frontage shall conform to the zoning ordinance requirements.

Uh the applicant uh requires several forms of zoning relief in order for uh these proposed lots uh to conform, correct?

Yes, and they don't conform without all of that relief being granted, right?

That would be true.

And on page six of your report looking under uh the section at the top, number one, you say the shape and utility will be similar to all neighboring lots.

Yes, yes, sorry, yes.

So it's your testimony that the shape of post lot two is similar to all neighboring lots.

Well, as I said in my testimony, lot the lot directly to the south, which you have now identified as your client's lot, actually has exactly the same configuration where they have a very narrow um frontage and access to what is the bulk area of the lot behind lot one, and so you know, in terms of the fact that most of the lots in this area are not standard shaped lots, and many of them are um some are small, some are very large, all have different shapes.

Uh it does indeed conform, in my opinion, to when you are looking at two lots that except for the flag access, you have two very regular rectangular lots.

I think that by size, they are both conforming lots, a lot of the lots in the neighborhood and not conforming by size.

So I think yes, they do conform to the lots of the neighborhood.

You have a uh copy of a portion of the DIS map on page 12 of your reports of the neighboring lots.

Yes.

You reference my client's property.

Well, it is uh my testimony is that you have um clearly just looking at the GIS map.

You have uh road frontage that is not conforming that comes down a long driveway parallel to the subject property and then enters into a large rectangular block area in the back where the house is situated.

That would be essentially exactly the same as the proposed lot will be where you have a long narrow access opening into a large hearing, which would be the site of the construction, the improvement of that lot at some future point, and if you could turn to page seven of your report state under section two that the proposed development is in compliance with the zoning code, but again, it's not without all the relief that is being requested.

And if you could turn to page seven of your report state under section two that the proposed development is in compliance with the zoning code, but again, it's not without all the relief that was being requested.

Well, yes, but the zoning code has provisions to request that.

And so I believe that it is within the standards of provisions of the zoning.

Yes.

And there is the except for the um setback on the side and the lot coverage of an existing property.

Um you have uh the the new lot certainly has ample room to allow for improvement, and there is no uh major uh expansion.

In fact, it's going to be removal to make it more in conformance on the front lot.

So, yes, I think that they have ample room from the allowing group.

And you were here when project engineer just testified about the plans and specifically sheet four, which is the latest plan that was submitted, correct?

Yes, you see on that uh that most recent plan, there's a uh section of proposed lot two that's uh call this with a dotted line.

Um there are several dotted lines to look through the one so to the south, there's a dimension indicated of 17.8 feet, and to the more uh a dimension of 25.4 feet.

See that yes, sorry, I didn't see the point, but yeah.

In order to conform with uh these doning ordinance that set back the business, that's the maximum area that could be built in, correct?

Yes, so when we testified and you stated in the report that there's ample room, the at best the widest that a house could be in this area is 25 feet, and could be the narrow of 17 feet, okay.

Yes, with a total lot covered maximum structure coverage of three thousand feet now.

On uh page 12 of your report where you're addressing standards for ranting the dimensional variances.

You conclude here that the hardships indicated are not the result of any prior action of the petitioners, um, but it's the proposed subdivision that's uh creating the need for the zoning relief, i.e.

the hardships uh that are being deposited by the applicant, right?

Yes, so without the subdivision proposal, the hardships wouldn't exist, right?

The hardships exist because of the existing structure, and the petition has to allow the existing structure to remain.

So the prior action of the applicants was never to build the structure, they didn't even want to keep the structure.

So, in point of fact, it is there, it is not the result of the prior action that these read these items of relief request, and on page 14 of your report, the uh numbered item four, yes, the fact that it used to make it more profitable or the structure may be more valuable after the relief is branded, it's not browns for the meeting.

See that?

I do, and uh the applicant um itself is identified uh financial viability as being a motivating factor, right?

May have.

It may have I was here for them to no, I didn't hear anybody state that yes.

Would you like me to talk more about that?

No, that's all I have, thank you.

I just wanted to follow up to the clear, and there was some discussion about setback lines that the engineer had put on the proposed lot to so again um setbacks for accessory structuring there.

So anything that was developed on that site had detached accessory structure, it would be subject to different syntax, correct?

Yes, to be closed with property lines and what's completely there, yes, correct.

That is correct.

Secondly, um this this there's been to your knowledge the applicant has not had a detailed discussion with the zoning officer as to whether or not that eastern um bound line which is which joins proposed lot one and proposed lot two, whether that's the front setback or a side setback.

We don't know that right now, do we know the engineer?

I think had to think of that as a front setback with 15 feet in the boundary line, but that may not be the case.

That's correct.

Regardless, even if we accept the envelope that's been depicted uh for illustration purposes by the engineer, there is still sufficient buildable envelope there to construct a single family residence, isn't that right?

Oh, yeah.

So there's no concern as part of the lot of that.

No, there are not.

And if I didn't ask it before, uh just want to confirm that you uh submitted a report as part of the materials and as part of the record right now, correct?

That's correct.

And then you're adopting all of the analysis and conclusions in your report as part of the testing this evening.

Is that fair?

That is fair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions from Mr.

Hull?

Okay.

I have a question, but I'm not sure if the right person to answer it.

But it it's in the same it's in the same context.

So let me let me just throw it out there.

Um do we have are you able to share with us um where flurry properties, you know, the direction that they're moving in with respect to um lot number two, right?

So in other words, is this a is this a project where now you're going to renovate um lot number one, you know, uh finish the the uh you know the the the units which come out to what roughly 1400 square feet uh a unit is that right somewhere else?

Just a moment.

Let me just ask Frederick.

Uh ask uh our solicitor, ask uh Mr.

Frederick if um this is an appropriate if we can deliberate about the potential development of lot two.

Is that something we can take into consideration in our deliberations so uh the applicant has not applied for any development on uh the proposed lot two?

You could certainly ask the ask the applicant if they're interested in talking about any proposed development on lot two, and if he says no, we could go from there.

Yeah, okay.

That was what uh what I was aiming for.

I'm not sure if you can tell today, but I was just curious as to is this a project where you're gonna finish lot one and then and then and then maybe perhaps even in the process, sell lot two to a third party, or is the intention truly to to develop it also uh by the that's I'm sorry, that the same developer developed lot two and then make it a rental so and make it a rental.

Well, is is it is it is it going to be a rental unit uh uh building for rent, or it's for sale?

It's it the plan would be essentially a custom built single family residence for sale, correct?

So then the original plan before conversations with the city was then to divide the lot into three sections and to sell those.

Is that right too?

I don't I don't know that the I don't know that the the current owner or the applicant has gotten to that point, had gotten to that point whether the plan at that time was sell off individual parcels and let someone else buy it and develop themselves or whether he was gonna do the build.

Um I but I think what speaks to some maybe some of your question and if it's a concern, I mean I think if you note and you look at the staff report, there are proposed conditions relative to approval, and one of those conditions would be that prior to the recording of the final subdivision plan, there would need to be substantial completion of the renovation of the existing carriage house.

So again, um I think to an extent that addresses your concern, the developer goes through that process, they're going to address lot one first, and then at that point, I honestly can't answer whether or not the plan at that point would be to sell off after after recording the final plan, sell up the vacant parcel at someone else custom build a home for themselves or whether he would do it and then sell the house.

But I can't answer that.

But there certainly has to be uh if the conditions are accepted by the board um and this project is approved, the applicant would need to substantially complete the renovation and address the situation on lot one before even dealing with lot two.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

I have a question.

Are those units in the present building?

Are they occupied?

