All right, we are live.

Okay.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the uh Monday, August 25th, 2025, Newport Zoning Board of Review.

Uh uh regular monthly meeting.

And uh we have a couple of items uh tonight.

Um not a busy schedule, but um uh we do want to try to get through it as quickly as we can.

So on a call to order, I'm looking here uh at uh at our board.

Um it looks like we have our five regular voting members.

Uh that would be uh Nicole Chevry, our vice chairman Dave Riley, our secretary Russ Johnson, myself, Wick Rudd, Chairman, uh Bark Rhymes, and um I think that's it, right?

You're sitting as first alternate, Melissa to us?

Yes, yes, and uh Richard Belinski will be our second alternate uh tonight.

Um and I don't do we have any recusals?

I don't think we have any recusals, so okay.

Um very good.

Um so we do have a quorum and uh we do have draft minutes.

Uh we have draft minutes from June 25th, 2025, and we have uh draft minutes from July 28, 2025.

Uh let's handle these one.

June 23rd, I think it's June June 23rd, I'm sorry.

Oh I may need eyeglasses.

Wow.

That's interesting.

Okay.

Uh yeah.

Pair of readers.

Um thank you.

Um so we'll do these one at a time.

Um if there are no if there's no discussion, I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes as uh written for June 23rd, 2025.

I make a motion to accept the uh minutes of uh June 23rd 2025.

That's read.

Uh do I have a second?

Second.

Um I'm just gonna do a voice vote.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

And please, if I could have a motion on July 28th.

Do I have that right, Nick?

Very good.

July 28, 2025, please.

I make a motion to accept the minutes of the July 28th, 2025.

Minutes as written.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that's unanimous.

Okay.

Um moving quickly along on communications.

Uh, we have no withdrawal requests and no extension requests.

That's what we've been looking for.

We'll get to that in a minute.

And on the summary calendar, we have none.

Um, so tonight um we have two abbreviated summaries, and we have uh one full hearing uh to be considered, which is a pretty light schedule for us.

Uh usually uh we've got you know four or five full hearings, a number of summaries and uh quite a few abbreviated.

So um getting right into it.

Um we've got two uh apparently uh that we're gonna discuss under abbreviated summaries um that we had already approved, uh, but uh they missed the uh the deadline for um trying to get an uh an extension on the uh the the building, the completion of the project.

So they have they are required to come back to zoning.

Um so why don't we start if we can, Mr.

Secretary reading in the first abbreviated summary.

I believe that's Bay Coast Bank.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

This is the petition of Bay Coast Bank, applicant and owners, 137 Broadway, tax assessors plat 19, lot 25 here in lot 25, and Wellesley Properties and Holdings LLC, owner 131-133 Broadway, tax assessors plat 19 lot 26, both in the general business zone for reapproval of a previously approved application to construct a new bank requiring dimensional variances from the parking space design standard and the zoning ordinance number 17.104.040 to provide 90 degree parking without the necessary 20-foot drive aisle and proposing drive-through automated banking facilities, potentially resulting in the stacking of vehicles that may one hinder the on-site traffic circulation, two obstruct area required for the on-site maneuvering of vehicles, and three, impinge upon design parking spaces for persons with disability and the direct access for such parking spaces in the business entrance.

Wow.

Okay, that's a mouthful.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Um, before we get to who's gonna be representing uh you folks at Bay Coast, um are there any objectors here in the audience to this re-approval petition to this repetition that we're doing?

Are there any objectors to this?

I understand.

Do we have a couple?

We have a couple of uh letters of objection.

We had two written objections.

Okay, very good.

Um, please, who's gonna be representing uh Bay Coast.

You are, sir.

Uh uh good evening, uh members of the board.

My name is uh Douglas Duran of Savage.

Can you please put your microphone where you can where you can talk?

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

Um my name is Douglas Duran of uh Savage Law Partners in Providence, uh, I represent Bay Coast the applicant in this matter.

Okay, how do you spell your last name, sir?

Duron.

And I was the attorney who represented the bank uh in the hearing in March 25th, 2024, uh at which the board unanimously approved the uh dimensional variances.

Um so the the bank is here tonight requesting a renewal of uh that uh that approval.

Well, you're you're looking for a reapproval is what you're looking for.

Correct.

Okay.

Um whether you call it a reapproval or renewal, either way.

Um I the uh uh for of dimensional variances that that were previously unanimously granted for the construction of a new bank branch uh with a drive-thru uh at 137 Broadway, just up the street.

Uh the properties in a general business zone and a bank branch uh is a use of right.

Um the bank had previously obtained approvals prior to the zoning hearing from the planning department for the master site plan and to demolish the existent bacon structure on the property.

Um due to circumstances that I will describe the zoning approval inadvertently lapsed uh earlier this year.

Excuse me for one sec, Mr.

Jerome.

Sure.

Um so are are the five people that are voting tonight, were we the five people that were within here this case?

I don't believe I three of you were.

Okay.

I was now Mr.

Gri Mr.

Grimes, you chairman and Mr.

Johnson.

Mr.

Johnson.

And uh Mr.

Goldblatt and um I forget who the PIP is that might have been one of his last that might have been one of Sam's last cases.

It was, in fact, I think his the the last night that he was acting as chairman.

Yeah, yeah.

Um okay.

So um uh in the words of uh Ricky Ricardo, what happened?

So um first of all, the why why didn't you get you get your your before the 12 months were up?

Why why are we here?

