The Newport Planning Board on Aug. 12 conditionally approved a plan to subdivide 173–175 Cogshaw Avenue that preserves an existing multiunit carriage house while creating a separate rear lot for a future single-family residence.

The board granted dimensional variances for minimum frontage, side-yard setbacks and lot coverage, approved a category-6 special use permit and gave preliminary approval to the minor subdivision, all subject to conditions. The board required the carriage-house rehabilitation to be substantially completed before final subdivision is recorded and required utilities approval of stormwater measures for future work on both parcels.

Why it matters: The proposal aims to keep four dwelling units in a large historic carriage house while creating an additional single-family lot on an otherwise oversized parcel. Staff and the applicant argued the plan advances the city’s housing and historic-preservation goals; neighbors said the shape of the rear lot, new driveway, and uncertainty about future development threatened neighborhood character and stormwater runoff into Almay Pond.

What the board approved and the conditions
- Dimensional variances: The board approved relief for lot frontage (proposed Lot 2 would have a 15-foot access strip where 80 feet is nominally required), side-yard setbacks on Lot 1, and an increased lot coverage allowance for Lot 1. The board adopted conditions including: (a) sequencing—substantial completion of the carriage-house restoration before final subdivision approval; and (b) a cap on Lot 1 coverage consistent with the revised site plan (the board set the cap at 29% as shown on the amended plan). The motion to grant variances passed 5–1.

- Category-6 special use permit: The board found the proposed intensification would not alter the character of the area when conditioned on rehabilitation and stormwater review. The permit was approved unanimously. Staff required utilities sign-off on stormwater management for both proposed parcels before any new development.

- Preliminary minor subdivision: The board granted preliminary approval subject to several staff conditions prior to recording a final plan: provide granite bounds to delineate the lot lines and driveway; substantially restore the carriage house’s exterior in consultation with the city preservation planner; submit a detailed on-site parking and circulation plan for Lot 1; adopt environmentally responsible development measures for Lot 2 (limit lot coverage, prioritize pervious surfaces, minimize disturbance and incorporate green infrastructure); obtain utilities approval of stormwater management; and complete and record a coastal-hazards assessment prior to new construction on Lot 2. The preliminary subdivision approval passed unanimously.

What the applicant said
Attorney Jay Russell Jackson, representing the owner, told the board the owner originally applied for a demolition permit but worked with city staff to explore preserving and rehabilitating the carriage house identified by staff as the Harry Payne Whitney carriage house (eligible per the State Historic Preservation Officer but not in the city historic district or on the National Register). The applicant presented an amended site plan reducing some decks and a carport and shrinking a proposed pool; those changes reduced Lot 1’s lot-coverage request to about 29% from the earlier submission.

Project engineer Seth Lemoine (Principe Engineering) testified the parcel is approximately 29,576 square feet; the existing carriage-house footprint including decks/carport is about 5,800 square feet. He said the proposed rear lot would have roughly 10,702 square feet and access by a 15-foot-wide strip to Cogshaw Avenue. Lemoine estimated the post‑project Lot 1 coverage at about 29% (about 5,474 square feet) and testified the net increase in impervious surface for Lot 1 would be small (roughly +154 square feet) and could be mitigated with standard low‑impact stormwater practices.

Real-estate expert Jim Houle testified in favor of the plan, saying it preserves housing units the city needs and that the variances are driven by the size and location of the existing carriage house rather than by prior action of the owner.

What neighbors said
Several nearby residents spoke in opposition during the public comment period. Michelle Gordon said the owner had not engaged neighbors, described nuisances tied to the property, and said she supported rehabilitation but opposed subdividing the parcel and creating a narrow rear lot. Edward (Mac) Budill and other neighbors expressed concerns that the proposed flag lot would produce an unusually narrow, tall house tightly squeezed among existing homes, increase impervious surface near Almay Pond and create long-term risks if a future buyer pursued further variances.

Staff’s analysis
City staff recommended conditional approvals and provided a written report identifying relevant zoning standards and suggested conditions. Staff noted the carriage house had been identified as eligible by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) but is not currently designated or in the municipal historic district. Staff recommended requiring substantial progress on rehabilitation before final subdivision and requiring utilities review and approval of stormwater measures for any subsequent development.

Numbers and technical details cited in the hearing
- Existing parcel area: 29,576 square feet (applicant)
- Existing carriage-house footprint (including decks/carport): ~5,800 sq ft
- Proposed Lot 2 area (rear flag lot): ~10,702 sq ft
- Proposed pool (Lot 1): ~420 sq ft (amended, reduced in size)
- Proposed Lot 1 coverage (amended plan): ~29% (~5,474 sq ft)
- Net increase in Lot 1 impervious area (engineer’s testimony): ~154 sq ft

What happens next
The approvals at this meeting were preliminary and conditioned. The board’s conditions require a substantial completion of the carriage-house rehabilitation and utilities review of stormwater measures before final subdivision approval or new construction on Lot 2. If the owner seeks to build on Lot 2 in the future, that work must comply with the city’s permitting process, including any required stormwater or zoning reviews.

Reporting note: Exact times for the public hearing, the written staff report and the adopted conditions are part of the administrative record. Quotes are attributed to speakers who were sworn or identified on the record.