Can you speak into your mic?

Thank you.

Are the units occupied that are in the present building?

No, not now.

So it's empty.

Yeah, it's empty at the because the applicant has already uh secured a demolition permit for the interior.

So the interior has been demolished, and we're waiting to see which way this is gonna go.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Madam Chair.

Oh, yes.

Uh there is something I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that I remember when Mr.

Wool was testifying.

There were a number of state law amendments by the state legislature this past spring.

Um of those new laws um, which was effective upon passage on June 27th.

Um that's public laws uh 2025, chapters 258 and 289.

Um that has removed uh the requirement or the review of this board of a finding of uh uh no prior action by the applicant and considering a dimensional variance on a subdivision.

Um so when we go through uh consideration later, we'll skip that finding.

Okay, great.

Maybe you can remind us again when we get there.

Thank you.

So just to summarize it in uh if you have if a bow down the ocean, this is really about right now is being able to subdivide uh renovating unit one.

I'm sorry, I mean lot one.

Yeah.

Um, and then what happens in terms of ownership, sale, that's all TBD.

Correct.

In relation to lot two, and also lot one because uh lot one, I think the the plan is clear from the applicant's point of view is when the renovation is complete, those will be converted to condominiums and sold off individually.

Okay, okay.

Sorry.

No, that's helpful.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay.

Okay.

I I imagine I don't know if Mr.

Mano has any witnesses.

I would just ask if I could just have a minute or two at the end to close.

Absolutely.

Mr.

Minau, did you have some comments you wanted to make?

First, I just like to make a few statements and comments, and then uh my client would also like to testify uh briefly.

Um so as I indicated before, I represent Alexandra and Dr.

Manesh Patel of 179 Cog Shall have again um positioned it in what would be the southwest uh section of proposed lot two to the west of that area.

Um so this so-called flag-shaped lot um is wholly out of character with the neighborhood.

Uh for the reasons outlined more specifically in the letter that I submitted, which is part of the record, and uh I won't go through every point in that, but uh just to highlight some points which I believe are uh particularly important here.

Um so as I covered during my cross-examination of Mr.

Poole, um the uh applicant uh is applying for this subdivision, um, and as part of its attempt to meet the standards required subdivision approval, uh argues that um the proposed lots conform to all standards in the zoning ordinance.

Well, clearly that's not the case.

Um, and their argument is well, we're requesting all this relief, therefore we satisfy the standard.

Uh that's very circular logic here, and those standards are in place for a reason.

Um, if uh the approval's granted and this subdivision occurs, and the applicant sells off lot two, you could very well have uh the purchaser of that lot go before the zoning board uh subsequently and argue that um they have a hardship and they need relief from the setback requirements, and then you potentially have a building that runs much closer uh to the neighboring lot lines than that uh dotted line area that I highlighted on the plan.

Um and just trying to envision a house that's uh between 17 and 25 feet wide that can be up to 30 feet tall, if it is in fact a single family dwelling that's constructed there.

Um it's a pretty uh it's a pretty odd shaped uh building, and it's hard to conceive of um a structure like that being built on this lot.

Um so I think it's very likely given the constraints of this lot that um whether it's this applicant or some future buyer, they're gonna be back before the city uh needing additional dimensional relief just to develop this lot.

Uh there's also the issue of uh the driveway.

Uh and uh even if the driveway is 12 feet instead of 15 feet, essentially that entire flagpole, if you will, of this flag shaped lot is gonna be driveway right next to another abutting property.

Um and it's unclear because we don't have a plan for development of lot two, where exactly a building would be located on the lot.

Um it's very clear that this lot is not consistent with the neighborhood.

There are certainly some other odd shaped lots, but none uh whatsoever, like this one.

So the applicant's proposing to cram this lot in between other existing residences.

Um and uh another issue uh is that um if you look at the uh so this would be page pages four uh five and nine of Mr.

Hole's report, which I highlighted during the cross-examination.

Um this is not uh traditionally shaped lot uh by any means.

Um, and again, it doesn't conform with all of the uh required standards for lot sizes setback lines and minimum frontage with the zoning ordinance.

Um again uh this whole uh argument that the applicant needs this relief because of the existing building, the applicant uh doesn't need this subdivision, and it's specifically because the applicants applying for this subdivision that they're also requesting and requiring all this additional relief.

Um so I'd ask the board to take that into account uh when considering this.

Um it's also a bit unclear still exactly what the setbacks would be, and that was highlighted a few minutes ago uh during uh attorney Jackson's remarks.

Um so you know whether it would be a front yard setback or a side yard setback is still a bit unclear.

Um the reasons for why this is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, um, like I said, are outlined more specifically in the letter, but namely uh this is uh out of character with the neighborhood um and introduces a certain level of density and intensity that exceeds what's uh contemplated by the comprehensive plan.

Uh it's also out of character with the intent of the R10A uh zoning district as set forth in the zoning ordinance.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Quick question.

Do you have chance to know the width of your client's driveway?

It's very narrow.

I I I don't have I don't have an exact dimension of that.

Uh but again, if you look at the GIS map on page 12 of Mr.

Wool's report, yes, that lot, my client's lot certainly is not you know square or rectangular shape.

Um however, that lot is significantly um has a significant amount of um open space, so the lot coverage is completely different.

No, no, I appreciate that.

I was just talking about the the driveway, which is the same concept that it runs from cock shell to you know the lot where the house is built on.

So I was just curious as to what the width of that flagpole, if I can call it that would be.

Um standard drive by everything serious, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm not not debating that part of it.

I was just curious as to what the width is almost fired.

Okay.

Do you have any other questions?

That was the only one.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Minau?

Thank you.

Mr.

Jackson.

You want to use client testifying.

Are you?

Is that the case?

Or do you want to make do we want to hold that for public comment?

How do we do that?

Should we hold them as public comments and in that section?

Or shall we?

Public hearing has been opened, so I recommend the or go ahead and do that, and then we can look for public comment from all interested individuals.

Yeah.

So may I have a motion uh to open the public comment period?

So uh any discussion about that motion.

All right, all in favor.

All right, Madam Chair, it's the public comment period of the public hearing that you're opening up.

Correct, the public comment here.

The public comment period of the public hearing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any further clarifications?

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

The ayes have it.

Hi, our happiness of Gordon.

I'm out of here.

Hi.

Thank you.

We're gonna we're we're gonna swear you in, Miss Gordon.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Okay.

Um 2012, we bought this property.

We did everything.

We hired all the engineers, complied, all of the above in the process, knocked on all our neighbors' doors.

How are you doing?

Here's what we're doing, here's what we're envisioning.

We want to be part of the neighborhood community.

My Uncle David was the mayor of Newport for a lot of years, gave a lot to the City Hall community.

At no point has the Flurry Group knocked on any door.

I had to call City Hall twice just to mow his lawn.

I had rodents running into my driveway.

I had trash, I've had crazy amount of stuff called the fire department twice for smells.

Not once have they thought of community.

I have two little boys, I'm raising them there.

We're hoping to have this for our forever home.

And I have a man that wants to develop.

It smells of greed.

It really does.

I don't know what his intentions are.

The historic.

I came here to City Hall when Jerry Gallagher said, My house is historic.

Trust me.

I came here, all of you lovely people help me.

Not one document we could find.

All of you said it's a teardown because it's not protected, right?

Now you're pleading historic so he can get his variances and hardship and financial and all of the above.

For what?

Community?

Does he care about anyone in the neighborhood?

Does he want to build?

B RBO, Airbnb?

Yes.

That's what it smells like.

