Zoning Board of Review - Regular Meeting

We're on? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the August regular monthly meeting of the Newport Zoning Board of Review. Today is August 24th, 2026. I want to start with a roll call of officers. And we have all five of our sitting members are here. Nicole Chevry, Vice Chairman Dave Riley, Secretary Russ Johnson. I'm the chairman, Wick Rudd. And we have Bart Grimes as well. And sitting as first alternate will be Richard Berlinski. Right? Yes. And I don't think Melissa Padovini is going to be here tonight. So the first thing I want to do is it's been suggested to me as the chairman of the board to make a couple of changes to the order of how we're going to hear these petitions tonight. We've got one summary, a couple of abbreviated summaries, and at this point, four full hearings. It's been asked of us to move Ruggles Avenue from a full hearing to an abbreviated summary in view of the fact that we got a positive recommendation from the zoning office. on that petition. So I'd like to just briefly open that up to anybody who wants to discuss that. I think we'd like to take a vote, Nick, on whether we're going to move the Ruggles Avenue full hearing to an abbreviated summary, to the last abbreviated summary. So that would be the fourth abbreviated summary that we'll do tonight, I believe. Is there any discussion on that? I'll entertain a motion to that effect.

I make a motion that we take the petition of Melrose Muggles LLC and move it from a full hearing to an abbreviated summary. Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Where's Mr. Lee's? Yes. Okay. You get to go first. That's great. And really, to be clear, there isn't much of a distinction between an abbreviated summary and a full hearing. We just do the abbreviated summaries first. We will have a discussion on this abbreviated summary and a vote, okay? It won't just be a roll call, just so you understand that, okay? Okay. Um, so next is, um, it's also been asked of us that we flip flop, uh, the two, uh, uh, the, um, cog shell, um, petition under the full hearings with the Pope street petition. In other words, right now, the Pope street petition is first cog shells after that. And, uh, Mr. Jackson is requested. Is that correct? Mr. Jackson. Um, that that we flip those, uh, those, those 2, um. Petitions, so I'll entertain a motion to move the cog shell petition into the Pope street. Slot, if you will, and vice versa.

Yes. So I make a motion to take the petition of Flory Properties LLC at 75 Pope Street and 2 West Street to move from second to third position in the full hearing petitions and that the petition of Flory Properties LLC at 173-175 Coxhill Avenue move in front of that to the second slot. Second, please.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Now we can get into the meeting here. Moving on to the minutes of July 27th, 2026. I assume that we've reviewed these minutes. Dave, have you reviewed these minutes? Are they passing by?

Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman, and they look great.

They look good. Okay. Good. So then that's great to hear. I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes as written.

Yes, I make a motion that we accept the minutes of the July 27, 2026 zoning board as read. Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes. Okay, so a couple of communications we have, and then we'll move right on to the summary calendar. It appears that there's been an extension request for 12 Elliott Place. They wanted a request for a 12-month extension. When did we approve that, Nick, Elliott Place?

Give me one second. I can pull that up.

It rings a bell in the far reaches of my mind. 10, 11 months ago?

I think it was actually January of this year.

Okay. And so what did we, okay, fair enough. So that's more than six months. Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to give the applicants for 12 Elliott Place a 12-month extension.

Yes, I make a motion to provide a 12-month extension to the property at 12 Elliott Place.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes. The next one, which we knew this was coming, a withdrawal request for 18 Barney. And they're requesting withdrawal without prejudice, that petition, because we basically gave them what they wanted last month, correct?

Correct.

So I'll entertain a motion for that, please.

Yeah, I make a motion to... withdraw the request for 18 Barney Street to withdraw that petition without prejudice.

Is there a second, please?

Second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes as well. Okay, so got a few things to get through tonight. Let's get started with our summary calendar. For the second month in a row, I believe we only have one summary on the calendar.

You're right. So if you would, please. This is the petition of Anne E. Arnold, applicant and owner, 73 K Street, Tax Assessors Platte 22, Lot 68, in an R10 zone with a historic overlay. for a dimensional variance to construct a 64-square-foot shed located three feet from the rear property line and four feet from the left side property line, where five feet is required for both, and increasing the lot coverage from 20% to 21%, where 20% is allowed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I see that Ms. Arnold is here. Ms. Arnold is here. Is anybody here either in support or objecting to this petition? Any objectors? I don't see any objectors. Did anybody have any questions of Ms. Arnold on this petition?

No.

Are we all set with this? I just have a question for you, Nick. Isn't this something that you can do administratively, except for the setbacks?

I could have but the three foot rear proposed setback does not meet the zoning officer modification threshold. The four foot would have on the left side and the 21% lot coverage would have. I think we pointed out in the staff report that if there had been a survey and the proportionality kicked in, none of these variances would have been needed at all. Gotcha. It was really that it was, you know, weighing the cost of getting a survey to get it 64 square foot.

No, I understand. And so that makes no sense either. I get that. OK, very good. So we will we will vote on this. And if if someone, Dave, if you could put this in the form of motion, that would be great.

Uh, yes, chairman, um, I moved place all matters called this summary on the consent calendar and as to all matters on the consent calendar, I further move to adopt the board's finding a fact, the information staff report applications, supporting plans and other documents and adopt the petitioner has met there. Uh. and adopt as the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element on the chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications. Each petition be granted on the condition That project be started and substantially complete within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices related to court to public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms. Chevery. All those in favor of the summary calendar, all one summaries that we have today, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. Your petition is passed, Ms. Arnold. Good luck to you. You're welcome to stay if you want. Very exciting. But, you know, you're welcome to leave. You have your petition done.

Okay.

Great. We have, I think, now four abbreviated summary petitions in front of us tonight. We will start with the first one, if we could, Mr. Johnson.

Yes, this is the petition of Paul Toback, applicant and owner, 16 Ando Street, Tax Assessors Plat 40, Lot 363 in an R10A zone. for dimensional variances to construct a one-story, single-car attached garage located 1.75 feet from the north side property line, 8.28 feet required, and increasing lock coverage from 28.9% to 32.67%, where 23.44% is allowed.

Okay. Before I bring you up, Mr. Toback, is anybody in the audience tonight that is objecting to this petition? It is on the abbreviated summary calendar because there were no written objections. Is anybody here an objection? Seeing nobody, please come up here, Mr. Toback. Okay, I need to swear you in, if you will. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding?

Yes.

Please state your name for the record.

Paul Toback.

Very good. Okay, so you can assume that everybody has read through the material that we had on this. Is there something that you wanted to add to this before I open it up for questions from the board members?

Not really, but thank you for offering.

Okay. Okay. Great. So does anybody have any questions of Mr. Toback on his petition on the garage that he wants to build?

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Toback, as far as I can see, there's only one neighbor that would be affected in any way by this garage, and that looks to be Susan Dugan. Have you discussed what your plans are? To build this garage, is she in agreement with proximity to her property line?

Yes, I spoke to Brian Dugan, her husband. Okay. And, you know, we've always had the most cordial relationship. And they understood, you know, my need for the garage. And because they're actually on Vanderbilt and I'm on Andrew, their house on Vanderbilt is... you know, I'm trying to think, is further to the east. So the garage, my garage, would really be in their backyard. Not in their backyard, but it would be abutting their backyard. Being in a dead-end street in the very last house on a dead-end street and having the garage recessed, it's really going to be very inconspicuous.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Very good. Other questions of Mr. Tovek? Board members? Anybody?

If you could comment, Mr. Toback, on the pool. I think it was a discussion about a hardship having a pool. Now, when you first built the house, explain to us in terms of lot coverage issue then.

Well, when I first built the house, I didn't require any zoning variances or relief. We were under the 20% lot coverage, and it's a single-family home, which is what's allowed in an R10A zone. And then a few years later, we added the swimming pool. And at that time, swimming pools were not considered lot coverage. So I was still under the 20% lot coverage. There was always an intention on my part to add a garage at some point. but it just became more necessary recently. I built the house in 2000, and I've lived there for the past 26-plus years. And, you know, it was always my aspiration to have a garage.

Right. So there was existing rules back in those days. It was not considered lot coverage. No.

All right.

Okay, questions any other questions anybody. Hearing none would love to entertain a motion on this petition. Please.

Yes. Chairman on the petition of. Paul callback. Um, I moved to adopt as the board's finding, in fact, the information in the staff report. Applications supporting plans and documents testimony witnesses together to comment spread on the record by the board members and adopt as the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element on the chapter 17.108 and Newport zoning ordinance. entitled variances and modifications the petition be granted on the condition of the project be substantially completed started essentially complete within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices related to cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision very good do i have a second second thank you ms chevery

Is there any discussion on this petition, on this motion? Anybody want to have any discussion on this motion?

No.

Hearing none, I'm just going to call for a vote. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that's unanimous, sir.

I'd like to thank the board and the staff for their cooperation.

Absolutely. Thank you. Good luck. Good luck.

Works out.

Okay, moving on to abbreviated summary number two.

Yes, this is the petition of Hannah Wade, applicant and leasee and mortgage acquisition LLC owner, Zero Long Wharf Mall and Thame Street, Tax Assessors Platte 24, Lot 339 in the General Business Zone, for a dimensional variance to allow a temporary retail kiosk selling candy to be placed on the Long Wharf Mall lawn without providing the required one-space parking.

Okay. Is there anybody here on that petition? Yes. Please step up to the microphone if you would. Before I get to you, ma'am, is anybody here in opposition to this petition? Anybody in opposition? I don't see anybody in opposition, so please raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding. Will you state your name for the record and talk into the microphone, please?

Hannah Wade.

I'm sorry?

Hannah Wade.

Okay, very good. Okay, so I'm assuming that the parking space that is being required is for you as the person who's going to be manning, if you will, the kiosk, right? Is that correct? Okay. So my question for you is how are you going to get there and how are you going to get your supplies there and all that stuff?

Well, there is a parking lot I can just wheel my supplies down in a wagon I live in the neighborhood. Also, on the adjacent lot, I have a parking spot, which I think meets the requirement, but it's just on the adjacent lot.

Oh.

Yeah.

And is that for another one or is it the same kiosk?

Nope, it's just for my kiosk. It was given to me by the owner.

Oh.

It's just on the adjacent lot, not part of my lot.

Oh, all right. Well, that's a horse of a different color. So you basically already have one, right?

Yeah, it's just, again, on a different adjacent lot. So I had to go through this.

Okay, and how far? So it's not the lot right next to the fire station?

Yes, exactly that lot.

It is that lot?

Yes.

And you're going to be in the center lane going up and down by Sephora, where all those places are?

It's going to be on the lawn on the south lot next to Gap.

Oh, okay. Oh, all right.

They're just two separate lots with the city's land in between.