That's what I want to know.

Yeah, we're here because uh uh first of all, the the the approvals that that the bank obtained were were um conditions precedent to the obligation to acquire the property.

The actual closing for no reasons uh under the control of the bank didn't actually happen for another couple of months.

So to start the 12 months is really closer to 10.

Um we would we probably would have given you 24 months if you had to.

Yeah, if if if we had asked, I I understand it was um some work the seller had to do that we didn't really think would take quite as long as it ended up taking uh before the closing.

But um after the uh uh zoning approval um was uh was recorded and the closing took place, uh it uh the the responsibility for the actual construction of the project shifted to another area of the bank.

Um in addition, uh the uh as I understand anyway, the the bank's board of directors uh had to establish a budget and and approve that the outcome of that process was that it was scheduled for uh to begin quarter one 2025 and then finish as soon as as soon as possible.

Okay, stop there for a minute.

Yep.

Um that's all well and good, but who ultimately was in charge of looking at the dates?

Wasn't that you who was supposed to be looking at that and telling them we have a date coming up?

I'm not gonna shirk responsibility, but no, I you know, I mean, once uh I was asked in the fall um by the then construction manager, uh Robert Shaker, um, who appeared before the city on numerous occasions during the planning and zoning process, uh, to get a 12-month extension of the demolition approval um due to the fact that the the bank was going to start work uh in January or quarter one or uh of 2025.

And and at that time the planning approval uh was set to expire, at least that was our understanding in December of 2024.

So I got that in November or October uh of 2024, prior to the expiration of the demolition approval.

Um and then after that I heard I heard nothing.

Um I I suppose if you if you uh are looking to uh a lay blame.

No, it's just the attorney who who obtained an approval and then didn't hear anything further uh you know, call the bank to make sure that the project was substantially complete.

You know, I yes, then uh then I'll take that responsibility.

But I I didn't I'm not looking to ascribe blame.

Um it's just it's just you need to understand that this is an imposition on this board.

I yes, I do, and I and I certainly because you opened up another can of worms here.

Now we're now we've got this whole thing being relitigated.

We have different people here than we did the last time.

So it's it's it's it's it's a pain in the neck, you know, and we work hard to do that.

So and I and I appreciate uh any any understanding that this board can give.

Okay.

Unfortunately, uh the construction manager, uh, an outside construction manager for the bank, Bob Shaker of PACE Construction became uh unbeknownst to me, seriously ill in in December of 2023 and died in January of this year.

I mean, excuse me, 2024 and died in late January this year.

And we're very sorry to hear that and that before.

So that necessitated it, you know, engaging an entire new construction team.

Um and uh furthermore, the chief operating officer of the bank um who testified here in at the the hearing before this board retired and and now there's a new chief operating officer, Marie Pellegrino, who's here tonight.

Yes.

Also here tonight in case anyone has any questions is Kevin Briggs, who is the vice president for strategic uh initiatives at the bank, and and he's now gonna be overseeing the project.

Um there is a new construction team in place.

Uh they've hired they've engaged block builders uh of Franklin Mass.

Um and in fact they were ready to go uh sometime I don't know, late spring, and and applied for a building permit uh with without knowing that the zoning approval had expired, and that's when uh when Mr.

Armour contacted the bank and said you need to you need to reapply.

Okay, okay, stop there, please.

Okay.

I want to try to move this along.

Okay.

So you screwed up, but the facts haven't the facts haven't changed, okay, in terms of what we're looking at here.

So I I need to ask some questions of some of the board members that weren't here the last time, because Mr.

Grimes, myself, and Mr.

Johnson, we were.

I assume that uh both of you as well as I have have reacquainted yourselves with the facts of this thing, um in terms of where we are.

Yes, uh yes, I have.

And um uh I think it's just a matter of you folks didn't have your stuff together.

I was gonna use another word.

But um uh and and the chair talks about an imposition on the board, but I can imagine what a big imposition is for you and your company, all the cost you have to incur.

Uh I I see this as uh your team slacking, not yeah, had you just followed the rules and made that 12-month uh period of time, this would have been a non-emp you'd you'd have you'd have shovels in the ground and you wouldn't be in front of us.

Um so I don't see anything substantially changed in your application that would uh make me want to change my mind on the original decision.

Okay.

That's good.

Thank you.

Um Russ, do you want to comment?

Yeah, I just concur with that.

I think it was an oversight on everyone's part to not uh provide a longer period uh of 24 months on this.

Obviously, this isn't a an addition on a building or a pool or something.

This is uh substantial demolition and uh infrastructure work.

It's gonna it's gonna take some time.

So I think if that had been uh thought through at the original approval and it'd been 24 months, as Mr.

Grimes stated, you'd be under construction uh by now, and we wouldn't be uh we wouldn't be here.

So I don't see any changes uh in the proposal uh being made, and I have not changed my uh opinion on the on the project either.

Okay.

Um to uh uh um onward and upward to uh Mr.

Riley and Ms.

Chevry.

Uh I assume that you both have reviewed the facts of this case.

Um and do you have any questions?

Do you have some people that maybe here that you want to ask some questions of, or well, how do you but how do each of you feel, Nicole?

Yeah, I guess the one thing that really stood out in the objection ledger letters to me was the rationale behind the two driveway aisles for the the bank.

If can we have an explanation on why those are needed versus one or well there was there was extensive testimony on that uh previously um and if I'm misstating, then perhaps Ms.