That's what it feels like.

So I'm asking all of you to consider the community.

We have a lovely Murray Court, KC Court, Cagashell.

We are a fine community.

We're protecting each other, and we have somebody coming in.

Doesn't want to mow the lawn, doesn't want to meet anybody, doesn't want to talk to anybody.

This is a mother speaking.

Sure.

Um, I'm I'm wondering, Ms.

Gordon, if you think the development of that lot one with four condos that are owned and then maintained, if that will improve the circumstances for you.

Sure, that seems fine.

That's compliant with the neighborhood.

That feels right.

We were lovely neighbors with Jerry Gallagher and all the tenants that were there.

We knew every single one of them.

But to then add more for financial gain, I don't know any other reason why he would want to add more to that lot.

It doesn't conform with the neighborhood, it doesn't have any community purpose.

Driveway up and down where Noreen O'Donnell is with her Dolphin Gate, it's in her son's literally like right next to her son's bedroom.

That driveway would be.

And he's never knocked on Noreen's door.

He doesn't know anybody on Murray Court or Casey Court, nor does he choose to try to meet anybody.

Okay.

Um and again, Ms.

Gordon, if the second, if the if lot number two is developed as the applicant is thinking at this point, according to his attorney, would like to develop as a single family or would like to sell the lot as a single family lot.

Will that improve the circumstances from your point of view?

No, it's congested.

We have runoff already from Jerry's house.

We always have runoff.

We did everything Sierra CNC.

We have our rain gardens, we have all of the stuff.

We still get all of his runoff.

Almay Pond is worse than ever.

Our neighbor who's not here, Alex Driscoll in the old school house, she's trying her best to preserve all of this extra volume is only polluting Alme Pond.

Lily Pond has done a great job because the neighbors are part of a community.

They all want to improve it.

Al May Pond, we're trying our best.

Adding this condo plus a lot two, plus congestion plus a driveway.

At no point is that going to help the cause of Alme Pond.

None.

And Lilly Pond is our gold standard.

They're doing a really good job environmentally.

So adding more has how could that help the environment?

So any questions for uh Ms.

Gordon.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

I could just make one more point quickly.

Um noted correctly that there is a different set of setback requirements for accessory structures and that it's not yet been decided what the proposed building might be on lot two.

Uh but uh if the intent was to simply build an accessory structure, the creation of lot two is fully unnecessary.

Um depending on what an accessory structure might be, potentially some zoning relief may be needed, but certainly there is no need to create this second lot if the intent is simply to build an accessory structure.

So I think it's clear that the intent is for a residential structure as the primary use of proposed lot two, and again, the shape of it would uh provide for an extremely odd shaped building.

Um, provided that all the existing uh setbacks uh for uh that primary structure would be complied with without requiring any additional relief.

Uh, do we have other members of the public who have uh indicated they want to speak if you'll please identify yourself and your address and uh Mr.

Paminthowel swear you in?

Sure.

My name is Mac Udill, Edward Udill, and I live in six AC court, which is south west of the property.

So I consider it a direct butter that it's just across that driveway that we can tell.

Right.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

So good evening, and uh thanks for the opportunity to address the board on this matter.

Um, again, my name's Mac Budill, my wife Lenzel, and I uh own a home at 6K Court, which is again what I consider to be a direct butter to the Cogshill property.

So this property's been in ruins for years, and we naturally welcome its redevelopment.

When we heard that there was an effort led by the city to do a historic renovation of the carriage house, that sounded in theory like a fantastic idea.

But we when you actually read and closely consider the applicant's plan in detail, we we think it's terribly terribly flawed.

We urge the board to reject it.

So I've got limited time.

I'm just gonna focus on three concerns in the applicant's plan.

So Mr.

Mano has done, I think, a good job both in his written report and also in his testimony summary summarizing zoning code defects and how this plan falls short of the standards of relief.

But I would like, however, to emphasize one point in the zoning analysis.

The lot two botwood and lot one lot coverage hardships have absolutely nothing to do with the carriage house, its history or any interest in restoring it.

These hardships flow 100% from the applicant's request to subdivide the property.

Eliminate the subdivision request, and you have a plan which essentially conforms with the zoning code, in which the applicant could execute on as a matter of right.

But of course, the applicant is conceded on the record, and I think there was some uncertain Mr.

Hole's testimony.

It is actually in the applicant's plan.

He is conceded on the record that he's subdivision to make the plan financially viable.

This mission, which is again on the record, I think it's just another um another problem with granting and the redeem that he's seeking.

Second, I'd like to emphasize how significantly this plan, specifically the request to subdivide the property and build a single family home, uh, will alter the general character of our neighborhood.

What you're being asked to approve here is essentially a unicorn.

A lot that is like no other in the Arts and A district.

Of the 82 properties in the district, there are only three flags, but each of those back up on Almy and Pond.

So there's no water, and there are no homes on the water side.

So you'd be approving the first flag lot in the district with homes surrounding it on all sides.

As to what's going to be built on this unicorn, the applicant is trying to get approval for the subdivision without showing his hand, but we all know exactly what this is going to look like.

The lot is only 52 feet wide at its narrowest point.

By my calculation with front and rear setbacks, that would mean a home that could be at most 22 feet wide.

I guess there's some new exhibits which suggests that could be as narrow as 17, potentially as wide as 25.

But in any event, because the home needs to be almost comically skinny, it will inevitably be the maximum height or 30 feet tall.

So you've got a unicorn lot, a absurdly out of proportion, skinny, tall, and looming house, which sits smashed in the middle of six directly abutting homes.

This is what you're being asked to approve.

And yes, our neighbor will, our neighborhood will be dramatically altered.

Third, you're being asked to approve this subdivision in future home without understanding the stormwater runoff effects of lot two on Almy Pond.

There was some testimony about lot one.

That was all real time.

I wasn't able to weave it into my comments here, but we all know that the pond is the most impaired body of water in the island.

And we know that the city has spent over a million dollars over the last 10 years in efforts to revive it.

Today you've got a 30,000 square foot lot with a 5,000 square foot structure, which is a big open space to absorb stormwater.

But if you approve this project, you would be adding if you account the 150 feet of driveway plus the structure on the new lot, you would be adding as much as 5,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces to an area close to the pond.

I understand the staff is recommending conditional approval of the plan, with one of the contingencies being that the Department of Mutilities needs to sign off on the plan before the decision is finalized.

But it seems to me granting contingent approval today for this subdivision with no evidence at this point on the stormwater issue, specifically as it relates to lot two, seems like a recipe for almost certain conflict in the future between the city, the applicant, the neighbors, and the environmentalists.

It seems to me that you know enough today about the risks posed to the pond by this plan that you can deny the subdivision.

But if you can't at least insist before making any approval of this plan that the applicant submit a complete plan for how they're going to utilize this new lot so it can be evaluated on all issues with real evidence, not speculation.

To close, this plan, in my view, has serious serious problems.

So what are its benefits?

We know the comprehensive plan talks about housing, but one single family home that will sell for millions isn't going to put much dent in our housing stock problem.

We know the plan talks about historic preservation, and that is clearly the city planning staff's interest.

But before we all just reflexively kneel at the altar of historic preservation, let me ask the question that no one else has.

Where is the evidence that this is history worth saving?

Particularly at the cost of approving this new lot with all of these associated problems.

There has been no historic expert testifying tonight or in the written record as to the carriage house's historical credentials.

It has not a single shred of recognition as a landmark.

It's not in the historic district, it's not recognized in a comprehensive plan as one of the city's historically and culturally significant sites or properties.