Okay, and so you don't feel that it's any stretch for you to be, you know, using that lot? I mean, it's, you know.

No, that's within walking distance.

Six and one-half dozen the other.

Yeah.

Okay. I have no more. Anybody else?

I was just curious, what kind of candy will you be selling?

Swedish candy, gummy candies, old school candies.

Okay, thank you. And any celebrity endorsements or anything like that we could be aware of? No. Okay. Okay, that's all I had.

She'll be there, trust me, with her kids.

Question, and it might be geared to you, Nick. There are already kiosks in that area, are there not?

There are, and I don't know how they're approved.

They are, but not approved?

Not that I'm aware of.

Uh-oh. Okay.

We appreciate Ms. Wade coming forward and applying for this correctly.

Absolutely. Okay, so you didn't suss this out. She just came forward and said, I think I need to get something.

It came to us as a business license, and essentially when I looked at the location, I knew that that south parcel does not have sufficient parking for the uses that are on that parcel. Again, there's two that are technically different ownerships, but they're the same controlling partner of both. the north lot has just enough parking for the uses that are there. I think they had one extra space. So we discussed the possibility of just locating the kiosk on that north lot. But the location that was preferred was in this kind of like X grass area that's just below the museum. Right. And that lot just doesn't have sufficient parking. So I'm glad that she was able to get a parking space to actually use herself. But that's why that Technically, the code said we needed a park variant.

If we approve this kiosk, does this need to be renewed every year or just get the license once a year?

I mean, I guess we can ask the applicant if she's going to be coming back every year. A variance typically runs with the land. So this would be to run with the land. But OK.

I signed a one year lease. So for this year, okay.

And if you want to renew the lease, then you don't need to come back to us. Okay. And when you plan to operate this, I'm assuming not in the wintertime.

Yeah, mostly seasonally. What I'm sorry, seasonally, mostly seasonally. Okay. Summer, maybe Christmas event will be open.

I just wanted to ask, Nick, and I didn't see it in the briefs, is the parking space for the employee parking or is it for people coming to work?

buy at the kiosk or what's the one space for the code just says one space is required for every 275 square feet of retail space and so obviously this kiosk doesn't have like a an area so true area associated but it is up to 275 square feet so we just required one space okay for this just curious okay thank you

We're asking these questions. It's unusual. I've never heard one of these things before. But thank you for being so honest and coming forward. We appreciate that. I know Nick does too. Any other questions? Okay. I would entertain a motion, please, on this petition.

Uh, yes, Mr chairman on the petition of Hannah Wade applicant and let's see and mortgage. Acquisitions LLC, um, I moved to adopt. As the board's finding a fact, the information, the staff board applications, supporting plans and documents and testimony witnesses. Together with the comments spread on the record by the board members adopt the board's conclusion of law that this has met their burden of proof under each. element under Chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications. The petition will be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices related to cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms. Chevery. All those in favor of this petition, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, you have a unanimous decision.

Thank you so much, all of you.

Good luck. Good luck with your candy kiosk. Okay, moving onward and upward. We've got abbreviated summary number three.

That's continued correct? No. Yeah.

Yeah, that's continued. Yeah. The applicant for number 3 requests to continue. Oh, okay. They are out of town. It's not that they need to change anything about that.

Oh, okay. So now we're going to get to the 1 that we switched. We did switched up. Correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So that is going to be the petition of Melrose muggles. Yes. Okay. Very good. If you could read that 1 and then okay, we're good to go.

Absolutely. This is the petition of Melrose muggles, LLC, applicant and owner. 58 Ruggles Avenue taxes plat 41 lot 237 and then our 10 a zone. For dimensional variance to expand a 2nd floor deck to 372 square feet where 100 square feet is allowed. Expand a third floor deck to 110 square feet, but 30 square feet is allowed. And construct a 640 square foot rear addition, increasing lock coverage from 14.16% to 21.24%, where 20% is allowed.

Great. Thank you. Yes. Hello, Mr. Lee.

How are you? Chair, members of the board, Matt Lee is representing Melrose Muggles, which is the owner of 58 Ruggles Avenue in Newport.

Hold on for one second, please. A couple of things. Are there any objectors here to this petition tonight on Ruggles Avenue? Any objectors to this petition? Seeing and hearing none. One more question. So you mentioned this is just over what administratively you can do, huh? At 21.24%?

Well, from a lot coverage standpoint, I believe so. But the decks are well outside my ability to approve.

Okay, fair enough. All right. I think you mentioned that here that if it was just a lot coverage. Is that correct? Okay, fair enough. Yes, of course, Mr. Lee.

As I indicated, representing Melrose Muggles, the architect, Mr. Herkenrother, is here tonight as well, as are my clients, the principals of Melrose Muggles. And the architect and clients can answer questions as desired. Are you the Melrose Muggles people back there? Okay, very good. David and Pat Melrose.

Okay, very good.

Um, so the applications before the board seeks to redesign the, the existing decking that's on the property to focus it more towards the front of the property. And as indicated, add an addition on the back. John Gerstle, variances for the upper floor deck size, which, as proposed exceeds the maximum for a slight lot coverage variance which. John Gerstle, could would be could be granted as a modification, but since the deck variance is necessary figured we put it all together and in one application. The property is right across the street, right across Ruggles Avenue from the Lily Pond, and it has got a kind of unique design to it in that the main living area of the house is on the second floor, and the first floor really functions as sort of a finished basement, which we assume is due to flood concerns, given that it's looking right across the street at the Lily Pond. And so under the ordinance first floor decking is unlimited as to size and that would be typically where you'd find your main living area on the first floor, but in this case it's on the second floor and the second floor decking is is limited by the ordinance so um. The applications indicated for the 1st floor decking cease to go from 110 square feet. The 372 square feet, which allow for. Sort of a full reasonable use, um. Off the main living area as I customarily see off a main living area. The third floor decking going from 75 to 110 square feet is really just to allow at 110 square feet to allow a couple of chairs to be out there with maybe a side table to enjoy the space out there. And then the third deck is in the back of the structure. It's an existing deck. And that one actually is being reduced from 160 square feet to 83 square feet. And that will really function more as a landing coming down from the second floor than really a full deck. There are a number of other upper floor decks in the immediate area, nonconforming upper floor decks, including right next door to the east. There's a large second floor deck. And we have a letter of support, which I can submit to the board if it wishes. from from the chases who own that property um and then uh we also have letters of support a letter of support from uh the folks in the in the to the rear uh of the property which is i think i think earnest place um and then across the street we were verbally given uh support from the owners of 55 and 57 ruggles avenue which are the leases and the leeches right across the street there. So the The addition on the back, the purpose of the addition is a three, right now the house is a three bedroom, two and a half bath house, sort of outdated interior spaces built in the 50s. And the purpose is to provide, the main purpose is to provide another bedroom on the first floor for aging in place, and also to sort of expand the living area to provide more modern living spaces consistent with sort of modern standards, especially the standards in that area. And as indicated, the addition on the back, we received a letter of support from the folks who own the properties in the back on Ernest Place and nearest properties. There's quite a bit of also distance, both on the front and the rear. There's about 40 feet of setback from the deck that's on the front to Ruggles Avenue. And then there's going to be, even with the addition on the back, there'll be over 40 feet of setback to the rear boundary line. And on the sides, there are also conforming setbacks. I think as proposed, it'll be 16 feet to the west and 21 feet on the east. So there's plenty of space in terms of setbacks. You know, as indicated, we got a we received a positive favorable staff report from the zoning officer and adopts his comments with regard to the standards. And like I say, the architect, Mr. Herkenrother is here, he can answer any any questions the board members have, but and of course, I can also try to answer any questions.

Yeah, why don't we proceed to that? Narrow it down to where there might be some questions from the board members. Are there questions from any of the board members? Dave?

I'd like the architect. Sure.

Yes, Mr. Herkenrother. Please raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

Yes, I do.

Please state your name.

Daniel Herkenrother from Herkberg's Architecture.

Very good. Did you have a question for him, Dave, or did you want to make a presentation?

Yeah, I do, if I could. In the SAF report, I read that having a formal rain garden is going to be your water management goal. program will be done. I'd like you to explain that in as good a detail as you could. I couldn't figure that out by looking at the drawings as to where it is and how it's going to work.

Sure, yeah.

And another, the other question was the deck, well, two more questions. The deck on what would be the first floor goes right to the edges of the side of the building. And is that really necessary to go that far? What's the difference between the deck that's already up there, square footage, and what you'd be adding on as far as square footage for both the decks? And lastly, is it in a flood zone? I got you.

I'm going to forget the first question. Go backwards with questions. Only the very corner of the property is the flood zone, the very front corner. The house is not in the flood zone, but it was built, if it did ever flood, They're in good shape because the first floor is kind of more like unfinished basement space.

Yeah, there's very little living space down in that first floor.

Correct, yeah. All the living space is on the second floor. Okay.

Where are the mechanicals?

The mechanicals are on the first floor. It's allowed, but it's more just like a basement would be where the mechanicals would be down there. OK, so the rain garden question, if you look at sheet A002, on the southwestern corner, which is the bottom right, there's a hatched area. And we just have to call out a certain size to it. So we're showing 122 square feet. And then on the top right of this page is just a little section of what you do for a rain garden. And basically, it's just a depressed area. for the underground leaders to go to from the downspouts on the house. And I've shown ones that run along the west side of the property line. Those will be below grade. They're going to take the water from the downspouts below grade and then take it to the rain garden. And that just gives an area for if there's a large rainstorm, it verts the water and then gives an area for the water to sit and then absorb. And the state mandates the size of that rain garden and it works well because it's down hill from the House so it's all natural. Gravity drain.

In the last question was on the decks what the decks are now square footage wise and what they're going to.

Correct yes, almost all that up here. The deck on the second floor is currently 110 square feet, and it's going to 372 square feet. And for most first floor houses, that's equivalent to like 30 by 10 or 15 by 15 size deck, which is enough for like a table to eat at and a couple of chairs. And the deck on the third floor goes from 75 to 110. And the deck on the rear goes from 160 to 83. We're in a unique situation that the rear deck of the house is actually more noticed by neighbors because there's a bunch of neighbors that are closer to the rear. So we're kind of removing the rear deck. It's just a landing to get to the stairs. And the decks on the front, there are no neighbors across the street. So it's actually much less kind of in their way by putting it to the front of the house. We did pull it across the whole way. It does provide cover to the front entry door. Right now, when you walk in, there's no roof covering to it. So by bringing it out to the full width of the house, we give them coverage to the front door that goes into the lower level.

Thank you. Great. Excellent. All right. Do you have anything?