Pellegrino can uh can add the the um what I'm trying to do here is they need to be satisfied because they're new, okay?

Correct that that that's they have they need to have their questions answered so that they can get to a yes.

It's the transcripts aren't available to us from the previous no no I understand so that's that's what we're doing right now.

So do you have somebody that can answer Ms.

Chevry's question?

Yeah, it goes with them.

Yeah, I mean, uh go ahead if you want.

Swear right.

Yeah, Marie, yeah, I need to swear again.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding?

I do.

You state your name for the record.

Pellegrino.

Okay, very good.

So we had conducted a study of the average transactions.

What we have is ITMs, interactive telemachines.

They act as an um like a teller at a at a machine and also an ATM.

And they offer longer hours to customers, um, Monday through Friday.

They're open, I think I believe um seven to seven, and on Saturdays eight to two.

And the average transaction that we have is two and a half minutes to three minutes for an ITM transaction throughout our branch network.

And in our branch in Portsmouth, it's actually less.

It's um I think it's an average of two to two, two and a half minutes.

Um, so if you have two uh of these um machines, you have less stacking of your cars and less backup in in the the parking lot and going out into so you have a better flow.

There's not a backup and a wait for customers.

So you're saying the frequency of customers warrants two aisles versus one in the bank or just one aisle.

Yeah, you'll have less of a stacking of cars in line.

That's I think some of the objections of your um okay, the residents in that area.

Yeah, and as I remember it, uh, if I remember back to that to that petition, the other issue was is because you've got a banker that's there, it's not just an ATM.

So you've got a banker, they're taking care of other issues that could take longer.

And so if you're only at one and somebody's you know, talking to the banker, it could be five, ten minutes, and then that adds to stagging too.

Right.

Do I have that correct?

Yes.

The the it's about one minute per ATM transaction and two and a half minutes to three minutes per an ITM transaction because you are talking to a banker, if necessary, you have that option.

Or you could use the machine as an ATM too.

They act they act as it's a dual machine.

Okay.

That makes sense to me.

I think the other thing that I recall from that uh first meeting was that the average number of uh cars per hour was somewhere to two to two to three cars per hour.

It was extremely low volume.

So the the that uh alleved my concern about backing up onto Broadway, which was part of the concern, and also the concern about pulling out onto A Rall Street.

At that, I mean that's that's almost non-existent.

So that's satisfied uh being you have street.

And you had a traffic expert that you brought in.

Um that testified to that.

To me, that was much significantly less than what it was before, which was a Dunkin' Donuts.

Yeah, so people coming and get stuff.

I mean, that's you know, they're all getting donuts and going out.

So that's 20 cars an hour.

You know, so they were going in and out of the same driveway.

Right, exactly.

Right.

So this would give us much better quotes.

So Dave, did you have any questions?

Uh yes, I did, Mr.

Chairman.

Um this is uh basically a new hearing, and just want to put a couple of things on the record before I I uh vote on this.

I did read the decision that was rendered by the zoning board uh a year ago, and and uh and that outlined how they saw the whole decision after listening to the traffic experts and so forth.

And I uh I tend to agree with them, but I just want to get a couple things on the record.

Uh uh for my own uh uh interest.

Um firstly on the online application.

Is this on?

Yes.

On the online application, the applicants listed as Daniel Crowley.

No, that that was changed.

I I think Mr.

Armor can uh explain what happened.

Mr.

Crowley was the individual happened to input the information originally at the bank.

Okay.

The applicant is the bank, and it's signed by Ms.

Okay, understand, but uh the applicant's name was listed there.

I just wanted to make that clear that the bank uh that the applicant is actually that that entities or those entities listed on the uh on the agenda that uh Mr.

Johnson read out.

Is that correct?

Yes, I mean the at the application was submitted twice.

First time by Mr.

Crowley in early June.

I I then was dealing with Mr.

Armour and he identified the fact that Mr.

Crowley himself was not the applicant, it was the bank.

Okay, that was amended.

And you'll see that there is uh now it says Ms.

Pellegrino, and there's a board uh authorization from Bay Coast authorizing her there.

Yeah.

So that's updated.

Well, I completely understand.

I just want to make sure that I had that clear that when I look at the agenda and it lists Bay Coast Bank and Wesley properties and holdings LLC, that's the entity that's that is the uh applicant in this particular okay.

Um just uh addressing uh one of the objectives concerns, uh, which was just addressed in the staff report, that um disapproval is based on a drive-thru service that's um for banking services, and that uh that you understand that uh that's the type of industry that that building can be used for, and it can't be sold to some other entity outside of the banking, outside of the banking industry, uh, and use a drive-through that drive-through for other purposes like fast food and so forth.

Correct?

Yeah yes, the uh the bank understands that there's this is not a uh a real estate development uh project uh to be sold when completed.

It the bank tends to use it as a bank branch for as long as it's in existence as long as far as I know.

Okay.

Further, any any use change, such as to a fast food restaurant would require permitting before this this board.

So just want to make sure again, I had that on the record here at tonight's meeting.

Thank you.

That that that that's that's how I understand it, and and that's how how it's uh how it's understood.

And then um Ms.

Chevy uh asked the question that I had regarding the impact of the two windows uh versus one.

So I'm happy with that.

So uh thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Great.

Okay, so um we've disposed of those questions.

Uh what is the board's sense?

I mean, are we gonna give them 12 months this time?

Should we give them 24?

Do you want to ask for 24?