It's not one of the 20,000 sites listed as significant to Rhode Island's heritage by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission, and it's not listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Our home, which was built in 1865 and has one of those fancy plaques called the Hyron Murray House, is arguably as historically significant as the carriage house, as are dozens and dozens of other properties in the area.

So let me ask is restoring the carriage house and the apparently unseverable demand to subdivide the property worth all that the city is being asked to risk here.

The zoning code, the neighborhood, and the pond.

We don't think so.

And we hope you give weight to the fact that every letter that you've received on this matter has been in opposition as well.

Thanks.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

Then I'm going to close the oh close the public comment period.

And that's it's over to you, Mr.

Jackson, for final comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um just briefly again.

You've you've heard the testimony from the project engineer, heard the testimony from our real estate expert in support of this application.

Um of the things I'd like to do, if if I could pull up Mr.

Hoole's report page 13.

And this is an aerial photograph of the vicinity, which I think actually, when you look at the density of development, uh, the development that exists in this neighborhood, this this aerial photograph, I think, speaks volumes, it supports the testimony of Mr.

Hool regarding the consistency of the proposed development with the surrounding area.

I mean, as you look at it now, this property is inconsistent with the development pattern surrounding it.

And the idea that we're going by having a single family parcel uh or a single family home will be constructed later, uh, is inconsistent with what surrounds it is just inaccurate.

Look at the development pattern that currently exists.

Uh, there are smaller lots, there are larger lots, but this area is densely developed, and um, I know the neighbors have have in large part enjoyed the uh existence of an open green space that's been there for decades.

I understand that, and I understand people don't want things to change.

That being said, the idea that carving out a parcel along this over in the back of this oversized lot to accommodate construction of a single family residence is inconsistent with the area, is just not accurate.

Another thing I wanted to point out is there's been a lot of discussion, but the those arguments against this, many of them fall into the category of well, we all know.

We all know what's going to happen.

Well, that's not the standard that you have to employ when you take a look at this development.

You can't speculate as to what may or may not be a zoning asked by a future owner of vacant lot.

Um, there is a buildable envelope that is sufficient to build a single family home.

My comment regarding accessory structures was not that we're going to put an accessory structure solely on there.

My comment was the engineer laid out generally what he understood to be the setback lines, but those setback lines don't apply to accessory structures.

My point being the single family residence itself could be built within that envelope.

Accessory structures like a garage or a pool or anything else that fits within the lot coverage, um, could be closer to property lines because that's what the zoning code allows.

That was the point I was trying to make.

And again, the greater point being uh you can't decide whether or not that this subdivision meets the standards and is appropriate based on a concern of what may or may not happen in the future with the vacant lot.

And we're not required to have that information at the ready, we're required to have a plan which we've submitted and deemed complete at this preliminary stage.

Some of those other issues uh which have been identified, maybe not what building will go there, but other issues that have been identified get sorted out and approved by staff before a final plan is recorded.

And also, as I mentioned previously, there are a number of conditions proposed for approval by staff.

And I think staff has done when you read through that staff report.

I think the staff has done an excellent job identifying that uh the structure has been identified by the city, uh, the existing structure as historical asset.

It's important to them to maintain that building uh as a historical asset to maintain the streetscape.

It's also very important for the city to maintain the four dwelling units that are in that building.

And um the city staff, as you see in the staff report indicates that with certain conditions applied, which is a standard practice given we're at the preliminary stage, uh, with certain conditions applied, the addition of the lot and the opportunity to have another single-family residence again meets many of the goals and objectives of the city to increase the city's housing stock.

So, for all those reasons, the testimonies on the record, we believe that uh the evidence uh has been presented, which satisfies the elements for the approval of the minor subdivision for the category six special use permit and for the requested dimensional variances, and we would respectfully request that you approve this application.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Jackson.

All right.

Um I'm now gonna call the board's attention to the amended staff report, which is available in your materials.

Uh staff.

Do you have anything that you having heard the applicant's presentation and uh comments from the public?

Do you have anything you want to add or anything you feel you need to amend in in your report?

Not at this time.

Okay.

Anyone have any questions for the staff?

I have a question.

Uh when we talk about this being a like a historical asset, what goes into deciding that?

Since it's not in the historic preservation district.

Right.

So staff have identified this as a historical asset that's not recognized.

The state, which is included in the application materials, the state preservation society.

The SHIPO, um, has identified this as eligible for the to be uh designated historic site and building.

But it's not currently.

But it's not, nor is it in the historic district, obviously.

Or attempted to put an application in.

So the question was has anyone nominated or attempted to put the application in?

Um that new court has a lot of historic assets that aren't protected by historic stations.

You know, we're a city that's really fortunate to have a lot of buildings.

We've designated certain areas that are protected.

Um, other areas are not protected, but that doesn't mean that they have assets there that are less foundable.

It's not necessarily under that protection right now.

This building is something that the state historical preservation of server has identified as eligible for national register listings.

It's perhaps you look no process that it hasn't happened yet, meaning that it's not thank you.

Uh anyone else have questions?

I have one.

Yes, please, Kevin.

If if the original plan, the original plan that was put forward was to was to subdivide two lots and create two single families.

Well, so there's an original pre-application.

Yes, pre-application.

So that is not a formal submission of application that goes through the same processes.

Staff was presented in pre-application format.

Um a proposed subdivision, so it would be a full demo subdivision of two to three lots.

Uh, not that we deemed three lots acceptable or that it was reviewed against the applicable standards.

So, my my question actually was basically the alternative to this.

If we're gonna knock the building down or rebuild, what would be the maximum size of the building that could go on that lot?

That would really come down to nitty-gritty details.

That would be a question for the zoning officer.

Okay.

We wanted to put three lots on there, and they needed a big variance from us behind it.

I I can clarify at least as far as this applicant owner.

Again, the intention, the first step was the demolition application, which was submitted, and demolition application inquires as to what the purported reuse of the property is going to be.

And at the time of application, we indicated we were going to apply for a three lot subdivision.

And the rationale being essentially this parcel is only 400 and something square feet shy of being conforming in terms of lot area.

We acknowledged there would be other variances associated with the creating a three lot subdivision, but we felt, you know, we had three three lots that would two of which would be conforming, one would be just shy in terms of lot area.

So that was the original plan.

Had the conceptual meeting, the issue of the building came up.

Concerns were expressed over creating three non-conforming lots.

So to answer your question, the alternative to this would likely be demolition of the existing structure and a two-lot subdivision.

And those two lots would be well in excess of the required 10,000 square feet.

So there would be substantial homes and accessory structures built on each is the likely outcome.

That's kind of the point I was trying to make.

Right.

Peter, did you have something you wanted to say?

You look back.

We don't have the historic planner here, and there isn't written documentation about this, but in farming with staff, it appears that the carriage house is one of the Vanderbilt uh carriage houses.

Okay.

Uh I I thought I heard that it was uh Pain Whitney.

Garatov.

Yeah.

So there's a couple of little uh facts in the staff report.

There was a Vanderbilt involved through marriage.

Um they were like a Kentucky horse racing.

That's kind of the carriage house vibe.

Okay.

Um I actually have a couple of questions for staff.

Uh there's been a lot of concern about density and intensity and utilization.

Can you help us from a planning perspective understand the nature of smart growth and smart growth, planning goals and intensity and density?

So smart growth is an association with its own principles.

This is not one of their five core principles, but it is believed to be um simultaneous with their goals that it is better for the environment and the community to increase development where there is already development to utilize existing structures.

Um regardless of what the zoning is to achieve the goals of the city.

