Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Minor Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies minor subdivision at 193–195 State Avenue, citing master-plan and flood concerns
Summary
The land-use board denied LUV2020-05, a request to subdivide two existing homes at 193–195 State Avenue into separate lots after resident objections that a narrow 19-foot lot would conflict with the CBD/master-plan goals and unanswered flood-elevation questions.
At a regular Land Use Board hearing, the board denied application LUV2020-05, a minor subdivision for 193–195 State Avenue that would place two existing single-family buildings on separate lots.
Staff explained the CBD zoning allows existing single-family homes to remain but does not permit new single-family construction; the application proposed no new construction and asked the board to accept existing bulk variances ‘‘that ride with the land,’’ including reduced setbacks and existing parking shortfalls. Staff said the property plan lacks topography and flood-elevation data, and noted that if a future owner makes a substantial structural change (more than 50 percent of value under FEMA rules), the structures could be required to be raised to comply with flood-elevation standards.
Resident Chris Ramsey (36 5th Street) urged the board to keep the parcel intact, saying the corner of Bay and Miller Bay avenues is a ‘‘cornerstone of development’’ and that subdividing into a 19-foot lot would ‘‘reward’’ prior unpermitted conversions and hinder future commercial redevelopment. Several board members echoed concerns about consistency with the town’s master plan and the goal of encouraging a central business district rather than additional narrow residential lots.
During deliberations, multiple members said the application did not meet the board’s positive criteria for variances and that the proposed 19-foot lot would be harmful to the master-plan objectives. The board moved to deny the minor subdivision; the motion carried and the application was denied. The board’s staff recorded the outcome and the matter may be revisited only through a new—and likely more fully documented—application.
The board left on the record that the denial was driven by master-plan consistency concerns, neighborhood character and outstanding technical documentation (topography and flood-elevation information) that the board said would be necessary for any future reconsideration of a similar subdivision.