Um, where are we on this?

Uh well, the uh my understanding is that as soon as the the appeal period expires, the the construction manager is ready to uh begin demolition, which will only take you know a week or so, and then uh construction following right on after, and the shell should be complete before the cold weather, and they they hope to have a soft opening in February.

Oh so I mean if we're talking from today, I think a 12-month period will suffice.

Okay, but you know, I don't certainly don't want to come back.

Well, and that's okay if you come back before it expires.

Yeah.

That's easy, okay.

Okay.

All right.

So we'll we'll go with 12 months then.

Okay.

I just wanted to get that out in the open so that we understood that.

Um so again, it's start of construction issue of the building permit, correct?

Yes, within the 12 months.

Yeah, right.

So it sounds like you're no substantial.

The typical language is substantial completion.

Substantial completion.

Which I'm not sure what that means.

I I you know it's that means CO.

Does that mean that the there's there's an obvious project that's nearly complete?

I you know, yeah, we we typically do the kind of nearly complete if if the walls are up and you know you don't have the CO yet, we're still gonna consider it substantially completed.

Uh, one other clarification is that the demolition um is a separate approval, and you could actually begin that tomorrow if you wanted while the bank itself can't be constructed until the appeal period is expired.

Okay.

Yeah.

All righty.

I think we're done with the testimony portion of this.

We're gonna proceed to a vote.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Riley, would you like to put this in the form of a motion for us, please?

Uh yes, I will, Mr.

Chairman.

On the petition of uh Bay Coast Bank and Wesley properties and holdings LLC.

I move to adopt as the board's finding a fact, the information and staff report, applications supporting plans and documents and testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of counsel and on any exhibits marked, uh, together with comments spread on the record by the board members and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 uh of the newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications, and that the petition be granted on the condition that project be started and substantially complete within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chairman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Any discussion?

There are any discussion at all.

This is a previous summary.

So okay.

Um well, yeah, it's I I get that.

But uh if anybody has some discussion, I would allow it.

Um I'm gonna move directly to a vote then on this.

Um I'm gonna poll everybody individually, Ms.

Chevry.

How do you vote?

Aye.

Mr.

Riley, Mr.

Riley, I.

Mr.

Johnson.

Aye.

Mr.

Grimes.

Mr.

Grimes, aye.

Mr.

Rudd, is it aye?

That sounds like five to nothing.

It's unanimous.

Okay.

Good luck.

Yes.

We hope we won't have to see you again.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Good luck, y'all.

Okay.

Moving onward and upward.

If you would, Mr.

Secretary.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Next is the petition of Jessica Phillips, applicant and Jessica L.

Phillips 2022 declaration of trust owner.

108 Catherine Street, tax assessors plat 23, lot 154, and R20 zone for reapproval of a special use permit and a dimensional variance to construct an in-ground pool, increasing lock coverage from 16% to 18.2%, where 15% is allowed.

15%.

Yes, please.

Who are you?

Good evening, uh Michael Mano.

I'm behalf of the applicant and owner.

Are you an attorney, sir?

Yes.

And spell your last name for us, please.

M-I-N-E-A-U.

We've heard you before, yes, Michael.

Yes, Michael Mano.

Okay.

So we have the same situation with you, don't we?

As we did with the previous people.

Slightly different.

I I was not involved in the original application.

So I definitely understand the board's uh comments and concerns about needing to devote time to hear a reapplication for something that was previously approved.

But unfortunately, uh when my client had previously obtained the variance, there were some issues with starting the work and uh contractor schedules, and they just uh unfortunately didn't realize that the time was up.

And then by the time that they realized it, um we did apply um and I was in front of this board a few months ago for a variance uh related to the generator and pool equipment, uh if you recall.

Um and I was asked at the time if I wanted to hold that until we reapplied for this uh variance and special use permit for the pool, and we went forward with that, and that was approved.

That decision's recorded now.

So uh we're here tonight on essentially the same application that had previously been approved.

Um, and this is for a variance to increase lock coverage, uh and also a special use permit, uh, since the existing lock coverage is non-conforming.

Um the dimensions are all the same.

Uh there was a plan uh submitted, which is part of the staff report.

Um and all that is identical to the original application, which previously been approved.

And that's that's why it's an abbreviated summary because it is identical.

So we understand that.

Um excuse me for one moment, sir.

Uh who uh who heard this hearing the last time we had it.

I did.

I did I did as well.

I did not.

You did you hear it, Dave?

I did.

Okay.

So we're gonna do the same thing we did with the last uh uh abbreviated summary.

I'm gonna ask Ms.

Chevry if she has any questions for you or the applicant themselves um in terms of uh to get up to speed, right?

In terms of what you have.

I do not have any questions on this one.

Okay.

Um right.

Uh that's a good question.

I didn't stop unless you're are you an objector to this?

Okay.

Then uh then there are no objectors.

Um so thank you.

Appreciate that, Russ.

I'm supposed to ask that question.

But there's nobody here.

Um and we did not have any objectors uh and written objections, is that correct?

No, we did not.

Okay.

So uh at this point, um, I think we're done with the testimony on this petition, and I'm gonna move for uh uh a a um a motion, if you would, Mr.

Vice Chairman.

No petition of uh Jessica Phillips and Jessica L.

Phillips 2022 declaration of trust.

Uh I move to adopt the board finding of facts and information staff reports, applications, supporting plans and documents and testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of counsel, together with comments spread on the record by the board members and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications and the petitions met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.109 of the newport zoning ordinance entitled Special Use Permits Category Six.

The petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision, or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices related to the cost of public notice and be paid in full and as a condition of according to decision.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

I think this uh this time around, I'm just gonna uh poll everybody starting with you.

Ms.

You, Mr.

Grimes, how do you vote on this petition?

Mr.

Grimes is I could I just ask a quick question of the is 12 months sufficient.

Do you have your contractor lined up?

Are you we didn't discuss what is that a cone?

Be careful, we might amend the petition.

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure.

No, that's good.

So Mr.

Grimes, you're an aye.

Uh Mr.

Grimes is still an eye.

Still an aye.

Mr.

Johnson.

Mr.

Johnson, aye.

Mr.

Riley.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Ms.

Chevry.

Ms.

Chevry, aye.

And Mr.

Rudd is an aye as well.

So that's five-nothing.

That's unanimous.

Good luck.

Let's get this thing done.

All right.

Okay.

That's it on the abbreviated summaries.

We have one full hearing tonight.

Uh that we're going to uh be uh taking up right now.

Mr.

Johnson.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

This is the petition of Linda Periah.

Ferrera.

Herrera, thank you.

Applicant and owner, three Goodwin Street, tax assessors plat 35, lot 125-4, and a waterfront business zone for dimensional variants to add two additional bedrooms to a two-bedroom guest house without providing the required parking.

Two additional spaces required.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

And you're not an objector for this petition either, sir.

You are not.

Okay.

So we have no objectors because you are Ms.

Pereira.

Is that correct?

Okay, very good.

And Mr.

Monty, you're going to be representing her, correct?

That is correct, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening to you and the other members.

So if I may, I'll just uh go over the high level details of the proposal and why we think the request for variance uh is very reasonable in the very particular circumstances of this case.

And then I'll have my client, uh Miss Pereira put on some testimony about her history with the property, uh how she uses it and how she intends to continue to use it if this request for variance is granted.

Right.

Excuse me for one moment.

I just wanted to make clear uh I think we have one letter of support and one objector.

Is that correct, Mr.

Armor?

Uh that was correct as of the publication of the agenda.

I believe that there have been a number of support letters that have come in since.

Um Mr.

Monte has uploaded them to our our system, and we can um page through them and you can enter them into the record as exhibits if you would like to do that.

No, we we got the I well I'll speak for myself.

I got the gist of what the support was.

Yeah, and I can speak to that.

There are five letters of support that have come in uh total, and each of them is very similar to the last.

So there's a letter of support from the owner of uh 13 Goodwin, uh nine Goodwin, five Goodwin, and I believe four Goodwin, and also four Cottington Wharp, which is the property immediately behind the three Goodwin property.

Right.

And then sorry, Mr.

No, that's okay.

And as I I remember the letters of support were almost a form letter.

Uh if you know they they they they brought up the same points of support.

They did.

Um, each one indicated um that Miss Pereira is a good neighbor, that she's lived in and around the neighborhood for 25 years.

Um, that her Airbnb and VRBO has always been run responsibly and is not a nuisance to the neighborhood, and that each of them believes that the existing two uh car parking space on site should be sufficient uh to rent all four bedrooms out.

Uh so those five letters of support are substantially similar in that regard.

Right.

And so um to try to focus in on what the real real points of contention are here.

Um there was a letter of objection.

Um, Riggs, is that correct?

His name?

That's correct.

And I think he objected, there was another one on Goodwin we did that he objected to too, for the same reasons.

Do I have that correct?

And those reasons were that although um that is a general business district, um, a GB, uh so it's by right to have an Airbnb, you have to have the parking, right?

And so his objection was based upon the pack the fact that um there are no parking, there's no parking on the streets.

So I think the crux of this matter is, at least in my mind, and I'll let the the other board members speak for themselves, is where's the parking?

Okay, where are we gonna get the parking?

So if we could focus on that, I'm sure I and you I you're I'm sure you've been a great citizen, and um, you know, based on the letters that I saw, I think it's wonderful to get that kind of support for something like this.

And we do take that into account, absolutely.

But really, the crux of the matter is is where's the parking?

Absolutely.

Um, so when I take a look at this, the item that you're really focusing in on is that component of your standard of review about whether the alteration will impair uh the character of the neighborhood, right?

Because according to your zoning ordinance, you have to look at whether there's a unique hardship, whether hard the hardship is the result of any prior act of the applicant.

I think we can all agree she purchased the property in 2017.

It's not her fault that there's no more parking than what there is.

The unique characteristic is that it's a 2500 square foot lot in an area where only 5,000 is allowed.

So then we get to that that next component um is would this in any way impair the intent of zoning or the character of the neighborhood?

And the answer to that question is no.

And the reason for that is because the applicant for the past several years has been renting this single family home uh on Airbnb VRBO for approximately five months out of the year.

The other seven months out of the year, she lives in it as her primary residence, and she owns a condo around the corner that she lives in when she's you know renting it on a short-term basis.

Right now, she has to lock off two of the four bedrooms and and does not rent those out.

She's never been before the municipal court, never been in any trouble for breaking the municipality's rules.

I think that's significant.

Um, and what's ironic here is that unlike almost every application that comes before you, where you see uh a single family home that has no parking on site, but gets credited as if it has to, and then has to go out and find two parking spaces at a commercial lot to just even get itself up to two real spaces.