That is in general at a very high level, some of those ideologies that you're referring to.

Okay, thank you.

I I'm just trying to to put this in the context of uh planning and good good professional um contemporary approaches to smart growth and how do you do that in an environment like Newport, where we have some structural constraints as a function of right, and and planning obviously is an art and a science.

So there will be theories on both sides.

Um, but a progressive theory in planning is form-based code, which is adapting structures that meet the urban design standards for the street side, but whatever's going on inside is not what the code is based on.

It's based on how it looks to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods.

Okay, thanks.

Any other any questions for staff?

Then I'm gonna call for a motion to uh approve the staff report as findings of fact.

So moved.

Okay.

Any discussion?

No.

Uh all in favor.

Right.

Any opposed.

The eyes have it.

Uh I'm just looking at time here.

Uh do you want to press folks or do you want to take a quick break?

No.

Okay.

Keep moving.

All right.

We're now going to begin an evaluation of the applicant's requests.

Um we are um going to consider dimensional variance uh standards, and we're required to use those standards to make our determination.

And and I will ask at this point, uh, the solicitor to uh just remind us as a board of what we uh should consider and uh and anything that's developing under Rhode Island law.

So I think as a preliminary matter, um there were three conditions of approval recommended in the staff report.

Uh and the board may wish to use that as a starting point.

Um may feel that some of those conditions are not necessary or that some conditions may need to be added.

Um and if there's consensus on that um spy-in from the applicant, then the board could move forward with its deliberations on the dimensional variance.

Okay.

Requests.

So what we're gonna do is we're gonna start with the dimensional variants and we're gonna review them, and we'll review each variance request against the same set of standards.

Uh we'll then uh take a look at recommended conditions or any conditions that uh any members of the board think they may uh wish to uh to add.

And then we will call for I will call for a motion uh with respect to whether or not these standards have been addressed for these variances as a group.

Okay, to just to try to do this as efficiently as possible.

Then we'll move on to the uh special permit request, and then finally to the subdivision review.

All right.

So our first standard, the first variance is uh 17.24.030B minimum lot width to create proposed lot two with a 15 foot of lot width where 80 feet is required.

The standards are that the heart number one, that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area, and it's not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant, accepting those physical disabilities addressed in Rhode Island law.

I'm not going to cite the law here.

Or uh I'll refer you to the staff report and and please uh chime in as you see fit.

So Madam Chair, this may be helpful.

The board has adopted the staff's findings as their own.

So the board's uh discussion on this matter could be limited to aspects of that of those findings in that report that the board uh based on the evidence presented this evening uh and the uh written material received differs from the conclusions of staff.

So I'll review just quickly for the board what the staff has said.

Uh the staff finds that the applicant's proposal to preserve the existing structure on proposed lot one creates a unique land characteristic that prevents the applicant from meeting the minimum lot with requirement.

Uh should the applicant deem the existing structure on proposed lot one is not able to be preserved and subsequently proposes demolition, staff finds this hardship would not be met.

Any discussion?

Any thoughts about this.

Okay.

Thanks, Kevin.

Um, I think there's been considerable argument that there's value in preserving this existing structure, and that that does create uh some unique characteristics that would warrant uh variance.

Anyone see it any differently?

No, I think um it's keeping the preserve being able to preserve the present structure and keeping four welling units.

You know, I guess you could make the argument that just don't develop it and there won't be, you know, don't preserve it, or just keep the four units as they are, and then there wouldn't be a hardship, but this is a hardship that's already there based on the building.

So the way I see it, the hardship is there because of the building and preserving.

That actually takes us to the second standard is that the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant, although uh Peter, I think you told us we don't have to consider that under Rhode Island law.

Ms.

Andinelli's comment was really good for standard for finding four, but as I mentioned earlier about finding two here, um, there was a state law amendment back in June, and this is no longer applicable for subdivisions.

I think in the event that that somehow or not the conclusion ultimately on this matter, um, this board has adopted the staff report as findings, which mention that this uh finding was met.

Right.

Uh let's look at standard three, which is the granting of the requested variants will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance or comp plan.

Patricia, I think in in part you were arguing that it meets it helps meet some of the comp plan goals.

Right, because of keeping four units.

I think that's so important.

Versus what you're gonna end up with is two single family homes.

And so right now there are four or there were four housing units.

This proposal, the applicant's proposal preserves four housing units and potentially adds a fifth.

Um absent the apps the the um variances.

Uh the applicant uh could we could end up in the city of Newport with two housing units or just one housing unit uh rather than uh four to five.

So I have a question on the sure um we're assuming that the building can be demolished.

If you're saying that the state historic preservation officer has said it's eligible now, would that prevent it from being demolished?

No.

I rate the can it's my understanding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that uh it is not protected at this time.

There are no protections.

Sorry, but we're like the protection and something.

And I think in that vein, we have to consider the fact that the current developer could be deciding to sell the entire project as is to somebody else who then decides to tear it down.

That is a possibility.

I think on the density side also, this well, it's a less uh as as you go further south on Cogshell, it it's less dense, but right that's kind of on the leading edge of where these lots are all patchwork lots, and none of them are really they're not square lots.

Um they're all different shapes and different size houses.

Um, so on a density size, I I well, it would it will be a small house, but we just approved the 250 square foot apartments for people.

So this is the thing now.

Yeah, I think the staff has uh indicated in their report that they that in fact uh the variances will improve the general character of the surrounding area through the rehab of an existing structure and the intent to create the proposed lot two uh would make again the available availability of a single family house house house uh and adding to housing in Newport.

The basic argument of the of the staff in their report, and I think in the uh evidence that we've heard from the applicant, is that uh this proposal meets some very important goals of the city of Newport uh with respect to land use uh if the applicant uh is provided with relief.

Anyone see it any differently?

Well, I I guess I do.

Okay, at least let's hear I do.

Um, I mean, if you look at and I'm looking at the real estate the aerial view view, aerial view.

When they use the word cramming a house, and there it is.

It's a very small area in there, and that that doesn't even include the pool.

So I you're talking about lot, are you uh Sonia?

Are you talking about lot two or lot one?

They're gonna put a pool in lot one.

So imagine here's a pool, and there's the lot.

You're talking about a strip of land that's there.

So it does change the character of the neighborhood.

You've got this this house is what looks like it's two stories, this one's two stories with bedrooms looking into there.

I don't see anywhere else in the in most of the city, but certainly not in this neighborhood where people are looking in on each other like that.

So it does change the character.

Any thoughts?

What about all of those houses on casing board that are on top of each other?

They are on top of each other, but if you look at them, I mean look at them in the aerial view.

No one is surrounded by houses the way that building will be.

Can you turn on your mic?

Thank you.

Sorry.

I don't see how that conforms to the neighborhood at all.

I'm not sure I see how the pool would be would affect the rest of the neighborhood on lot one.

No, I'm not talking about it.

And then lot two.

Okay.

When you see when you add a pool to that, and then the lot line, and I look at how that land is.

So it's a different use of the land, that's for sure.

It's a different use of the land.

Um with all surrounded on all sides by other homes.

There's not a part of that house that is not going to be looked at from another house.

And and I I think throughout Newport, we have lots of neighborhoods where houses are looking at there where we're looking into each other's buildings and looking at each other's patios.

But downtown you expect there are many houses like this.

And this neighborhood is it's medium density, but I would say it's pretty high the further you go.

Okay.

But in this neighborhood, we're we're supposed to judge it based on the character of the neighborhood it it is in.

Yeah, there's like 30 houses right there south of that property.

Okay.