No, I think the answer to the question, my concern, I think the attorney addressed it, and that is I was worried about that 372 square foot second floor deck. And I had to put myself in the position that that really functions as a first floor, if you will. And it looked awfully similar to a case we had recently that I denied, incidentally. But given that it serves as a first floor activity, I'm okay with that. That was my big concern here.

Could you come back with the third floor change, please? I didn't write fast enough.

Or the third floor? Yeah.

It's existing and what it's going to?

75 square feet is the existing and 110 square feet is the proposed. And that's enough to fit a table chair. But it also creates a roof for some sun protection, rain protection for the deck below.

And on the second floor, it looks like the deck does not come out the full width off the house of the first floor. Deckwright, you got some roof line there. So it's sort of hiding the size of that deck, if you would.

Yeah, I think you're talking about the top floor deck is set back from the second floor deck, which is set back from the first floor deck, right? Yeah. Well, there's a 1st floor 1st floor patio patio, right? Okay, which that that wall is out front. You can see that in the site plan. There's like, oh, there's like a light line that shows the. The front patio wall, it's hard to see, but it's in front of the hatch there. There's that's the white line of the patio below. So correct. The patio sticks out. 2nd floor deck steps in and then the 3rd floor deck steps in.

Okay. I see that.

So that's the second floor. So full width of the house as well, right?

Yes, that's correct.

I mean, and are you any intentions of screening that in or that open or what will be the status of that?

It's just been an open deck as far as I've presented so far. There's been no talk about screening in.

Yeah, I'm just looking to very quickly and the addition that you're putting on. That's to house a larger family room. Effectively, you're not there really isn't any growth on the, uh. Third floor, correct? Correct.

There's no third floor.

It doesn't go to the third floor. On the first floor, you're saying you're adding an aging-in-place bed, bath down there?

Yeah, first floor on the lower level so they can age in place. And then the second floor, you can see the footprint on the second floor. The front room is really narrow. You can barely even fit a couch in there, so it doesn't really even function as a family room. This gives them a proper spot for... a table to eat and the couch TV area. But this, the rear, the rear addition is so far within our setbacks and we're barely over a lot covered. So we felt that was, and you really couldn't even see it from the street mostly.

As Mr. Lee stated, you've discussed this with all of your abutting neighbors and no one had any issues or support for it.

One one neighbor on one neighbor to the west, there was not contact with and there's a big builder sign on that property. It's owned by some, some company and we assume that that house is going to be substantially modified, not removed. So hasn't been comments that no objection from anybody's

As you look across the street from the decks, I understand you'll have a bird's eye view of the lily pond, is it?

It's a lily pond.

Yeah, okay. Is that property over there buildable? Is that somewhat, that's a no?

No, not directly across the street. There's not much buildable envelope.

There's a lot of rock formation and stuff, I think.

Yeah, there's some wetlands there. But as you go directly down, I mean, there is a house, I think it's 57 Ruggles right there. You can see there are 55 or 57 Ruggles right there. But closer towards, as you can see, to the west and closer towards Ruggles, it's various. There's wetlands there.

Yeah, and then you go up the hill and there are rocks up there.

Come around. You don't see it so much from the aerial view, but the topography is quite dramatic. You go to the east, you go way up on the rocks. To the west as well, you go way up on the rocks.

Okay. Any else? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Herger-Rother. Did you want to make a closing statement?

No, just again, reemphasizing the uniqueness of the property with the living area on the second floor is really driving the variance request and the fact that it won't have any negative impact on any neighbors. Most of them have expressed their support for it.

That's all.

Right, as you stated. Okay, very good. knowing that there are no objectors in the audience, why don't we just move to a motion, if we could, Mr. Riley.

Okay, Mr. Chairman. On the petition of Melrose Muggles LLC, I move to adopt as the board's finding of facts, the information, the staff report, applications, supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, as well as representations of counsel, adopt as the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element under Chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications. That the petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision essentially requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public noticing be paid in full. And as a condition of recording.

The decision great Thank you. Um, do I have a 2nd 2nd. Thank you. Um. I'll open it up to anybody who has any discussion if there's discussion. Willing to listen to that?

Just have more of a statement than discussion. I don't even know if it's a statement. It's just, you know, the lot coverage is not anything I have an issue with. It comes back to the decks. We had a similar situation. We have seemingly every month now. And, you know, I remind myself that these are all judged individually. These are not, there's no precedent being set. When you mentioned the house next door could be coming in from a substantial renovation or something, won't have any impact on, you know, what we're saying here. But I just think that, you know, and again, a couple of years ago, the discussion of limiting size on decks wouldn't have been part of the conversation. So, Again, I think as a one-off, which is what we're looking at here, I think what's proposed for deck sizes is appropriate for what this house is and what this use is. And so... With that being said, and again, this is something we're going to continue to face every month. I think that I can vote. I think it's good design. I think it looks good. I think it's going to be a nice addition and compliment to the neighborhood. And so I will be willing to approve this.

And that's for everybody else.

Yeah. Yes, if I could. I just want to put on the record that I believe the hardship was made very well by um indicating that the first level that this house is unique in that it's that first level is really not not typical first level living space and it starts at the second level which makes that first that deck on that level more like a first level deck and i don't want to get any more confusing but it makes those decks more in line with with what they would be had that second level they have been right down on on on round level so and i think the decks are already there and they're just expanding the decks on a very uh um you know um minimal level as far as i can see and i think it does does um lead to um reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use and the lot coverage is very very minimal so i think all all sorts of things would point to uh making this uh uh a petition i could approve good

I also wanted to echo the sentiments of what my colleagues on the board have shared for me coming into this. It was the deck size, having that being a recent change to the ordinance with the size of these decks being larger than once we've probably previously considered. But I think the applicants did a good job of expressing the hardship here with the house and the land. And for those reasons, that's why I will be voting to approve this petition.

Sure.

Mark, do you want to say something?

Yeah, I'll just add a couple of things. One is I appreciate that you're taking this home, which needed a lot of work, and you're going to improve it considerably. I always like to see improvements. As I think Mr. Riley said and I said earlier on the deck, I think we described that the hardship is the fact that Your first floor is really on the second floor here. And that'll explain why I couldn't live with the decision to to have a much larger deck than what's allowed by ordinance. The lot coverage issue, they want to go from, they're allowed 20%, they're going to go 21%. It's not very often where we see just small incremental increases like that, although I think you had a baseline of 14%. I think this is going to be very much in character with the area. I think it's going to improve the area. And I didn't see any abutters or any objectors to this project. And so for all those reasons, and those reasons mentioned from my other board members, I would also vote to approve this petition.

Great. Thank you, Bart. I, too, will be approving this petition. I echo the comments of my colleagues, and I want to state for the record that it meets all my findings of fact, all the findings of fact. So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to poll the members of the board on their vote. Mr. Grimes, how do you vote on this petition?

Mr. Grimes is an aye.

Mr. Rudd is an aye.

Mr. Johnson, aye. Mr. Riley, aye.

Ms. Shevery, aye.

Well, that's all of us, so that's 5, nothing that's unanimous. Um, Mr leaves, can you write up the, uh, the decision for it? Good luck to you folks. Okay. That completes our abbreviated summary calendar and I believe we. Having taken care of that, we now have 3, 3 full hearings. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. Why don't we start with number one? Sounds good. This is the petition of Matthew Feeney, applicant and owner, 30 Poplar Street, Tax Assessors Platinum 16, lot 021-4 in an R10 zone historic overlay district. for dimensional variance to demolish an existing rear deck and construct a one-story addition to the existing house located 1.5 feet from the east side property line where 4.71 feet is required.

Okay. And you're Mr. Feeney, is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay, let me just ask, is there anybody here that is objecting to this petition, to Mr. Feeney's petition on Poplar Street? I don't see anybody objecting to it. There are no objectives. Can you please raise your right hand? You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding. Please state your name for the record.

Okay.

Very good. You're not being represented by anyone. Mr. Feeney, you're going to represent yourself. It appears. Is that correct?

Hopefully that will suffice.

Sometimes it does. And sometimes it doesn't roll the dice a little bit. That's okay. I hope not. Um, Tell us what you want to do and why you want to do it and why we should be approving this petition.

Yeah, I think, you know, first of all, I had to clear that the house is not only, you know, it's a contributing structure and it's also in a flood zone. So one of the things, just to kind of tell you from the get-go, the house is in rough shape, and it's very small, and it needs a good bit of work. The floors are probably about six-inch differentials, depending upon where you are in the living area. So what I wanted to do is I actually initially wanted to move the house to make it more compliant from a setback standpoint, because it sits way back. Historically, there used to be two lots there, and there used to be a house in the front. So I sit, I don't know if I'm not going to call it artificially, but I'm way in the back, so I don't have much of a backyard. And I'm right on the east property line. So I wanted to move the house up and center it, but if I did that, I was going to have to raise it. know seven feet uh and that would not none of my neighbors would have wanted that nor did i want that not to mention the cost to do that it's at a flood zone pardon me is it in a flood zone yeah papa street generally is yes yeah so when was the house built the house was built about 1859 okay And the old entrance used to be from 4th Street. There's a little easement that goes right out to what used to be 4th Street. So that's how they used to come to the house before. I think the original, the structure up front, I think was removed around 19, early 1930s. So I just, again, so I just wanted to get more space in the back. But I really can't do it. So I'm limited to do what I'm trying to attempt to do here. And that's just get some additional space. So I literally am coming out, you know, three feet in front of kind of the existing front of the right section of the home. and then a few feet in back and that's it. So in simple terms, I'm just removing what's there and making it about 250 square feet bigger. And that's it. And the problem I have is, You know, from a zoning standpoint, I'm 0.11 feet from the east property line. So that I absolutely had to get that, you know, that variance or seek that variance to do what I wanted to do. You know, I think it's about four feet is what, you know, is required. So that's the relief just on the east side that I'm looking for.

And 4.71.

That is 4.71.

What are you abutting there?

I'm sorry? What are you abutting at that .11 foot?

There's nothing there. It's a good question. I took some photographs that should be in the file there. There's nothing there but the driveway at my name. Joe Gibbons is the owner of the property that abuts. Yeah, there you go. That's the telephone pole that's resting against the part of the house. So I think you could probably understand. There's a couple other photographs that illustrate how I'm boxed in, if you will. So that's from the east, you know, from the east side of the house facing west. So what I wanted to do was just take that. There are two sections there that you can see. And I just wanted to make that one section and just make it bigger.

Well, yeah, I mean, it looks like you might want to fill in that corner.

Correct. Correct. Yeah.

Right. And that's the 250 feet.