This particular property has two parking spaces on site.

It has an alley driveway allowing for two nine by eighteen parking spaces where cars can park front to back.

So that's different than most of the applications that come before you.

And the five of us would go on vacation.

We certainly wouldn't bring four cars to rent a four-bedroom home.

Um, and Miss Pereira is predominantly renting to families, and she'll continue to do so.

Um, she doesn't want it to be a party house.

And I actually think Nick, it would be very useful to bring up the uh attachment that was uploaded with the before and after uh photographs, one of the the second to last attachment here.

One of the the second to last attachment here.

And you can see if you go to the the, if we just scroll down here, this was what the property looked like when Miss Pereira purchased it in 2017.

If you could scroll down and then keep scrolling down, and we see the improvements she's made to this property, um, new siding, new roof.

She's enhanced the driveway.

Here you're seeing the alley driveway where you can park front to back, the back patio.

Um this is her primary residence seven months out of the year.

Um, and to suggest that by allowing all four bedrooms to be rented out, it would create an increase in the parking demand.

I I just don't think that's realistic given these circumstances, um, because you're not likely to have folks bringing four cars, at least the folks that Miss Barrera is renting to.

And I'll also add that if she were to be made to go and secure a parking lease or two parking leases at a commercial lot, you would be creating a net negative for the city because she'd be taking up two spaces in a commercial lot that almost certainly would go unused.

Um so this is a very unique petition for those reasons.

Um the board might recall recently approving um an application for a one parking spot variance at a property on this street, 13 Goodwin Street, has no parking on site, and this board determined that to get the additional bedroom, they shouldn't even be required to provide any parking lease.

Um so if if we look at these apples to apples, um, and especially considering that there is uh a driveway that allows for two parking spaces, it just makes sense, uh, at least from my perspective, that Ms.

Pereira should be able to rent all four bedrooms, uh, especially to families who might have uh parents and a few kids.

Um again, in my position, um, that's the third of your standard is whether it would have any deleterious effect on the neighborhood or the the purpose of zoning.

I don't think it would for that particular reason I described.

Um I'll also add that if she were to rent it long term to four Salvey Regina students, uh, you know, and their juniors or seniors, there would be four cars, right?

So we need to think about this sensibly and and what it means for the city.

Um, and then whether it's minimal to the reasonable enjoyment uh of a permitted use of the property, guest house use is permitted by right in this area, and allowing uh this variance would allow the full enjoyment and use of the property given its configuration of having four bedrooms.

Um that's really our explanation and and frankly our argument.

Um now I would like Miss Pereira to come up and provide some testimony to put on the record as well.

So, Ms.

Pereira.

Yes, if you could please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding?

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

Linda Pereira.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Um Linda, could you please tell the board a little bit about yourself?

Sure.

My name is Linda Pereira.

I've been a resident of Newport for 25 years.

I work for a biotech company.

I'm able to work remotely from my home.

So therefore, I'm able to be rooted in this community full time.

And could you uh please explain to the the board, your living arrangement between the couple of properties you do own here in the city?

Sure.

Um when the home is rented, I'm able to live at 28 Narragans Avenue.

I have a small condo there that I purchased 23 years ago.

And eight years ago, I purchased three Goodwin Street.

I lived in it for one full year, and then the following year I applied to start renting out two rooms.

And typically, do you reside in three Goodwin Street as your primary residence?

Yes.

Whenever it's not rented, I reside there.

Currently, my my mom and dad are visiting from Florida and they're in there for the next two weeks.

Okay, so you really only use this as a rental in the summer, otherwise it's where you live.

Exactly.

Yep.

And um, I think I already said it, but just to put it on the record through Test Learning.

When did you purchase property?

It was 2017.

Okay, could you speak a little bit about how you've been able to maintain improve this property as a result of being able to make this extra income?

Sure.

Um, as a single woman, I purchased the home in unbeknownst to me.

It had several leaks running through many areas of the home.

So quickly I had to start trying to figure this out the the damage was coming through the interior of the home.

So since then I've had to replace all the siding most of the windows a new roof and then we ended up finding that the leak was just two attic windows after spending quite a bit of money renovating everything.

I put in new stone staircase everything was kind of rotted out when I purchased the home the stairs were crumbling the driveway was just gravel.

So I've made a lot of improvements in the back um there was a rotted out telephone pole that I was able to get removed.

I've added on a new deck the old one was not to code and I've also redid the whole patio in the back.

And is it fair to say that you have positive relations with other neighbors on the street in the area?

Yes very we we very much support each other and help each other for sure.

And at least five of them have provided letters of support for your application.

Is that correct?

Absolutely yes let's talk a little bit about the driveway and how does it currently work now with respect to you know what vehicles uh are brought to the property when it's rented out so I typically as Michael stated I rent to families only since it is my primary home obviously I do not want any damage done to my home.

I have two SUVs do SUVs fit in this large driveway and when families come in typically they bring either one to two cars mostly the families I rent to have infants um I provide a pack and play because I get so many requests for small children to stay on the property with their parents and generally it's usually one car max two.

Okay and in your um advertisements you indicate that there's only two parking spaces at this property is this correct right yes I already I've always stated that there's only two parking spaces.

And you would continue to do that uh if this application is approved correct absolutely yes I would okay um I believe that's that's all I have and unless there's anything else you'd like to add.

No I think that's everything.

Thank you for your time.

No I have not.

Okay.