Right on top of each other.

And then just two streets north, it's the same thing.

So that's I'm not sure what your definition of neighborhood is.

Maybe it's different than what I'm going by, but that looks pretty dense.

I'm just looking at the two surrounding, if you just the two bordering streets.

Look at Casey Court.

I think that's too small of a sample size for delineated neighborhood.

Where do you see a house that's completely surrounded by homes?

Oh my country's right there.

Yes, cock shells there.

Look at the other side.

There's a backyard, the other side, there's a backyard.

I guess that what I'm saying is that by putting something there in that little lot, you're making it as dense as downtown.

This isn't downtown.

Okay.

So we have to do that.

Yeah.

And we've got thank you for that, Sunny.

And so we have some differences of opinion on the board right now.

And we have expert testimony that uh says it does not change the uh character.

So we have some differences here.

This is a judgment.

Uh, it's part of what we have to do.

So let's look at, I think we've looked at each of the standards here with respect to the minimum lot width, the setback requirements, uh, and the lot coverage.

We've kind of been going back and forth across these three different variants, requests requests and these standards.

Um the setback requirements, the staff finds this is a pre-existing condition on the proposed lot one due to the structure being erected prior to modern zoning.

The existing condition as a result of the applicant proposing to preserve the existing structure presents a hardship for the applicant to meet this zoning requirement.

With respect to lot coverage, the staff finds that the existing structure on proposed lot one with an area of approximately 5,123 square feet or 27.1% of the proposed one lot one coverage is a pre-existing condition and not a result of the applicant's actions.

Staff finds that the proposed 15 by 35 pool, which uh this may, I'm not sure if that number has to be amended or not uh as a function of the change in the site plan.

Um is not a pre-existing condition and therefore not a valid hardship or unique condition of the site and should not be considered a hardship.

Staff supports the elimination of the pool and granting relief for the existing building only, which is 27.1% rather than the 30% requested, now 29% for lot coverage of a proposed one.

I I'm uh in an RA 10- uh 10-1 zone, 20% is permitted.

Um I'm wondering, Staff, does this have to be amended uh in view of uh the proposed change to the site?

Changing the size of the pool and so on.

So these um submitted exhibit B or two, depending on how you're numbering it, sh displays um a smaller pool footprint, but the conclusion is the same.

Okay.

So staff has no amendments to this staff.

All right, considering the the three now three standards that we have to consider in granting these variances.

Any further discussion about uh these these requests, either the minimum lot width, the setback requirement, or the lot coverage.

I think on lot coverage, there's questions.

I mean, they're going, they're increasing their lock coverage by 60% because of the subdivision, correct?

It is on.

You can't still can't hear me.

I'm saying that their current lot coverage is 17.3%.

They're asking for a 60% increase because of the subdivision, correct?

So on top of that, now they're asking for a pool.

Okay.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on that.

Is there anyone who sees the facts different than that?

Okay.

Any further discussion about these three variances and their conformance with standards.

Okay.

With that, then I'm going to call for a motion uh to find that the applicant has addressed the applicable standards to grant approval for all the dimensional value variances.

Oh, wait, I can't do that yet because the staff is also indicated conditions.

And I am going to turn to it's page nine of the staff report.

The staff recommendations is that uh that the that we grant conditional approval uh subject to the following conditions.

In accordance with section 17.108.030 C of the Newport Code of Ordinances, the sequence of development shall be first the substantially completed restoration of the existing carriage house and dwelling units, and then the issue of final subdivision approval by the administrative officer.

Substantial completion of the restoration work for the existing carriage house and dwelling units shall be determined by the city building official in collaboration with the city's preservation planner.

And a second condition for proposed parcel one, where 20% coverage is permitted and a variance is sought to provide 30% lock coverage or 29% case maybe that a maximum of 27.1% of lock coverage is approved for relief to accommodate the existing structure only and shall not include new construction that would increase the lot coverage non-conformity.

So those are the two conditions staff is recommended.

Mr.

Jackson, looks like you want to say something.

Yes, please, if I may, quickly just for the record that the applicants um fine with condition one in terms of sequencing of the developments in relation to proposed condition two, we respectfully request that uh it's the 29% law coverage that's been proposed by the amended site plan rather than limiting limiting it to a 27.1 percent is that correct.

Thank you.

Staff.

Do you have any comments you want to make about that?

No, that's at the board's discretion as a deciding body.

Uh members of the board.

Those are the two proposed conditions that the staff has suggested.

Do you have any conditions you'd like to impose?

Or do you have a perspective on Mr.

Jackson's uh argument with respect to uh the second condition?

I would have to concur with the staff.

I think that 27% is more than enough.

So you want to stick with the 27% lock coverage?

Yeah.

Kevin, you're about to say something.

Was that uh extra lock coverage for the pool?

Is that why we're getting that extra?

I know the numbers were going back and forth, so I don't know.

You remember the the testimony of both the engineer and confirmed by Mr.

Who, the pool is 2.2% lock coverage.

Okay.

And that includes the elimination of the decks.

Correct.

And then the addition of the patio on the yeah, that includes the elimination of the overhang or car port that's at the front, the reduction in size of the existing deck that's in the southwest corner of the building, and then elimination of the deck that's in the middle of the building.

So with those eliminations and the addition of the pool, we end up at the 29%.

Anyone else have any thoughts about this?

All right, I am going to call for a motion to find that the applicant has addressed the applicable standards and to grant approval for all the dimensional variances, and to grant approval contingent among um upon meeting the following conditions, as well as the final approval of the development plan or plan.

And to grant approval contingent among um meeting the following conditions as well as the final approval of the development plan or plan.

Um conditions being uh as staff recommended, a condition one, and uh accommodating uh Mr.

Jackson's request to uh limit the lock coverage to 29 percent.

So that condition would then be for proposed parcel one, where 20% is permitted, and a variance is sought to provide uh 29% lock coverage.

Uh that we remove that uh condition.

So move.

Second.

All right.

Any discussion?

Any further discussion with respect to uh approving these the request for the dimensional variances?

Right?

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

All right, we have four in favor, one opposed.

The motion carries.

Now I believe that there were six members voting.

Yeah.

Yep.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, yes, I voted.

That's true.

Show of hands.

I I forgot myself.

Okay.

I forgot myself.

Thank you for clarifying that.

All right, so we have five versus one.

Okay.

All right, moving right along to the special uh use permit.

Again, referring to the staff report.

Okay, we have here we're looking at uh standards are the alteration change, enlargement, addition, or intensification will not increase the dimensional nonconformity.

Uh uh it won't alter the character of the surrounding area.

There'll be no net increase in stormwater runoff, and all proposed uh lighting is dark sky compliant.

That actually doesn't really apply in this case, as has been discussed uh by Mr.

Who and in the staff report.

Uh with respect to uh the staff's analysis.

The special permit actually request is we've already discussed.

Um as drawn, the applicant proposed to intensify the dimensional nonconformity of proposed lot one by adding a pool to already non-conforming lot coverage.

Should the board grant the variance requested for lot coverage on proposed lot one, which we have done, this standard will be met.

Uh number two, uh, will not alter the character of the surrounding area within 200 feet.

Proposed lot one will improve the character of the general area by rehabilitating an existing historically significant structure.

Proposed lot two meets the minimum land area for the R10A zoning code, and the applicant's stated intention of making the land available for single family residential development is a use allowed within the zoning code.

No net increase in stormwater runoff from the site based on the submitted materials.

It's unclear to staff if there will be a net increase in stormwater runoff on either proposed lot.

