Planning board approves merger and dimensional variance for two undersized Lucas Ave lots in FEMA flood zone

The Newport Planning Board on Monday approved a request to merge two undersized lots on Lucas Avenue and granted a dimensional variance to allow additional lot coverage for a proposed single‑family home.

Attorney Michael Monti spoke for the applicants and told the board the proposed merger of 0 and 6 Lucas Ave would create a 3,959‑square‑foot lot in the city’s R‑10 zone and allow construction of a single primary residence. Monti said the parcels are “significantly substandard” (about 1,995 and 1,964 square feet respectively), and that the site lies in the FEMA AE flood hazard zone, which constrains design and forced the project to include elevated living areas and limited, accessible storage.

The board’s decision followed testimony from applicant Brian Spitzer, project architect Greg Yulonis of Spring Street Studio, and land‑use expert and appraiser Jim Poole. Spitzer said he and his wife intend to use the new building as their primary residence. Yulonis described design tradeoffs driven by the flood‑zone requirement to raise living floors, the limited usefulness of crawlspace storage, and the applicants’ desire for a dwelling with exterior proportions compatible with the neighborhood’s existing Newport cottage character. Poole presented a neighborhood lot‑coverage comparison and concluded the merged lot would be more consistent with surrounding coverage than developing the parcels separately.

The board considered standards for a dimensional variance under Chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance and the city’s subdivision rules. Members discussed: (1) the hardship created by the lots’ substandard size and FEMA constraints; (2) the fact the applicants did not create the hardship because the lots predate the current owners; and (3) compatibility of the proposed house scale with nearby properties. Board members asked whether alternatives—smaller house footprint, increased storage in crawlspace, or different garage arrangements—had been explored; Yulonis and the applicants described why those options were limited by flood‑plain and design constraints.

At the conclusion of the hearing the board voted to accept the staff report as findings of fact and to find that the applicants had met the burden under the dimensional variance standards. The motion granted a variance of 299 square feet of additional lot coverage (as presented) and approved the preliminary subdivision plan contingent on final subdivision plan approval and recording of the resulting lot. The board’s action was recorded as approving the variance and the preliminary subdivision; the staff report and the applicants’ evidence were entered into the record.

The application record submitted to the board included an applicants’ exhibit photograph, a site survey, a design packet from Spring Street Studio, and a land‑use memorandum from Jim Poole. Public comment at the hearing was limited: one nearby resident spoke in support. The board’s approvals were subject to the usual recording and final‑plan conditions before construction permits would be issued.

The board’s action does not authorize building permits; final subdivision approval, any required permits and the applicants’ compliance with FEMA elevation and state DEM requirements must be completed before construction can begin.