Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board clears multiple routine variances, continues Ruggles Avenue application to July 27
Summary
On June 22 the Newport Zoning Board approved a slate of summary and abbreviated petitions (condensers, minor dimensional variances, a temporary sign and accessory uses), granted several unanimous votes on routine variances, and continued a larger Ruggles Avenue lot‑coverage request to July 27 so staff and the applicant can clarify lot‑coverage math and plan adjustments.
The Newport Zoning Board on Monday approved a series of routine petitions on its summary and abbreviated calendars and continued one larger residential addition to next month for more information.
On the consent calendar the board granted summary approvals for three petitions (7 Cousins Court; 42 Golden Hill Street; 452 Bellevue Avenue) and adopted staff findings, standard 12‑month start/complete conditions and payment of outstanding public‑notice invoices. Vice chairman Dave Riley placed the consent items on the calendar and the board approved them unanimously.
On the abbreviated calendar the board approved a set of mostly technical variances: Finbar Murray (9–11 Broadway) and Kendall Tucker Holmes (8 Peckham Avenue) were allowed to maintain overhead service rather than underground utilities after staff and city engineering noted cost and operational impacts; Vincent Cruz Jr. (10 Red Cross Terrace) received dimensional relief for an expanded garage and lot‑coverage adjustment; Mark Burtonstein (6 Maitland Court) received retroactive approval for a second driveway; Danielle Jeunesse (Island Move/Allen Move Company) was granted a temporary informational sign permit for 435 Bridal; and the Millers were granted a variance for a hot tub at 63 John Street. All these approvals passed on motions and were unanimous.
A larger application for 153 Ruggles Avenue (Don Egan) — a request to increase lot coverage from roughly the mid‑20s to about 29.9% through a rear family‑room addition, garage reconfiguration and a larger deck — drew more substantive discussion. Staff noted a negative recommendation and the board identified discrepancies in the lot‑coverage accounting (pool area and raised patio calculation differed between assessor records and the application). Commissioners suggested the applicant consider design changes that would reduce lot‑coverage impact (for example, lowering deck elevation so it reads as a patio rather than a raised deck) and asked the applicant to return with clarified calculations. The board continued the matter to July 27, 2026.
Administrative notes: the board also continued a Bayside Avenue petition (32 Bayside) to July 27 and adjourned the meeting following those votes.