Yeah. Well, I'm going out to the front, too, but I'm also going in the back. But the reality is that the bigger section there with the window, that's, you know, it's like right on the east side property line. And then the telephone part is probably the piece behind the telephone pole is probably there. you know, two and a half feet maybe off that East property line. So I'll pick up a little bit, but then I'm going to be losing, you know, in the front. But net, net, you know, I'm just going to pick up about 250 square feet so we can have more than, you know, two or three people in the room at one time and try to be comfortable. And I've spoken to Joe about that. That property right there is a rental property. So I think there are three or four tenants in there. So the only part, you know, yeah. So to answer your question, there's really nothing there. You're looking at it. It's just the back of his driveway.

I made a note in my records here that I wrote down that says you have worked with the city. Can you expound on that a little bit on this project or have you?

Well, I think if I said work with the city, it was with HTC, right? So there were specific things in going through HTC, whether it be the type of siding and the colors of the house, whatever, you know, they desired, I would be happy to work with them. I think that's what I was referring to.

OK. And this part, I can expand on that a little bit, too. He has worked with our building official, Brad Ward, to figure out how to comply with the flood requirements there. And then in consultation with myself when we were looking at this as the zoning relief that originally was submitted was to retain the exact setback that currently exists there, which is 0.11 feet. Essentially, what I expressed to Mr. Feeney was that when you actually go to construct something like that, you have to over excavate in order to build a foundation. And I expressed concerns with the fact he would have to excavate his neighbor's property in order to build the foundation for this new addition. And so that was where the one and a half foot setback came from was an attempt to essentially give enough room to excavate David Ensign, or a foundation and then build a house there's also additional fire rating requirements if you're within even five feet of a property line. David Ensign, And no allowance for windows if you're within three feet of a property line, so all of this, we were coordinating with the building official and with ourselves and Mr being figuring out. what they could actually apply for here and actually accomplish what would get approved. Because the HTC did not look at any setbacks. It's not part of their consideration. And so they approved the original plan at 0.11 feet. When we expressed our concerns of the ability to actually construct that, that's when we got a little bit of a setback on that side. I couldn't have said that better myself.

Thank you, Nick.

Other questions? Mr. Feeney? Nick, I have a question for you. Just what was yours and the office's thinking on making this a full hearing? What was the reasoning for that?

I think the original reasoning was that if the existing addition is being demolished, the existing kind of east wing of the House, let's say, that there was an ability to attempt to meet the setback requirement which is actually you know is reduced because it's substandard proportionality so it was more of could this have been accomplished with like meeting the four foot setback or maybe the three foot setback but after you know The only way to really get the square footage you would need for even a reasonably sized addition. This is kind of where it could be proposed, but that that was why we kind of we were on the fence, whether it should be abbreviated or full. Um, but I figured, as you kind of say, it's. kind of the same thing as you know if there's no objections it's just how much we kind of get into the deep no i understand and i'm not getting on your case i'm just trying to understand what the issues were that you were thinking about yeah it was more about was there an ability to either meet or maybe just slightly go into a setback when it originally came in as 0.11 i was like this this has to be a full just it's so close to the neighboring property um we appreciated really the the ability to pull it back a little bit to feasibly do it. Cause I think what would have happened is if we got to the building plans with a 0.11 setback, we probably would have been back here to fix something because you can't really do that and excavate on the neighbor's property.

You know, I understand that. Yeah. Okay. All right. No, good. Thank you. I appreciate that. Other questions for Mr. Feeney? Anybody?

Mr. Feeney, I'm curious, were there any other negotiations or back and forth with historic that you made when you brought your original idea with them?

Uh, I think really what they wanted to be comfortable with goes in with what Nick was talking about, that HDC was comfortable that what I was going to put forward that the building department would go for. I think they just wanted to avoid approving something and then have him be, you know, like Nick said, coming back and go, whoa, whoa, we got a problem. Right. So that was the back and forth between, you know, Brad Warren himself and the attorney just to get it to a place where we thought everybody could live with it.

Good. We appreciate that.

Quite welcome.

Okay. Anything else? Hearing nothing, let's please have a motion then.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the petition of Matthew Feeney, I move to adopt as the Board's finding of fact the information in the staff report, applications, supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, together with the comments spread on the record by the Board members and adopt as the Board's conclusion of law. The petition has met their burden of proof under each element on Chapter 17.108, Newport Zoning Ordinance, entitled Variances and Modifications. Um, petition be granted on the condition that the project we started substantially complete within 12 months. Of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices. Relating to the cost of public noticing, be paid in full and as a condition of recording a decision.

Very good Thank you. Mr. Vice chairman. Um, do I have a 2nd 2nd. Thank you, Ms. Chevery. I think we'll just have a quick discussion on this. Do you want to go first, Mr. Grimes?

Sure, I'd be happy to. This is a case where I think Mr. Feeney did everything right in this case. You know, I think it was clear that the hardship is sitting in a lot, right? It's such a small area. You're trying to make improvement. and a place which is really tired. It appears that your neighbors were okay with the project. I think your project is reasonable. You had it approved by the HDC. You worked very closely, apparently, with the city to make sure you dotted the I's, crossed the T's. And so for just a summary, I think it's a good plan, and I would support it.

Great. Thank you. Rush you want to go? Uh, I'd echo Mr Grimes's, uh, comments. I'd also add that as he stated, the hardship is due to the unique characteristics of the sub sec land and the size and the, uh, the challenges of the existing footprint. Um. You know, this is a house was built in 1859, so this. Other challenges that go along with that. So it's, uh, uh, we're happy to, uh. See, you come in and make an improvement that that fits your, uh, your needs better. Uh, certainly nothing that you did, uh, uh. had any prior uh action with this um i think you're not really affecting too much you're adding a small addition so won't have any uh any real influence or changes on the surrounding uh characteristics of the area so for those reasons uh i i can uh approve this petition great thank you nicole would you like to go

Sure, um, I just want to say sometimes with these smaller properties, the more challenging 1, so I appreciate all you did to work with the city, um, the make sure everything squared away before coming to zoning. So you don't have to come back again. Uh, there's a clear hardship here with the setting of the historic structure. Um, obviously you can't move the house without great expense to yourself. Um, and additionally, with the being in the flood zone, you were limited to what you could and cannot do. Um, and then with the over day with your neighbor being so close. So, in my mind, echoing the sentiments of my. Fellow colleagues, this makes all the findings of facts for approving this petition.

Right Thank you, Dave. Yeah, I also will be approving this petition. The hardship was was obviously the fact that that your property was built on the property line and anything built or done to that. Portion of it, I never thought I'd say this that you've increased your set back to 1 and a half feet. I'm happy to be right that, but it still doesn't comply. But I think it will not alter the character of the neighborhood. I'm very, very happy that a person like yourself has bought the property. It's a little house in the point section. It will continue to be a nice little house in the point section, although updated and improved and not seven feet up in the air with two more stories on top, maybe three more stories on top of that. So, I think it's a, uh, a tribute to you to build, uh, build on the lot and the type of home it was, um. And, uh, that it will certainly, uh, in granting this petition, not impair the intent or the purpose of the zoning on. So, I'll support it.

Great. Thank you. I, too, will be supporting the sentiments of my colleagues. I think it's, dare I say, an elegant solution to the problems that you have. And I understand the difficulty of doing it and where you had choices, but they really weren't choices. I agree with what you're doing. And, again, it meets all of the findings of fact that we have here. So I, too, will be voting to approve this petition. We'll start again. Mr. Grimes, how do you vote on this petition?

Mr. Grimes, aye.

Mr. Rudd is an aye. Mr. Johnson, aye. Mr. Riley, aye.

Ms. Chevery, aye.

That's 5-0. It worked. You got it. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Good luck.

Appreciate it.

Good luck. Good luck to you. Okay. Moving along. So now we flip-flopped the two flurry properties petitions, and we're going to do number three as number two. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.

Let's go. Okay. This is the petition of Fleury Properties LLC applicant, Swan Investments Group LLC owner, I'm sorry, is that Swain, not Swan? Pardon me. Swain Investment Group, LLC owners, 173-175 Cockshall Avenue, Tax Assessors Platte 37, Lot 74 in an R10A zone for dimensional variances to construct a front porch roof overhang 13.5 feet from the front property line where 15 feet is required. construct third floor dormer additions matching the existing non-conforming roof height of 36.5 feet where 30 feet is allowed, construction of a 420 square foot in-ground pool, and a 1,296 square foot two-story accessory structure containing a four-car garage and communal living space above, increasing the lock coverage from 19.11% to 23.34%, where 20% is allowed. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Before we get started, Mr. Jackson, is anybody here in the audience that objects to this petition? I do not think we... We didn't have any written objections, did we, to this one? Is anybody here objecting to this petition on Coggio? Okay. I'm waiting for you guys. We'll get there. So, please, we don't have any objectors either written or in the audience tonight. So, please, again, your presentation, Mr. Jackson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jay Russell, Jackson, Miller, Scott, Holbrook, and Jackson on behalf of both the applicant Fleury Properties LLC and the property owner Swain Investment Group LLC. I think what I'd like to do is I'm going to give you a little background. This property, since it was first acquired last year by Fleury Properties, and then there's a new owner in place, but Fleury is still involved in the project, has had a long procedural history with the city in terms of permitting over the last year. I wanted to go through that just for a minute or two to give you context of how and why we arrived at the application that's before you this evening. So if I could, I have a handout I just wanted to provide. It's a single page, and if we could just have it identified as Applicants Exhibit 1.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So marked and noted. Thank you.

So originally, Mr. Jackson, this was a stable, wasn't it?

This is correct. This is a stable building. It's down towards the end of Cockshall. It's directly across the street from properties that face Bellevue Avenue and which are in the historic district. So this property is not in the historic district. And although this particular building... One is not in Newport's historic district and it's not identified in any specific U.S. Department of Interior or Rhode Island, you know, historic preservation, you know, index as a contributing structure. It is it was built in the 1890s, I think, and it was stable in relation to Bellevue Avenue estate.

OK, so.