In order to meet this standard, staff will require the applicant to obtain written approval for both proposed parcels from the utilities department prior to any development or disturbance on either site.

The staff is recommending conditional approval of the special use permit category six, uh, subject to the following conditions.

Uh, in addition, uh in accordance with section 17.108.030c of the Newport Code of Ordinances.

The sequence of development shall be first, the fully or substantially completed restoration of the existing carriage house, and then the issuance of the final subdivision approval by the administrative officer, substantial completion of the restoration work for the existing carriage house and dwelling units shall be determined by the city's building official in collaboration with the city's preservation planner, and to the applicant shall receive approval from the utilities department on the proposed stormwater management based on the final development of the parcels.

Uh board, do you have any uh comments you'd like to make or any additional conditions you'd like to add?

So just trying to understand this.

Um, why is utilities in charge of determining stormwater?

Wouldn't this be done by somebody who is an expert in water engineering?

And because we've heard comments today from from the neighbors that there is a runoff of stormwater, which so we want to make sure that that gets addressed.

Right.

Our department of utilities is expert at this.

They are in charge of uh stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water.

And um, the director is very well trained in this, and he will be the person that'll look at it for, and he looks at all of our applications for their stormwater management plan.

So, but in the past, when we've had projects here, right?

Usually the applicant, they also bring an engineer in who brings this information right to the forefront, right?

As opposed to just coming from the city.

I just wanted to have an engineer, and the engineer will provide that information to our expert at the city who will review it and make sure it is in the best interest for the city.

Okay.

I believe we heard evidence from the engineer for the applicant that uh, in his opinion, there would be no change in stormwater runoff for lot one, lot two can't be determined at this time.

If you'd like to uh suggest a condition.

Um do you want some?

But we heard today that there is runoff, right?

So I mean, I'm obviously not an expert, but you know, to the extent it does exist, right?

And naturally water runs down towards other water, right?

So I could see that you know, whatever water is coming from lot ones and two, that they are running to whatever the neighbor is or whichever the neighbor is to the to the west, you know, of the properties.

So I just want to make sure that that gets looked at properly.

Good.

And the and the uh staff, I think believes that they've covered that with the utility with the utilities department.

Does anyone have any further questions?

If I may, I think perhaps the staff's concern was that in the future this new parcel two could be developed with only city review for a building permit and not uh stormwater review.

And so this condition would require that regardless of what happens in the future, there would be stormwater review as part of the building process.

For both for lot two as well as lot one.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh then if there's no further discussion and no desire to add any additional conditions, I'm going to call for a motion that the applicant has addressed the applicable standards to grant approval for the special use permit and to grant approval contingent upon meeting the specified conditions and the final approval of the development plan.

May I have a motion?

No move.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Uh any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

It's the ayes have it, it's unanimous.

All right.

I'm now going to close the public hearing and we're going to move to a consider a review of the proposed subdivision.

We'll consider the minor subdivision preliminary plan against the standards, goals, and policies that are referenced in the staff report.

And uh takes you to page 11 of that staff report.

We're looking here at is the proposed development consistent with the complan.

The staff has listed a number of policies, goals, and action items in the comp plan that uh, in their view, uh indicate that it is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan.

That in just to summarize them, they have to do with housing development, preserving historic buildings, dwellings, architecture, and so on, enhancing the city's cultural and historical resources, uh, advocating for uh historic and cultural resources, preservation, restoration of natural resources, and fully integrating natural resource protection into all appropriate plans.

Um their comment here is should the applicant agree to and implement the proposed conditions of final subdivision approval regarding lot two.

They believe the project has the opportunity to set a precedent for increased awareness and resident responsibility for the development of properties in sensitive environmental areas or districts, which is what this is.

Um I actually concur with the the staff's identification of policies and goals here.

Uh I think that in my view, this improves this is not only consistent with the comp plan, but it helps us start to work toward the future and and some of our future goals.

Uh, with various reviews and conditions.

Anyone else have any thoughts or comments?

There's so many goals, you know, multiple goals, the housing goals that are in the comprehensive plan that are met by this proposal.

So thanks.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Is the proposed development in compliance with the standards and provisions of the city of Newport Zoning Code or obtained zoning relief?

Um the um staff is indicated as we have uh approve the dimensional variances and the uh granted the special permit or approve that request that uh the zoning standards are met.

Will there be a significant negative environmental impacts from the proposed development as shown in the submitted plan?

Staff finds there's no negative environmental impacts apparent due to the proposed subdivision, but future negative environmental impacts from development of either proposed site is unclear at this time.

So this is where again the opportunity to provide conditions and and breaks uh it is with us.

Okay.

Any comments on this one?

Does a subdivision result in the creation of individual lots with such physical constraints to development that building on such lots according to pertinent regulation codes and building standards would be impractical.

Lots with such physical constraints may be created only if identified in permanent open space or permanently reserved for public purpose.

Um the staff finds that the proposed subdivision creates a parcel with physical constraints to development according to the zoning court code, but with the variance requests uh I think that we've uh cured this or satisfied it.

Uh any thoughts here?

Um the comments have been made about the size of the lot and the feasibility of building a home on that lot.

Um I I've seen personally I've seen lots of very interesting architectural designs, not only in Newport, but all over the world.

And um, I think it's up to uh builder to determine a way to utilize that lot.

We have uh we have expert testimony that the lot is buildable and there are no constraints.

Any thoughts or comments?

Anyone disagree?

I disagree.

It's I don't think that that I don't think that us allowing a variance heals it or solves the problem.

It's still going to be a problem.

And I think that you know there's a number of things here that are concerning, lot size being one of them, two that we don't know what's going to happen on lot two, so we don't know what the stormwater effect is going to be.

I think those are all things that we had to seriously consider.

And with the do the conditions that have been imposed, what by uh approving those variances in the special permit?

No, I don't think that they did.

I I don't think they really addressed it, but okay.

Thanks, Senator.

Any thoughts?

Argue that they will have to come back, correct?

Once when that there is a plan to build something.

This is a preliminary approval, correct?

Yeah.

Final approval is administrative.

Yeah, okay.

But it's not, they can't won't just be able to build something on that law without getting approval.

On proposed parcel two.

Yes.

It depends.

It would depend on what's being proposed.

I think Peter kind of touched upon that.

Like if it the proposal just requires building official approval.

Uh within the setbacks if it is by all the rules, then they wouldn't have to come back and they would have to get approved by the building official, but not by planning staff.

To my knowledge, Chris.

Trish, uh, correct me if I'm wrong.

Right.

There's some conditions that we proposed for the subdivision.

Once the subdivision approved reported, if they proposed something that's informing on they would be able to build if they need a variance on that, they can have to build some work.

But there would have to be a review.

Not necessarily just the building review.

As part of any building permit application, zoning official reviews of the building plans and confirms that it conforms to the zoning ordinance.

Um the lot uh would probably be of record at that point, or there might be some conditions from your approval that would have some sort of planning.

I would attach to it.

Yep.

And utility department would at that time do another storm order analysis based on the this the condition of your special use permit approval.

Trish, are you trying to add something?

I'm just gonna add that um this is an R 10A zone, and the lot is 10,000 square feet.

Correct.

So while it may be, it may appear to be small, it is what the zoning requires for law area for the construction of a single family well.

Got it.

Jared, does that answer your question?

Yeah.

Okay.

Size, not shape.

Size versus shape.

I think that's the conversation we're having.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And it may very well require some creativity by an architect.

Uh, do all of the proposed lots have adequate and permanent physical access to the public street.

Uh we've heard testimony that that is the case.