And currently do you block off or otherwise make unavailable the rooms that are not presently rented?

I do.

I have them locked off.

And so the point of this application is so that you don't have to keep doing that exactly I just would like to expand the use of the rooms the entire house yes exactly and do you anticipate uh the rental of all four rooms creating any increased parking demand.

I don't know because I I always bet who stays in the house and I always always ask why they're coming into town and usually it's they're here for a wedding or an anniversary or it's just a family coming to enjoy everything that Newport has to offer I have nothing further for Ms.

Ferrara unless they're questions by board members.

Mr Chair questions I have a couple questions.

You've indicated several times that you generally don't uh you use up there is they your uh guess if you will don't use up any more than two spaces just two cars.

You'd also mention on several occasions uh that you generally rent the families yeah does that mean would you want could would you consider limiting uh your uh application to the use of families I I uh the reason I'm asking I'm worrying about things like wedding parties and uh and and by gamma delta fraternity house coming in for weekend or whatever um so um so so the issue really as I see it is you it you need relief for additional cars and we and uh and you and Mr.

Monte are suggesting that there's really no need because you only need two spaces.

Exactly um so could you just expound on that just a little bit more of my concerns.

Sure yeah definitely so I would say in general many of my guests it's usually a mom and dad and two kids is generally who comes to stay sometimes it's um a couple and they're they're in laws so generally it's one car that comes max two sometimes if it's their in-laws each couple will bring their own vehicle but that's kind of all that's you know that's type the type of guest that I rent to I do vet them out I don't want anyone staying my home that would potentially damage my property or um you know I've always been very responsible and conscientious of my neighbors and we all have each other's phone numbers if there is anything that seems a little strange we call each other immediately to let them know.

I don't want anyone staying in my home that would potentially damage my property.

Or um, you know, I've always been very responsible and conscientious of my neighbors, and we all have each other's phone numbers.

If there is anything that seems a little strange, we call each other immediately to let them know.

So I think that expanding it to four bedrooms, the two parking spaces within my driveway will suffice.

So you also know to uh that uh any uh guests coming should not bring a third vehicle.

That's it.

I'm going to advertise it exactly that way.

Okay, and you would advertise or say this price is limited to two vehicles only.

That's it.

Um a practical necessity, that's information that an ordinary guest would need and want to know from their hosts.

Is that correct?

They do.

They they sometimes ask for me to clarify how many parking spaces are offered with with the home.

And they always say that it's max two.

Right, okay, good.

Thanks.

Yes.

Um I I read uh uh I read your application and read all the nice recommendations you got from your neighbor.

So you're doing uh obviously a nice job of running the uh guest house.

Um but in your application, you you indicate uh that my property has a driveway that has two parking spaces for guest use to meet current parking requirements.

I understand that the two additional off-street parking spaces are required.

I am securing two additional parking spaces to believe to be leased yearly from a neighbor to meet this requirement.

That's to me sounds like the way to do it.

Um that does not seem to be what's being asked for.

So what's changed since when you wrote that in your application?

I believe when I met initially with um Mr.

Armor, that was sort of you know the guidelines that I understood at the time.

Although, as I shared with Michael, I feel like it's completely unnecessary.

I don't think that we would ever utilize those two additional parking spaces that I would be required to rent.

So I feel that the two in the driveway would be sufficient for families to use.

And I would advertise it as so, and that would be it.

They're only allowed to bring two vehicles on site to my property.

Well, to be clear, they're only allowed to park two vehicles there.

Exactly.

They can, if they want, bring more and do what they will.

Correct.

I would hope not, but you know, I that's the way I specify what's going on.

Conceivably they could, correct?

Conceivably, yes.

Um I'll just add as well, while we're on this topic, there's become uh uh uh a feeling by applicants for short-term rentals that it's a requirement to provide off-street parking uh at a commercial lot nearby or or elsewhere.

Creates myriad problems because for example, if Ms.

Pereira were to lease parking spaces from a neighbor nearby, it's not clear that that you know how that would impact that neighbor's parking requirement.

And also, while it's been stated as if it were a requirement, it's it's not in the ordinance.

Um and what we're here to do is put on the absolute best case we can for a uh regulatory variance against those four standards uh I mentioned, which is is there a hardship?

Was it related to any prior act of the applicant uh wouldn't impair or be deleterious to the neighborhood or the intended purpose of zoning?

And is the relief reasonable to a minimum enjoyment of the property?

And and for all of the reasons we've set forth tonight and in our materials, we respectfully think we strongly meet that standard, given the very unique circumstance that we actually have a driveway that can accommodate two parking spaces, and that's really all that would likely be required.

Um in most rental circumstances, especially when you contrast it to a long-term rental for college students.

Um and the one thing I want to reiterate is that if this applicant gets two parking spaces at a commercial spot, they'll go unused, and then the parking demand on the city gets worse.

Um, because those two spots aren't available for an applicant that actually needs it, and the applicant that actually needs it would be a four-bedroom house on a lot that looks like this that has zero parking spaces.

Um so that's that's really our argument.

Are there any other questions for Ms.

Ferrero?

That's my question, sir.

Okay.

I'll I'll I'll be in charge of the questions here.

Okay, certainly.

Yeah.

Does anybody else have any questions for her?

Yeah, I have one.

So I think what in this scenario works for your proposal is that you're the owner of the property, you're using it for a set amount of time frame, you have great relationships with your neighbor.

That's not always true with other owners.