Just to give a little background again, when the applicant first acquired the property last year, the plan originally was to demolish this building. Structurally, it's still in good shape. But overall, it's in pretty rough condition, and it needs a complete rehabilitation. So the original plan was to demolish that and seek a subdivision, which created two, maybe three lots, because the existing parcel is just under 30,000 square feet. We submitted the demolition application to be heard by the Technical Review Committee. I had a meeting with planning staff. And the idea of demolishing this building didn't sit well with planning staff. And they wanted the applicant to explore options to come up with a plan that would salvage the building, because the planning staff very much thought of this as a historic asset and wanted to see it preserved. We did go through with the meeting with the TRC eventually, and there was a recommendation allowing for the demolition of this building. And we just did that to sort of complete that process and have that in hand. Excuse me. In the meantime, we collaborated with the planning department and came up with a plan, which is before you this evening, which essentially subdivided the property Created a parcel which contained the historic structure. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Added a pool in the backyard and then also carved off a 10,000 square foot lot, which was. flag-shaped, but it had its own access directly to Cogshall Avenue. So we went through a hearing process in front of the planning board last fall. There were objectors to this. And after a long hearing, the planning board supported the application, granted the minor subdivision, and granted the associated dimensional variances that were part of the unified development review application. The neighbors who had concerns about that took an appeal to Superior Court. So because the project was in many respects idle due to the waiting for an outcome in Superior Court appeal, which frankly will probably take another year and a half even from this point, the client came up with an alternate plan which was to let the parcel remain intact, and then construct the accessory amenities that are before you this evening, which do result in lot coverage being over the 20%. also a couple other dimensional variances including building height to match the existing roof. The carriage house itself has four dwelling units and it has historically had four dwelling units. So one of the, aside from the structure itself, one of the things that the planning department really wanted us to see was to maintain those four dwelling units. And so again, the plan that went in front of the planning board maintained those four dwelling units and also added a new lot where we could create a new dwelling unit on a separate parcel. We're going to have to move away from that because it's, you know, the uncertainty and the time associated with sticking with that plan is not tenable. So we came up with this plan, again, saving the historic building, maintaining the four dwelling units in it, which are going to be converted to condominium and sold individually. and creating two accessory structures which provide amenities to the condominium unit owners. One is obvious, the pool. The other one is a four-car, I'll refer to it as even that as a carriage house or garage.

There is space above it, but the primary objective is to have four garaged parking spaces for the unit owners. The space above on the second level

is just an open room. And because it's in the R-10A, there's no possibility that we can seek to have a dwelling unit installed there. This property is already over the density requirement. And we can't do an ADU up there, because ultimately this property is going to be fractional ownership through the condominium declaration. So the intent is to have open space up there and the association, I think the applicant hasn't decided yet, but it could be a gym available to the workout room or even like There's been discussion about a potential golf simulator up there, different amenities that could be enjoyed. Or maybe it just remains an open space and could be a function room that the different owners could use if they wanted to for some reason. If you look at the floor plans associated with that garage, there's a half bathroom on the first level, which kind of services the pool area. And there's a half bathroom on the second level, which would service sort of the function or common area room. So I did, after putting this plan together and filing the application, I did touch base with the attorney that represents the objectors who have taken an appeal to Superior Court. There doesn't seem to be any objection or concern with this plan. With the understanding if this plan gets through, we will make it through the appeal period and the approval vests, and the project can go forward, then the previous approval for demolition and also the previous unified development review approval will be abandoned. So that's kind of where we are now. So just to give a couple other things in terms of context, I know because this is such a large lot and a conforming lot that the staff report was sort of neutral, but there is obviously some concern about looking for lot coverage at the level we're asking, which is 23.34% on a lot that's so big. But a couple of things to keep in mind, one, The existing structure is enormous in terms of its footprint. So again, without the pool, without that proposed accessory structure, just the existing historic stable on a lot this big is over 19% lot coverage. So it doesn't leave a lot of room to do amenities or accessory buildings which are appropriate for building that size and stay under the 20%. Just to give you a little bit of a sense to try to not quite apples to apples, but to give you some type of context and comparison on the previous subdivision plan that was approved, the planning board had granted and allowed for 29% lock coverage on the 18,000 square foot lot, which would have the historic structure on it and a pool. Then obviously the new vacant lot, you could build another 2000 square feet. So if that plan, um, weren't appealed and it had come to fruition, the total combined would be about 25% lot coverage. So what's before you this evening on basically the 29,000 square feet still amounts to something less than what had already been approved at the end of last year by the planning board.

That's sort of an overall

explanation of how we got here.

I have with me this evening a representative, a project manager from Fleury Properties, Tyler Johnson.

He can answer any specific questions I guess about the building itself. I do have the project architect Mark Rapp who can testify regarding The plans that have put together and probably give some explanation about the proposed dormer on the back. The dormer is on the backside of the roof at the third level to increase some usable living space. Discuss some of the things we're doing to the existing historic structure to help reduce the footprint a little bit and mitigate the request for lot coverage. Then we have Mr. Houle as our real estate expert.

Thank you.

So I'm happy to answer any questions. If not, I can have the architect come up and just sort of walk through what the proposal is as well.

Any questions to begin with or should we move on? Okay. Let's proceed. Yes, sir. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

Mark Rapp. So, Mark, you are the project architect, right? Yes. And you're a licensed architect in the state of Rhode Island?

Yes.

And you have worked with the applicant and property owner to develop plans that are before the board's seat, is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Why don't you go just, let's first just talk about what are the existing conditions in relation to this project?

The existing carriage house is a large structure. It's been cleared out of its interior partitions as of now. But it's primarily a, it's basically a two and a half storey, three storey structure inside with half of the building on slab on grade close to it and no basement, another half a small crawl space. So the living space is only on floors one and two. And so I was tasked with reconfiguring it into four units that would work within the volume, which we did. So we cut into 4 townhouses rather than apartments. So, um, the way it works is that it's the one 2 family code is a simpler building, but each owner has their own independent unit from ground level up to the roof. Fire separated and you have egress front and back. Secondly, the third floor under the gable, we added some living space under the rafters. But to get some headroom, we added small shed dormers facing the one side so that that bedroom could have a little more headroom in the stairway, get up there. So it makes the two center units a little more usable and livable as units. There are only three bedroom units. The other two units, I think, are two bedroom each. So they're pretty modest. They're a big building, but it's a modest apartment.

Right. And when we talk about the four units, the four units already existed in this building, right? Yes. Yes. Now, you mentioned the one on the back. Can you walk through one of the dormers, where those dormers were located and Yes, they're serving. I think there's also a dormer on the building.

Yeah, the two dormers on the backside of the building have just, there's a shed dormer on the backside which serves as two center units. They make up a three-story unit. They're within, they're under the existing ridge of the building. But we kept a shed roof out to make some living space up there within the form. The cupola remains intact above their head. And then on the street side of the building, the other dormers for an elevator so that you could have accessibility in all three floors. So because the first floor is so close to grade, on the forecourt, the center two units could be accessible on all three floors with the elevator, in the residential elevator inside. So it makes it a much more usable space for people. So the ground floor just has living on those two units. The bedrooms are on the second and third floors. I think we removed a deck on the back side of the building that was protruding and we minimize the entrances from the back with minimal decks and stairs to get into the building. So you'll see that the stairways. And primarily large landings to get in. There's no real, we didn't really add a deck to the ground level. We added a second floor deck on the first unit to the left. And we have two small decks on the third floor, but they all conform to the deck coverages within the zoning ordinance.

So, and again, in that southwest corner of the building, there's already, there exists now a large exposed deck.

Yeah.

That's been reduced in size.

It's going to be removed, yes.

And in that southwest corner as well, there's a roof modification as well, is there?

Yes. We extended, we continued, kept the roof and Continued that hip root forward to cover the second floor space had a really low slope group. So that's part of extending the existing bridge on that building.

So that portion does not exceed the existing 36.5 feet. Correct. And as well as the shed warmer across the rear of the structure, right?

Correct.

Lastly, just in terms of, again, modifications to this building, currently there is, for better or for worse, a roof covering a parking space or a parking corner facing Cockrell Avenue, right?

Yes.

And that existing condition basically is right up against the property line.

Yes.

No setback, right? Correct. That's being eliminated, correct?

Yes.

Can you explain quickly the... The overhang that does need to be here to see I believe it's the corner of the corner.

Yeah, exactly. Yes. Yeah.

So again, that's just to square off the piece of this. Yes, definitely appropriate. Yes. Yes. Obviously, that is much better than Yes. Why don't you could walk through the proposed garage.

The client requested enough space to support the main building. So they wanted to make sure they had one car, one stall for each tenant. And then the foot floor plate also included a small cabana for the swimming pool on the site. So that the ground floor would be four cars, a cabana, and then a stair to a second story space, which would act as a common exercise or community room for the tenants because they wanted to provide some more amenities to the owners.

Yes. Yes. I can't recall, but it's under the required height restriction, height limit for accessory structure. I can't see it. Yeah. Yes, yes. All right, so that other than the fire from there. Correct. And no other questions.

Okay. Or members any questions for a couple.

So, I was wondering if you could speak to the, what the is driving the need for more amenities here.

The client requested. I think at the level at which they're going to be finished, they're pretty significant town homes when they're done. And it's a large lawn, which is nice, but people sometimes want a place to put their car or some other pieces in the swimming pool. Sometimes it's a nice asset to have on site.

And is a garage of that size typical for the neighborhood right now?

Well, I don't know if it's typical, but each car's standard car size space is no larger than that, plus the stairway and the cabana. So that contributes to the length of the building.

Okay. And where will the pool equipment be located?

I'm not exactly sure yet. I think that they would have located it probably between the pool and the garage in that area somewhere. Okay.

And will that infringe on any setbacks or require any additional lot coverage? No. And with a pool supporting a facility at the side, are there any distinctions that we should be aware of for residential versus commercial pool equipment?

I don't think so. I'm not an expert on that.

Okay. And are there any plans for, like, if the pool needs to be drained or where that water might run off to? I have no idea how that's handled. Okay. And can you speak a little bit to the need for the garage versus a carport versus like a parking lot or?

Yeah, I think I think people want to put at least one of their cars in a covered protected enclosure. That's the asset to them. I think even for a carport or a park, we still need lot coverage for that. That piece. So the coverage, these proposed structure.

Okay. Um, in terms of water runoff, um, from the new structure, um, what's the plan to, to mitigate any impacts there?

The, uh, site engineer principal associates has proposed a stormwater management. You'll see to about south. I think it's the, uh, south west side of the site there. West side property takes care of all the additional lock coverage on the property.

Okay. And what is that about right now? Is that like a neighboring property or?

I believe so. Yes.

And it looks like there's maybe like a basketball court there and maybe another house that'll be pretty close to.

Those are the neighbors that objected to the last plan. Okay. The subdivide along the west side, the back of the subject parcel. So again, knowing that runoff was one of their concerns from the last go around, we made sure that we created a robust stormwater management system, which naturally sloped down the side.

Will there be any screening with that being there? Because that could be pretty unsightly.

I mean, there can be. I think there is some natural vegetation across the back of the lot right now. But I mean, certainly if people have the desire to HAB-Jacques Juilland, suggest a condition, whether it's providing across the back property line word. HAB-Jacques Juilland, I think that would be acceptable.

