Newport Planning Board Meeting 2025-11-03

The Newport Planning Board convened to review a Unified Development Review for a minor subdivision at 173-175 Cogshall Avenue. The proposal involved subdividing a 29,576 square foot parcel to preserve the historic Harry Payne Whitney carriage house (building four units) while creating a new vacant lot for a future single-family residence. The board heard extensive testimony regarding zoning variances, historic preservation, neighborhood character, and stormwater impacts before granting preliminary approval for the subdivision, special use permit, and dimensional variances, subject to specific conditions.

Consent Calendar

• Approving minutes from the previous meeting, with a single correction noting Jared Pimenthal (not Dick Crowell) as the liaison to the Energy Efficiency Center (EEC).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mr. Jonathan Mano (Attorney for neighbors 179 Cogshall Ave): Argued the proposed flag-shaped lot is "wholly out of character" with the neighborhood and does not conform to zoning standards without relief. Stated the hardship is created by the applicant's desire to subdivide, not the structure itself. Expressed concern that future development on the new lot would require additional variances due to physical constraints.
• Ms. Gordon (Neighbor): Spoke on behalf of a family raising children at 6K Court. Expressed strong opposition, characterizing the developer as having "smelled of greed" and failing to engage with the community. Contradicted the project's historic preservation claims, noting the building was previously deemed a "tear down" by the city. Expressed concern that adding a second lot and driveway would worsen runoff into Almy Pond.
• Mr. Mac Udall (Neighbor, 6K Court): Argued the plan is "terribly flawed" and urged rejection. Stated the subdivision is the sole driver of the requested variances and lot coverage increases, not the carriage house. Contrasted the proposal with the neighborhood's history, noting only three flag lots exist and always backed onto the pond. Expressed deep concern regarding increased stormwater runoff to Almy Pond, the most impaired water body in the area. Questioned the historical significance of the carriage house, noting it lacks formal landmark designation.

Discussion Items

• Applicant's Presentation (Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott Holbrook & Jackson): Presenting on behalf of Fleury Properties. Explained the property was originally planned for total demolition and three-lot subdivision but was redirected to preserve the carriage house after city staff identified it as a priority historical asset. Detailed the proposal to create two lots: one retaining the four-unit carriage house and one vacant lot accessed via a 15-foot flag driveway.
• Project Engineering Testimony (Seth Lemoyne, Principle Engineering): Confirmed the site is largely lawn with minimal natural habitat affecting the environmental corridor. Described the subdivision into two lots, noting Lot One would achieve a 29% lot coverage (after removing carports and decks) and Lot Two would have a 10,702 sq ft area. Affirmed no significant negative environmental impacts and that stormwater runoff could be mitigated (currently negligible increase on Lot One).
• Real Estate Expert Testimony (Jim Poole, Miller Scott Holbrook & Jackson): Stated the proposal is beneficial as it preserves four existing units and adds a potential fifth, contrasting with the alternative of two single-family homes. Argued the hardship stems from the unique constraint of the existing structure. Characterized pools as standard residential amenities in Newport that do not constitute "massing."
• Board Deliberation on Conditions: Discussing staff-recommended conditions, including sequencing the carriage house renovation before final subdivision, limiting lot coverage on Lot One to 27.1% (excluding the pool) to avoid increasing nonconformity, and requiring Utilities Department approval for stormwater management. The board agreed to amend the coverage condition to allow 29% including the pool, matching the applicant's revised site plan.
• Board Deliberation on Neighborhood Character: Debated whether the narrow, flag-shaped Lot Two would alter the neighborhood's character. Some members felt the house would be "surrounded on all sides" and change the character, while others noted the density of the surrounding area and the feasibility of creative designs on the lot.

Key Outcomes

• Motion: The Board unanimously approved the preliminary approval for the minor subdivision preliminary plan.
• Dimensions Variance: Found the applicant addressed all standards; granted approval contingent on conditions.
• Special Use Permit (Category 6): Found the applicant addressed all standards; granted approval unanimously.
• Final Conditions Imposed:
  1. Sequencing: Substantial completion of carriage house restoration prior to final subdivision recording.
  2. Lot Coverage (Lot One): Varied to 29% coverage (including pool) rather than limiting to 27.1% for the structure only.
  3. Stormwater: Utilities Department approval required for both parcels before development/disbursement.
  4. Physical Bounds: Two granite bounds required to clearly mark property lines between Lot One and the driveway.
  5. Historic Restoration: Exterior restoration must align with 1897 architectural characteristics.
  6. Environmental Standards: Applicant must incorporate environmentally responsible standards on Lot Two (pervious surfaces, native plantings) and complete a coastal hazards assessment prior to new construction on Lot Two.
  7. Utility Approval: Written approval from Utilities Department required for stormwater management on both parcels.