The Rochester Planning Board on July 7 accepted and approved a two‑lot subdivision application for 647 Portland Street and granted two waiver requests that the board and planning staff said are commonly needed in the R‑1 district.

The action matters because the decision changes parcel frontage and creates a new 1.33‑acre lot while formally authorizing two waivers the planning department said are compatible with neighborhood conditions.

Ashley Roe of Norway Plains presented the application for property owner Jamie Gardner, saying the existing 4.233‑acre parcel would be divided so the retained lot would be about 2.9 acres with 100 feet of frontage and the new lot, labelled 159‑1, would be 1.33 acres with 100.06 feet of frontage. Roe said the lots are served by municipal water and sewer and therefore do not require state subdivision approval.

Roe said the applicant proposes a 32‑foot‑wide shared access easement extending about 150 feet from Portland Street to provide safer access for an otherwise landlocked parcel owned by Stuart Keith and Bonnie McKinnon. “Ms. Gardner is proposing an access easement 32 feet wide extending from Portland Street 150 feet to the southeast in order to grant the owners… more reasonable vehicular access,” Roe said.

Neighbors spoke both for and against. Bonnie McKinnon, who said she owns a 4‑acre parcel behind the proposed lots, supported the plan because she said the division would rectify an earlier lack of access to her land. A neighbor who identified himself as Philip Marcello challenged the applicant’s description of an existing gravel driveway and said he fears future expansion: “I believe the gravel driveway will turn into a paved driveway under the belief that one house will be built. And then I believe it’s going to be upgraded to the width of a private road to promote a major development,” he said.

Planning staff and the applicant explained two waiver requests: one to allow driveway separation of less than the 175 feet in the site‑plan regulations (frontage in the R‑1 zone is 100 feet), and a second to allow creation of a lot whose average depth exceeds three times its average width (Section 5.2.4). Planning staff said the driveway spacing rule and the district frontage standard are mismatched and recommended approval of both waivers in this case while listing standard conditions.

The board voted to accept the application for review, declared it not a development of regional impact, approved the waiver from Article 3, Section 14B(2)(b) to permit reduced driveway separation, approved the waiver from Section 5.2.4 to allow the long, narrow lot, and then approved the subdivision application consistent with staff’s suggested conditions, including recording a draft shared‑driveway easement approved by the city attorney, providing survey monumentation, obtaining a driveway permit, and coordinating addressing with E‑9‑1‑1. Several motions passed by voice vote; the minutes record a second by Rick Healy on a waiver motion and a second by Robert May on final approval.

Applicant Jamie Gardner told the board she intends to keep the larger parcel and sell a single, smaller lot to a private buyer and that she has no plan for a larger subdivision. “I have no plans to build a subdivision,” Gardner said. “It’s family land that has been in my family for decades… I plan to keep the larger portion that wraps around the house where I grew up.”

Board members had no further objections after staff conditions were noted and the application was approved. Staff said the final easement language will be reviewed by the city attorney before recording and that a driveway permit and addressing must be obtained before construction.