HAB-Masyn Moyer, Like a mature variety. HAB-Masyn Moyer, Okay. HAB-Masyn Moyer, Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to the garage. The 1,296 feet jumped out at me as being large for a four-car garage. What part of that is servicing the pool room area? What square footage would be the pool area and the stairs that go upstairs to the large open area on that.

I can't read the numbers precisely on my drawing, but it looks to be about, if the garage is 24 feet deep, it's about 12 feet by maybe 10 feet by 24 feet deep. If you see the floor plan, you can see how the four bays are there, and then the bottom portion contains the cabana, the swimming pool, and the stair up to the upper level. So we try to make it as minimal as possible to get up there.

So, what do you think that is?

Yeah.

Okay. And. I, I compute, but on the north side of the property where this garage is going to be facing. There were a large out of ities and the 1st part of it. Do they go the whole length of the property?

I think there's a hedge that runs along that property.

OK, that that would give some. Some vegetation protection to the neighborhood for my. OK. Thank you. Russian question.

Yeah, I'd like I'm trying to find a plan or an elevation. I'm trying to get my arms around the front porch because that's going to be probably the most prominent addition that you're doing to the building. The dormer in the back, as Mr. Jackson said, you know, won't be really visible. But I'm trying to visualize what that's going to look like. And as I say, that's right on Cockshall Avenue.

I'll be honest. I don't know precisely where that came from in the variants of porch coverage.

It's referred to as a porch, but it's just the overhang of the roof. The entrance area. It's just a corner. Like a candelabra.

That's existing.

The entrance is existing here in the area. Yeah, see the slight reference there on the site, you'll find a slight extension of it.

Yeah, that's an existing covered porch right now.

Well, it's an existing, right, there's an existing build out there.

Correct.

So, you're just keeping that? There's no carport or anything that's going to go on the front facade of that building to cover over anything?

No. If you look in the lower right corner, that's the section that I just said that there's a Yeah. Yep. Right. Okay.

So there's currently a total of eight. Well, there's going to be a proposed total of eight parking spaces. There you go. Thank you. So you're saying that that little porch extension or that little overhang, that's a carport right now?

Well, it's a covered area. People probably park under it, but it's going to be removed. It's going to be removed entirely.

Okay. So I was asking, for some reason I thought you were going to have that same roof line coming off the front of the building, which would have altered things a lot. Okay, so there's basically four parking spaces in front of the building and four in the new proposed garage.

Correct. The forecourt sort of acts like guests can show up and get to the front door of the units, whereas the garage, the owners can go to the garage. come in the back of their units.

Okay. Is the opening, the entrance, all the stonework and all that's all going to remain the same? Yes. Okay. And the stucco, all that's going to be restored? You're going to bring that?

Yeah, we're working to redo. We had to rearrange the windows, new layouts, so we're trying to bring back. They have timbered effect with a new... It'll look the same, but it won't be the same material. in the sense that it'll still be siding, it'll still be a stucco panel, and it'll still be half timber. We're gonna build it in a different manner, but it'll look primarily the same way.

Might be something that doesn't leak.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Bart? Yeah, I can see it.

But talk to me about the pool. Do you have plans for a pool house and that type of an accessory?

Right now, what they proposed is the swimming pool. And then there's a little pergola between the pool and the garage, open pergola. And then the pool house would essentially be the little cabana inside the garage where there's a little bathroom and a little kitchenette so people can go there. So there's no separate structure for the pool. Okay.

Okay.

Just give me an idea. So you're going to create, at the end of the day, you're going to have four condominium units. Are they all going to be about the same size? Give me an idea of what living space is in there.

The two in the center are three stories, where the two on the end are going to be two stories, because that's what we have volume-wise at the building. As I said, the two in the center have an elevator, provide accessibility to all three floors. whereas the units on the left and right don't have that. But they're all self-contained townhomes.

Okay, I'm trying to get a sense. Are they about 2,000 square feet?

I'm trying to find the number on the plan. I'm sorry, but I had that. I don't know exactly their square footage.

I'm just trying to get an idea. I'm all the park here. That's all.

Let's see, I think the large unit to the left is around 3,000 square feet.

Wow.

Two in the center around 2,200 square feet, and the unit to the right is around 2,000 square feet. So between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet each.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Substantial.

So... I live down the street from there and go down to Reject Beach to go swimming a lot and pass by that. Last summer, was that what was going on there? Were they gutting the building last summer? Is that what was happening? Yeah. Okay. Because there were dumpsters outside and they were throwing stuff out the windows and all this stuff. So was there a floor plan ready at that time or were you just taking it down to the studs essentially? Yeah.

I think it was shortly after the acquisition of the property, and it was at that point just doing an interior demolition. There were no floor plans, no plans yet. It was still honestly undetermined whether or not the building was going to be completely demolished and the plan subdivided or whether the building was going to be preserved.

So the applicant at that time just got a head start on the partial demolition of the interior demolition.

Okay. And so for that, I would assume you would have to go to the planning board for that as well, right?

Not the interior demolition. To remove the building, we had to go in front of the technical review committee.

Okay.

We don't have to go in front of the planning board anymore on those. And again, because the property is not in the historic district, we don't have to go in front of the HTC. Right. It's just going in front of the technical review committee. And we did that.

Yep. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Is it still that way? I mean, it's basically down to the studs. Yeah.

Again, because of the procedural history here, the preferred plan was create a lot in back that got appealed. And over the last, you know, few months, the applicant is pivoted to try to come up with a plan, which creates four high-end condominiums and come up with some amenities that are associated with those condominiums and do so in a way that doesn't trigger objection from the neighbors who took the appeal of the previous plan to Superior Court. So I think we've achieved that with what's going to be tonight by virtue of the fact that they're not here. They didn't write in.

No, understood. So, yeah, you seem to have quelled that. And so it looks to me like this is sort of like an English Tudor style, and you've stated that that's the way it's going to stay, that look on the outside?

Yes.

Okay.

All right. I'm good. Anything else, Mr. Rath?

What? Oh, yeah, sure. Richard, can you explain? I understand this is to go through the building department and be up to code, but converting some of these old structures can be challenging at times. So I understand there's going to be two main elevators. What's the second means of egress? Does each individual unit have a second way out? I didn't see any decks or wire ladders.

Yes. The way it works is that as we cut them into townhomes, we put a two-hour wall between each unit from the foundation, from the basement crawlspace up to the roof. And then we separate the structure at that firewall. And then you'll notice that at each unit, there's a door to the forecourt. There's also a door to the back deck side of the building. I mean, under the building code, under the one and two family code, we only need one door from a single family home by code for egress.

So how high up is the third floor, correct? So should not need a fire escape. It's 20 feet if I believe, is that correct?

No, in the one and two family code, you need one stairway and egress out the door, but you also need emergency escape and rescue windows in each sleeping room. So that necessitated the dormer on the third floor to make it usable space, windows had to be larger, get out, fire egress. So it's common in a single family home, but two means of egress are the stair and the emergency escape rescue window. Those are the two means of egress in a single family home.

Thank you. Okay. All set? Thank you, Mr. Rapp. Mr. Hall, please. Yes, let me swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding?

I do.

Please state your name.

James Hall.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, do you think... Mr. Boole, I ask that you recognize him as an expert.

In real estate, yes. Yes, we will.

So, Mr. Boole, you were actually engaged last year and you testified in support of the original plan to subdivide Westside, correct?

That's right.

So, once the plan to redevelop this project, you've had the opportunity to review the application and to prepare a report, correct?

Yes.

That report's been submitted to the board this evening?

Yes.

And before you get started, just so I have it on the record, do you adopt all of your findings and conclusions and opinions set forth in that report?

Yes.

So if you could, why don't you just sort of walk through your analysis and give your opinion to the board regarding it.

Sure. So Mr. Jackson really outlined the problem in this particular case, is that this proposal is a total step down from what had been proposed and approved back by the planning board last year, because that would have actually increased density. It would have increased lot coverage beyond exactly what is here now. The whole thing has been predicated by the fact that the planning department had really wanted to protect this four-unit building. They were really very anxious and put a lot of pressure on the developers to maintain this four-unit building, which I sort of can understand because it's an interesting building. But it leaves a very non-conforming lot in play or use on this lot it's still a large four-unit building which you don't see many of along the stretch of cockshell avenue so um you're working with what they have i think this is really a very good proposal because it it now ratchets back you don't have that extra lot you don't have as much lot coverage You're retaining this building that is deemed contributing by the city. So I think that the plan that's been presented now is very good. You only have the minimus increases in lot coverage. The third floor dormer is no higher than the existing roof line. The existing roof line is already above the 30 feet. So really, the You know, the proposal is really not extending anything except for the lot coverage. And so for that reason, I think it's good. Now, I look at the garages and the pool as being very common accessory type structures for a large four unit condominium complex. You know, Ms. Chevrie asked the question about whether it's typical. It's not typical to have it in this neighborhood, but neither is the use. You know, but the garages are very typical for any kind of a condominium development. You think of the ones down on the wharf that all have garages. They're all, you know, detached garages all separated are very important to have them. So it's very common. accessory use, you're able to not only store some of the cars, but you're also able to store some personal property in the garage, which I think makes the whole lot look that much cleaner. I think that the architectural balance of having the building is actually going to be good on site. And the pool is a very common use. Mr. Riley asked a question about the size. 1,200 and some odd square feet. That's only 300 square feet per car. A typical garage and a 12 by 24 garage is going to be just the same size. So per person. And since you have the four units, it's a very standard, to me, this is a very standard size. The idea of having a second floor is really a benefit. It gives common space, indoor space for the people who live on site. It's only going to have bathroom. It's not going to be living area. It's only going to be used for accessory use. So when I look at it, the hardship obviously is that you're dealing with trying to keep this contributing building, make it into a more conventional and typical condominium complex. So the hardship is the existing building, the existing size of the building. They certainly didn't build this building. It's been there forever. And I don't think it because it's already been on site. And because it's been used as a four unit building for as long as I can remember, I think that, you know, it's very compatible with the neighborhood. I don't see any problem with the outside garage or the pool. I think they're very common accessory structures. So overall, I think it's the, you know, the minor variances that are being requested are very much in harmony with the area, and I don't think it can create any detrimental conditions. So I think it's a good plan, and it's, like I said, lesser than what's already been approved.

And just to confirm, you've gone through each of the Yes, I mean, you're not dimensional variances really only have to do with a lot coverage and a couple of minor things on the building.

the garage and the pool fit within the building envelope. So there's no setback relief. There's no other type of relief being requested.

Questions for Mr. Houle? Anybody? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I really need to provide any closing statement. I think we've gotten a good explanation of how we arrived here in terms of the application. The architects walk through the modifications of the existing building and the elements that will require the request for the variance he's discussed. the size and proposed use of that garage building. And you've heard from Mr. Poole, so I think you've got ample evidence in the record indicating that the applicant has met its burden for the granting of the requested dimensional variances. And I would respectfully request that you grant those variances.