Uh staff concurs both proposed lots uh, if approved, would have permanent physical access to COGShell pending uh the development of proposed parcel two.

All right.

So the staff recommends uh granting uh final or prior to granting they propose staff recommends that we find that uh that we grant preliminary approval approval prior to the but prior to granting a final approval for the minor subdivision that the and these are conditions.

Applicants shall provide two to three granite bounds clearly demonstrating the property line between proposed lot one and the driveway area for proposed lot two leading to Cogshall Avenue and clearly display bounds on the final site plan in consultation with the city's historic planner shall substantially restore the exterior of existing carriage house on proposed lot one to standards aligned with the architectural characteristics of its original construction in 1897, provide a detailed site parking plan on proposed lot one, including the amount of parking spaces with dimensions for spaces, drive aisles, and vehicle or vehicle.

I can't pronounce that, it's too late.

Circulation.

Make every reasonable effort to incorporate environmentally responsible development standards on proposed lot two, such as limiting lot coverage to only what is absolutely necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the property, prioritizing uh pervious surfaces for driveways, patios, and walkways, limiting the amount of site disturbance, and incorporating native plantings and or restoring natural wetland systems and other green infrastructure into stormwater management, landscape and mitigation strategies.

I think this condition addresses many of the concerns uh that the uh butters have expressed about uh protecting Almay and protecting the environmental environmental sensitivity of the area.

Submit the proposed stormwater management system to the director of utilities for review and approval, and that prior to any new construction on proposed lot two, the applicant shall compete complete a coastal hazards assessment and submit this to the administrative officer.

Once this is determined to be complete, the document will be recorded with the city clerk.

Questions about any of those conditions?

Uh staff recommended.

Any conditions the board would like to consider.

Is there any way to add some teeth to their reasonable effort for environmentally responsible just to allay some of those fears?

Or is that just the language we should use for that?

So our city is lacking uh environmental protections in our ordinance in site development.

Our department has been working on uh reinforcing those ordinances and bringing them into modern day standards for a city that is on an island surrounded by water with limited resources and sensitive water bodies.

Um I'll open it to Trish and Peter if they think that there can be any more guarantee that this condition will be implemented to its full potential.

So we have it in there.

Um I think it it with as many teeth as it can have.

Um right now we're working on our comprehensive plan update.

I think this is a really important thing, thing for us to look at as we move into the future, how we can support that as a community and then translate that into zoning on more protections for our environment.

I'll say, you know, you can go to great lengths if the applicant agrees to it.

Um and also I don't know what the effort is desired effort is of the board here to try and mediate between the objecting neighbors and the applicant.

Um so I'd leave it to you in terms of how much you want to try and engage with those in the room.

But the staff has proposed.

I think, you know, as you heard, what they view is a very reasonable condition.

I think we have to consider the rights of the property owners in all respects, both of the uh flurry properties and in the uh budding and surrounding property owners.

And I think we're trying to do that.

I think the staff has tried in their report to do that as well.

The applicant has been willing to uh accept a number of conditions in including reenvisioning the development of this proper of this law.

Uh any further discussion, comments.

This is a strictly a suggestion.

Okay.

Okay, and not a condition.

But it seems like what we're hearing tonight that some communication might open up some, you know, some goodwill on both sides.

And uh I wonder if it's if if there's an opportunity for maybe the applicant to have a representative who maybe schedules a meeting with the neighborhood, takes the neighborhood through the plans, that there's a chance for both sides to to actually have a dialogue about it.

I mean, it's obviously it's up to you.

Can't be forced.

I'm just saying there seems to be an opportunity for that.

Fairly common practice.

I I think that that should be for all applicants that become come before us.

That is huge with me that these people reach out to the neighborhood.

Um I've sat here several times and very disappointed that that didn't happen, especially in a small neighborhood like that.

So for what it's worth, I I also feel that by not having that, it feels a little bit like we're gonna get this done and then we're gonna run.

Right?

Don't take this the wrong way.

I'm just saying when when if I if I'm a neighbor and all I see is this is all about let's just get the subdivision, let's renovate the building, let's sell the the real estate, and then we'll we'll be on our way to the next project, right?

It's it's a little, yes, it can be done.

I get that.

I appreciate that.

But I think also it might be in the firm's interest to have a good reputation out there for the next project so that the next neighborhood will see, oh, you know what?

There is a desire to work with people around them for what it's worth.

We can add that as a condition if you wish.

How do you feel about that?

You know, my my sense is if it doesn't come from the heart, and if we're forcing it, it's not gonna yield anything.

My my recommendation would be it's in both sides' interests to do that.

And like I said, I think also the firm's reputation is at stake because if this ends up being a bad decision, you know, the you know, the next project that the firm may want to undertake here on the island.

But it might be a little bit more challenging.

I think adding it as a condition now is just it doesn't hold any any meat.

The damage is already done there.

Okay.

Then I'm gonna call for a motion to um uh I am gonna call for a motion when I'm gonna call for an um a motion uh to find that the applicant has addressed the applicable standards to grant preliminary approval for the minor subdivision preliminary plan and to grant approval contingent upon meeting specified condition conditions and the final approval of the minor subdivision.

May I have a motion?

So move second.

Any further discussion?

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

It passes unanimously.

Okay.

I'm gonna close uh consideration of this application.

Thanks to everyone for your participation and your patience as we go through this laborious process.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you, Peter, for your help with this.

And we do hope that uh Mr.

Jackson that your client will engage with the neighbors.

I didn't get one.

Thank you.

Okay, let's move on to our last bit of business.

Uh we will uh staff.

Do you want to say anything about the uh recorded decision letter uh board?

Do you have any questions about the uh administrative uh decision?

No, so uh Trish is the administrative officer.

Uh the only thing we have here for recordings is uh principal structure demolition at 10 Red Cross Terrace.

And uh that was just for everyone's reference.

Uh demolition of a one-story single family residential structure to provide for the construction of a new single family residence.

Okay, thank you.

Uh liaisons, tree and open space commission, Sunny.

I was out of country at the time.

I've waited for the minutes, but okay.

Okay, thanks.

Nothing significant to report.

Uh Dick is not here, so uh we have no waterfront commission report.

Uh Jared, has there been an EEC meeting?

Have you had a chance to attend?

Yes, I went to the one on the 20th of October.

Um it's mostly discussion of the workshop regarding the natural gas moratorium and discussion of the word moratorium, and whether we should be using the word moratorium.

Um, but it was really helpful to kind of get an idea of where everybody was at before the workshop.

Okay, thanks for that.

Uh let's see.

Um where are we at with the comprehensive plan advisory group?

That's question of the week.

Um the internet was broken.

So there's no more than an house put it together.

Okay.

It's ongoing.

And uh, all right.

Sta, do you have any uh information that we need that that would be useful to share on bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission or transportation?

Uh yes.

So um I attended the October uh BPAC meeting with the city engineer Bill Boardman, and we talked with the through with them about the process that goes into our road improvements and the finances of the decision that goes into making road design.

And uh this month we'll be back with we have a long list of about 70 road segments that are up for possible construction in the next couple of years.

Um we're gonna review all of the the major potential road design projects with the um BPAC commit committee and have them vote on what projects they would like to see and what would be their top priorities in implementing the green complete streets policy.

Okay, any questions for staff about any of those matters?

Okay, I'm gonna call for is there anything else?

Staff, Peter.

Uh I'm bored.

I'm gonna call for a motion to adjourn.

The time is I have to get the correct time, 9 04.

So moved.

Second.

Uh any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

We're done.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

That's it.

Thank you.