So, I have one quick question or comment. These stables, I mean, back in 1895, when was it built?

I think it was the 1890s is my recollection of when this was built, yeah.

So surrounding that stable and that mansion at that time probably was farmland, I would assume, right?

Likely. Much more space than, yeah.

My point being is that that was the first thing there, and other things got built around that. Sure. Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. Which may speak to why that's one of the larger parcels along that strip of Cocktail Avenue on the west side.

Yep, absolutely.

Okay.

Great.

Thanks.

Chairman, if I could, could just, uh, I know that that Ms. Jeffrey is as well as myself. I had some concern about the, uh. The, uh, privacy, um. Aberdeen privacy around both that north side and the back and didn't know if that would be something we'd want to condition at this point or what's the feeling of the board?

Well, I think you said you would be amenable to that, right?

Sure. I think my thought on the north side property line is really vegetation's full. So if there's a condition that it be maintained.

Yeah.

that'd be fine. And then the West side property line, if there were a suggestion that I just, there is some vegetation there, so I don't, I don't want to commit the property owner to installing an entire row of arborvitae, but I, there's some, some, it's a lot of vegetation on the West side of that property. What's that? There's a lot of vegetation on the West side of that property. So, I mean, I, if there's a condition that additional arborvitae be planted where appropriate or something like that, I mean, So there's no objection to providing the screening. I just, honestly, I haven't been out there in a while, so I don't know exactly what we've got in terms of how full the vegetation is on the west boundary, but my recollection is both the north and west are pretty well screened.

But if you see a pit to... I'm sorry. That's all right. While I have it on my... Yeah. If the condition was something that vegetation screening be maintained on the north and the west side of the property.

Yeah.

Would that be okay?

That'd be great.

Yeah. That, that, that seemed okay. Yeah. Is everybody okay with that?

I think the only distinction, what I would make is like, like a mature, like, cause I, in that picture that Nick just had up there, it doesn't look like there's much vegetation and I would hate to be like a, a two foot everybody's added or something. Cause I think that's not the intent of what we're getting at with the screening.

Yeah, again, I don't know how thick the brush is on that back. I don't know that it's a uniform hedge the way the North property line is. So certainly, if you want to include a condition that mature arborvitae be planted as needed to provide screening across the West property line. And I mean, we can... When the building permits are pulled, I don't know if, you know, I suppose Nick could review what's proposed just to determine if it's consistent with the condition, you know?

I just think it's important that that is a one-family residential neighborhood generally, and this sort of would sort of... I think close off that condominium four units and so forth makes sense.

So I didn't mean to speak about not doing something on the south side, the street side of the property when you drive down to that single family that had the basketball hoop. That we talked about, I'm just saying that that has similar to the north side of the property that has mature vegetation now. So, I think I think you're agreeing to say that you will basically infill with mature. Uh, or whatever the species is to provide the screening that we're talking about that we're looking for.

Yeah. No offense just the only thing I'd say, I don't want to split hairs, but Mr Johnson, that South side.

Yeah.

Um, that is not a street. That's a driveway. And I believe the owner of that property, the plantings that you see, I think, belong to the abutting property owner. Yeah, so I don't know what, um. I certainly understand the concern about the north and the west side and will comply with that. I don't know what else might be needed on the south side. That buffer, the buffer that exists looks like there's a little bare spot, but generally the buffer that exists are plantings that the abutting property owner.

So ostensibly what you're saying is, is that if he's put them in and if he's not happy with them, maybe he'll put something else in.

Yeah.

But if he doesn't, then he's okay.

Yeah. And again, it just looks at the driveway. It doesn't, it's not, Um, it's not a, it's not a portion of the subject parcel, which sort of would otherwise look over into their yard or their basketball court or their residence.

Okay. You guys okay with that? Yeah. Okay.

One other question I had, are there any restrictions on the usage of those garages? Like for example, uh, owner uses the garage stall as like a bike repair shop or a pod studio, like a cottage industry.

I can, I can speak to that. Home occupations can only take place within a primary residence. So they would no home occupation would be allowed within an accessory structure at all. It's it's standard on a current property, you can't run a home business out of your garage, it has to be with your your primary house where you live. So there would be no no issue there. We issue a citation.

Okay. Wonderful.

And we haven't gotten there yet, but the condominium documents on a residential condominium usually have rules and regulations that talk about the uses that are allowed on site, and they all have to be residential in nature.

Okay.

Fair enough. Okay, let's put this in the form of a motion, please.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the petition of... Flurry properties, LLC, and swain investment group LLC. I moved to adopt the board's finding a fact information staff board applications, supporting documents and testimonial witnesses along with the representations of counsel and exhibits that have been marked together with the comments spread on the. on the record by the board members and adopt the board's conclusion of the law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the Newport zoning ordinance entitled variances and modifications that the petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially complete within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision And, um, the additional condition that the North and West side of the property be screened with mature vegetation.

Is that language sufficient for you? Mr. Jackson. At the end on the condition, um.

Yeah, because the North side is already mature, so we're just maintaining that and we'll fill it where necessary on the. The West side.

Okay. Very good. Do I have a second?

Second.

Very good. Anybody itching to start?

Sure.

Art? Sure. Go on lead off.

Okay, this is one of the first condominium projects we've we've faced. So as I examine this project, one of the concerns I had originally was, was we putting too much on this property. But I but I think that a pool A garage, a four-car garage for a four-condominium unit is reasonable and is a common amenity. I was also a little bit concerned about what's going on upstairs on top of those garages. Well, once again, I believe if it was my project, I'd probably put a gym up there or something along those lines. And I believe they also want to put some support for the pool. So what they're asking for, I think, is reasonable. I'm also satisfied that they've determined with the neighbors and the city and others to preserve the project versus demolishing it. Because I think it's a really unique project property. And I think it's kind of consistent with the character of Cogshall Avenue, where they save a lot of those type of homes. And keep in mind, too, their neighbors, they have residential neighbors, but across the street. How about Bellevue Avenue, some of those big mansions? So it's consistent. I have to admit that that place, the condition, one of the hardships is that the condition of the place was, I thought it was just terrible. And frankly, I'm a little surprised they were able to maintain the bones of the building, but apparently the architects have come to the agreement. But it was a bad condition, and now we're looking to put some upscale condominiums, which would be a nice improvement. There apparently was one objective, what Mr Jackson was speaking about, and it sounds to me that that issue has been satisfied. The other issue that comes up is about the lot coverage. You know, the lot coverage, I think it currently is about 19%. We want to increase up to 23%. I think that's a moderate increase given the size of this project. And keep in mind, too, a lot of this project is facing the back of the building where nobody will ever see it. So anyway, for those reasons and others, and I'm sure some of my colleagues will expound on it, I would vote to support this petition.

Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Grimes. So I think we'll just go straight across on this one. I'm ready to go. I am going to support this petition as well. A couple of reasons. I do echo what Mr. Grimes said in terms of his reasoning, particularly the fact that. They have already been approved for 25 percent and change by the by the planning board. So as was stated, I think by either Mr. Rapp and or Mr. Rule or both of them. And which is true is that this is a is a couple of percentage point less than what they've already been approved for. So. you know, we always talk about mitigations and, and in terms of, you know, giving, getting something and giving something and then getting something. And so I think we are getting something there in 2% less lot coverage. Um, I'm not concerned about the, uh, the garage and the common space, uh, particularly as it's been explained. Uh, I think that they're just standard garages. I think it's a standard amenity for a place like that. Um, in terms of having a covered space for your car. And so I have no problem with that. In addition, swimming pools, as we found out in the first petition, for Mr. Toback, used to not be included for lot coverage, and now they are. So there can be an argument there that, you know, is that really lot coverage? So I'm not going to get into that, but I'm not concerned about the swimming pool is what it comes down to for me. So for those reasons, and also, too, that's why I asked the question. To your point, Mr. Grimes, the property predates everything else that was there. So everything else got built around this property. It's not that they came in and invaded the space of everybody else. And I'm not saying the other houses invaded them, too, but that's the way it was back in those times. And if you go up the street towards Bellevue Avenue, I think you're going to run into Bell Court. I think it's right around there and a couple other places. So for those reasons and for the reasons that I believe that it does meet all my findings of fact, I will be voting to approve this petition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will be voting to approve this petition. I think that one of the key points for me is that this is going to be a restoration of, even though it's not in a historic district or defined as a historic property, it is historic. It's built in the 1890s. We don't know what property it was attached to, but it certainly was probably part of a Bellevue Avenue site. The fact that it's being saved from demolition, that was one of the considerations here. I mean, that's tremendous that it's going to be saved and it's going to be brought back and become a contributing resource. structure again, um, and, and as I say, be restored. Um, the history of this property is, uh, it was kind of amusing to read that, uh, the space above the garage is being defined as communal living space because the former owner, Mr. Gallagher, I would say ran a commune of the people that, that lived there. It was, uh, it was quite a, uh, quite an establishment, so I imagine there was a fair amount of work that would need to be done to this. I think that I was satisfied with the explanations as far as the requests for the porch extension being within the setback by a foot and a half. I was satisfied with that explanation. Also, The discussion about it, I felt the garage was, I was adequately discussed and I feel that through that conversation, I'm comfortable with the size. Appreciate it being brought up the pool. Again, I don't, I don't get pools, but, you know, I understand it's an amenity and, you know, why you'd want one. I have no idea, but I understand it's an amenity that people want and enjoy. Um, so, um. And as far as to the final piece was the, um. The lot size and being almost 30,000 square feet, your, your, the hardship really was the fact that the existing building. Pretty much took up every, every bit of the percentage that you had. So, um, it's funny because, you know, our 10, we're usually trying to, uh, you know, keep to 20% coverage because you're respectful of your neighbors and. And being too close or explaining that in this case, you've got 30,000 square feet. So, uh, I don't find that as being troubling at all to to simply, uh, a step over that by a percentage or so. So, uh, I, I feel the presentation, uh, any questions I had were answered. And I feel like, again, I'm excited. This is going to be back on the, uh, back on the rolls again and contributing to, uh, another, uh, historic structure in Newport. Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Russ.

Yeah, I, um, I agree with all the, uh, comment, uh, but put on the record by, uh. Uh, the board members already, um. I'd like to thank the owners, developers for fixing up a piece of property that has fallen into horrible condition in a beautiful section of Newport. And it'd be nice to see that all fixed up when it's done. The three variances requested, the first to the front setback of the 13.5 feet overhang, as well as the variance for the height of the dorm is all meet all the standards for a variance. The lot coverage of 23.34% is a bit high considering it's a 29,000 square foot lot. But... Part of that is a pool, which is not a lot of interference in lot coverage. And the four-car garage has been tastefully sited where it sort of sits up against the side of the house and the building, excuse me, in back of the property will not be seen really from the from this streetscape uh so um i think a lot of those things mitigate the fact that it's a little bit higher than the square footage i was happy to hear that mr jackson um put on the record that that second floor area as well as nick mentioned too cannot be used for any type of living space or uh stuff like that so um that also made it more acceptable to me this certainly will not alter the character of the neighborhood any of the requested variances um And a garage of this size with 2,000 plus square foot condos is a standard amenity. I mean, you would be hard pressed to buy a condo of that size and not have some sort of garage space. I think the relief sought has been shown in the testimony tonight to be minimal, but reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use

and it will not impair the intent of the purpose of the zoning code so i'll be happy to support it great thank you okay i think the petitioner has made some valid points on the hardship that exists with this property particularly as it pertains to um the overhang the distance from the property lines the construction of the third floor dormers and the the roof height uh where I differ from my fellow board members is as it pertains to lot coverage. I know a lot of evidence has been put on the prior approved planning board decision with the higher lot coverage. However, we don't have that petition before us, and I can't speak to what was in that petition and what differs here. I am concerned with the intensification of use with the accessory structures in a residential neighborhood with this being a condominium complex, which is different than the surrounding area. I absolutely appreciate the petitioner's attempts to save the existing structure. We need housing in Newport. We need affordable housing in Newport. But I think we're not quite there yet in terms of the intensification of the use by increasing the law coverage with adding the pool adding. The garage, and there are still some. questions that I don't have answered in terms of where the pool equipment might be going, in terms of how it differs from commercial to residential. I don't want to see the applicant here in a couple months asking for more law coverage, and we're piecemailing this application as we go. And so for those reasons, I will be approving the variances that I mentioned at the beginning, but I won't be denying my approval for the law coverage.

Nick, can I have an understanding of what she can do here? We have a motion on the table.

Yeah, we would need to split the motion. No. Nicole, I think you could just vote to deny the petition, stating that you would have supported the other pieces of it, but given the motion as a whole includes all of the variances, you're going to have to go one way or the other, or we have to split the vote.

Okay.

So, Ms. Sherry, that means you'll be voting against the petition?

Correct, yeah.

Okay. Very good. Okay. Everybody has had discussion. I'm going to do a roll call of the board members, starting with you, Mr. Grimes. How do you vote?

Mr. Grimes votes aye.

Mr. Rudd is aye. Mr. Johnson, aye.

Mr. Riley, aye.

Ms. Sherry, nay.

Okay, so that is four to one in favor. That passes. It is a super majority. We didn't need that, but we got it. We're all set there. Mr. Jackson, can you do us a favor and write up that decision for us? That would be great. Yeah, we're going to take five. Yeah, we'll come back at about 820, and we'll take on the Pope Street petition.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Secretary, if we would read in our last petition of the evening. Yes. We will try to get through it if we can. Let's get moving.

Yes, this is the petition of Flurry Properties LLC applicant and all coastal properties LLC owner, 75 Pope Street and 2 West Street, Tax Assessors Blatt 32, Blatt 105 in an R10 zone, for a dimensional variance to demolish an existing detached garage, abandon an existing attached second dwelling unit, and construct a new detached second dwelling unit in the location of the existing garage on a substandard property containing 4,187 square feet, minimum of 10,000 square feet required for a new second unit, providing only 2,078 square feet per unit 2,500 square feet required per unit, reducing on-site parking from three to two, where four total are required, and increasing the lot coverage from 34.5% to 36.6%, where 31.63% is allowed.

Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Yes. One point of clarification. It was in the staff report that there was an amendment to the application that moved the location of the second building, which did free up space for four parking spaces. So the parking variance is no longer at play. Everything else is accurate.

Right. Yeah, I think we all noted that. Thank you. Appreciate that. Yes, just a moment, Mr. Jackson. So I understand a lot of you are objectors over there. I'd like everybody who's an objector that is here that also wrote a letter to raise their hands. Okay? Very good. And you two folks in the back, yeah, did you write a letter as well?

No, I didn't.

Oh, the, uh, okay. The, yeah, right. The petition. Correct. I think there were about 10 names on that. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. How many? Oh, really? Okay. Very good. All right. So is anybody representing you folks or are you just here collectively by yourselves? Is that what I understand? So you don't have legal representation. Is that correct? Okay. Very good. So we will get to you. This is how this is going to work. We're going to allow Mr. Jackson to present his case. and with his witnesses, and then we will come to you folks. And what I want to do is, does anybody want to be a spokesman for you folks, or how do you want to proceed? What I don't want is I don't want all 10 of you people standing up and saying the same thing. Okay. And we'll get it. I want you to be heard. Trust me. Okay? It's very important for this board to do that. I just want to do it in a proper way. Okay? That's good. I appreciate that. If you have a spokesman or two, we would like that. That would be great. Okay. Mr. Jackson, you can present your case now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, J. Russell Jackson, Miller, Scott, Holbrook, and Jackson, on behalf of the applicant, Fleury Properties, and the owner, All Coastal Properties, LLC, So this property consists of an existing two-story, two-family residential structure and a single-story detached garage. The purpose of this project is to maintain the number of dwelling units on site by creating a new detached residential structure, moving one of the dwelling units from the existing two-family and creating a property with two principal residential structures, each containing a dwelling unit. That arrangement is permissible under the zoning code. The existing two-family residence sits at the corner of Pope Street and West Street, with zero setbacks on both. And in fact, the existing structure, based on the survey that was conducted, appears to encroach slightly into the Pope Street right of way. Zero front setback on both Pope and West Street is consistent with the neighborhood streetscape. Property contains an existing garage in the southeast corner of the parcel. It appears that the garage had been converted some time ago to some type of additional living space. It was not actually being used to garage a vehicle. Aside from its apparent use, the garage itself appears structurally unsound and unsafe, with portions collapsing unto itself. The applicant has no choice but to remove the existing garage from the site as it cannot be repurposed. Originally, the applicant proposed to construct a new residential cottage in the same location of the existing garage to again house one of the two on-site dwelling units with the intent of keeping the proposed new structure in the same location to maintain the historic on-site development pattern. After seeing the concerns from the surrounding neighbors and receiving feedback from the zoning officer, the development plan was altered and the new cottage is now proposed to be located further to the west, opening up the east side of the property to allow for a total of four conforming parking spaces, thus eliminating one of the variance requests that was originally part of the application and attempting to address some of the concerns of the neighbors. The applicant proposes to modify the main residential structure, creating a third level for an additional bedroom and bathroom. The addition to the main structure requires no zoning relief. The applicant worked with the feedback and comments of the zoning officer over the last few months to make a number of modifications to the original plan to make sure building height was being calculated correctly, and also to ensure that no portion of the third floor addition encroached into the public right of way on either Pope Street or West Street. The result is a single family residence, the first floor that has a kitchen, dining, and living area, As well, as well as a full bathroom and a room that is identified on the floor plan now as a bedroom, but, uh, can easily be, um, additional sort of common living space on the 1st level. I think the intent was to depict the bedroom in the event. Um, you know, a future owner. Had an interest in having a 1st floor bedroom. for anybody that was easier for. The second level will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms and a single bedroom and bathroom will be on the third floor. Again, none of the proposed modifications to the existing residential structure require any type of zoning relief. The new cottage as proposed will be a small two bedroom dwelling.

What's before you this evening, aside from lot coverage, are density variances. So again, the description of the project discusses sort of the abandonment of the two family.

And I do understand how the project is described by the zoning officer. But I just want to make clear that the intent of the overall project is not to abandon anything. And it's to move one of the dwelling units from the main structure to a separate structure. Why we require density variances is because this lot is so substandard in size. And Nick, you can correct me. I think this would be certainly permissible if it was 10,000 square feet. It would require at least one less variance if it was just a little bigger and 5,000 square feet. So what triggers the two density variances are the fact that this particular lot is only 4,100 square feet and change.

Um, what the code allows is for the conversion of an existing structure that's been in existence since 1977 to be converted into a two family. If you have at least 5,000 square feet on the property, we consider this already to be a, a, a legal nonconforming two family building that exists there now.

Um, again, the existing nonconforming lot of record contains only 4,187 square feet of land. The property already is currently a two-family development. The proposed modification of this non-conforming property with modifications to the main residential building, removal of the existing garage, and construction of a new cottage to house the second dwelling unit does require variances for lot coverage and density. The proposed project will will preserve the number of the existing dwelling units and create two expanded and modernized residences. All setback requirements will be met and lot coverage will increase only 2.1%, which is 90 square feet over existing conditions. The requested relief represents minor dimensional variances. The applicant is seeking the minimum relief for the reasonable rehabilitation of this property to allow for its continued use as a two-family development. The extremely substandard lot size is the hardship, almost guaranteeing the need for zoning relief in light of any reasonable modifications to this property.

I have with me this evening Tyler Johnson, who again is a project manager with Fleury Properties.

He can provide some brief testimony regarding the existing conditions on site. And again, I have with me the project architect, Mark Rapp, as well as our real estate expert, James Hull. And if there's any questions you have of me right now, I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we can bring up Mr. Johnson.

So I have a quick question. I drove by today, and I didn't get out of my car to take a look. There's something posted on the door. Has the building been condemned there, or what's going on there? What is that notice on the door?

I don't know. I can check with Mr. Johnson. He was on site today. I don't know.

It was something, it looked like an official city or something like that on the front door of the main building. You don't know what that is? Is the building condemned?

It could be the building official that posted something, but I'm not aware of it.

Okay.

And as far as the interior has gone through a demolition, so the interior has been stripped down to the studs, but...

Okay.

But... I can check with Mr. Johnson. He can let you know when he comes up. That was actually done by the previous property owner. So in other words, the property was held by an owner for some period of time. Another developer purchased the property, did the interior demolition, and then decided they didn't want to go forward and do the full project. So then the property was picked up by Fleury and All Coastal Properties.

OK. OK.

I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson. Who is this?

This is Tyler Johnson.

Okay. And are you the property owner, Mr. Johnson? Oh, you're the project manager. Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Yes, sir. And please state your name for the record.

Tyler Johnson.

Okay.

All right. So, again, Mr. Johnson, you're a project manager for the applicant of Lurie Properties, correct?

Yes, sir.

And you yourself are a licensed contractor in the state of Rhode Island?

Yes, sir.

Lurie and Old Coastal acquired this property earlier this year, right? In January of this year?

Correct.

And you heard me explain before that the demolition on the interior of the main residential building was already completed by the time your company acquired the property, correct?

Correct.