So I'm curious if you would consider a condition that this dimensional variance would sunset with the sale of the property.

I'm so sorry.

What was the last part?

Uh if you consider a condition that the dimensional variance would sunset with the sale of the property.

Is that possible?

They would go away with the sale of the property.

That that if you sold the property.

Our understanding is that if the applicant consents to it, that's okay.

Um we cannot force that requirement because the use runs with the land.

Not what I said, but but the first step is to ask if the applicant consents.

I think beyond that, we would have to work through it.

Would you consent to it?

You consent.

No, I guess.

No.

Okay.

The reason for that is because it's not what's been required of other applicants.

Okay.

Well, we don't we don't make pattern decisions here, as you know.

So they're each individually done.

Certainly.

So that that may be something that the board would want.

So we'll see.

So there's some other questions, please.

Yeah, Ms.

Jimmy, I I had this.

This is directed to Mr.

Monty that um you mentioned that um well, first off, the reason you're here is that you do not have four parking spaces on your property.

Isn't that correct?

That's that's to you because you said that's for me.

Yeah, it's not in the ordinance that you have to have four parking space.

No, I said it's not in the ordinance that in order to be given a variance, you must secure off-street parking spaces in a nearby lot.

Okay, but it's but it that's been something the report has frequently require.

That's exactly what you're asking us to do tonight, is give you the variance without requiring the the four parking spaces.

Absolutely.

Yeah, okay.

Yep, but it's not in the ordinance.

Of course, we understand that.

And um as I understand it, um this if we give you the variance, um, and the property is sold, it could go be sold to anybody, and they would then be able to uh use that guest house 12 months of a year, um rent to individual renters, and it could be used tremendously different that then what Ms.

Pereira's using it for based on the testimony of herself as well as her neighbors, correct?

It's true that that is something that could eventually occur.

Okay.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

I am not planning to sell it in any near future, though.

Okay, so it is my primary residence, so I don't foresee selling at any time.

I I understand.

So if that's the case, why would you object to having a uh uh condition put in to that effect?

I mean, if that's you know it's I mean I I put forward that it's just not fair, uh, because it's not being required of other applicants.

And what I would request, and and which I think the board has has done before is allow us a vote on the application as we've made it, and then if that vote fails, a second vote uh with conditions attached, uh, whether that be parking leases or related to ownership of the property.

Um and and I know that the board has um accorded other applicants that that two vote opportunity.

Nick, you want to comment on it?

Sorry, I missed the end of that.

I was consulting with our attorney.

No, uh, Mr.

Monty's asking for two votes.

If we vote on what he's asking for and we deny it, then we can immediately have another vote with the conditions that we that we would want to have.

I think you could have a straw poll on that first request.

Not an official vote.

Yeah, we don't have that.

Yeah, I I like that.

Yeah, we could just get the sense of what the board is in terms of that.

So why don't we do that?

Obviously, Miss Chevry.

I think we do have a question from Mr.

Berlin who is allowed to ask questions even as an alternative.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I mentioned that you own another uh property or two was a two properties you own.

Yes, a small condo on near Agansa Avenue and then the home on Goodwin Street.

And you mentioned one of them is right around the corner.

Right around the corner.

Yes.

Do you have parking rights with those properties?

The condo does not have a driveway, no.

What about the private resident sticker to park there?

What about the other property?

The second property has a two-car driveway.

Not do you own three properties in total or two?

Okay, so the condo does not have parking.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so I'm sorry, go ahead, Russ.

If you have a question, I had a question sort of why we're here.

Um initially you got approval for two bedrooms, and I'm assuming that may have been because you had two parking spaces.

So what is bringing on your request now?

I mean, initially you played by the rules, basically.

Um so I'm curious what is what is uh genering your request now to fully utilize the four bedrooms.

Uh what's what's driving that request, even though you know you're not meeting the the requirements uh to to get those four with the parking.

To expand the use of the full property and not have to lock off two of the rooms and also um just the additional financial assistance to maintain and preserve my home.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Other questions.

Okay, so what I want to do, okay.

Go ahead.

I just briefly close.

I just want to thank the board for hearing our our application.

And I know that I I come before this board and ask it to make hard decisions.

Um and it's it's my job to advocate on behalf of my client, but I I do feel given the unique circumstances of this application that the relief we're requesting it is appropriate.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Burr.

For your time.

You bet.

So I I think that's a great idea.

Let's get a sense of the board in terms of do you do we need conditions?

Um, or do we want to vote on the petition as it's been presented to us?

And I think I know what you guys are gonna say.

You'd like to have some conditions, right?

I ideally I would like the condition.

Dave, you'd like conditions as well.

Uh yes, I would I would need to see conditions for this.

Uh okay.

Russ, how's what do you feel about this?

Uh I'm I'm not hard and fast on the conditions, but um, if my fellow board members feel that way, then I can go along with that.

Okay, Mr.

Grimes.

I don't feel I need uh any conditions.

I can take it on as current merit.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna agree with uh with my fellow board members, uh, Ms.

Chevry and Mr.

Rye.

I'd like to see some conditions uh on this one uh as well.

Um so that's the sense of the board, so that's essentially a vote that we just had, you know, in a colloquial fashion.

So we're gonna just move to a um a vote on this with the conditions that that you guys have would like to see that they can't basically what it's basically that they've if they sell the property that um that the that the conditions that we uh that impose uh convey with the sale of the property, correct?

Yeah, the dimensional variance with sunset with the sale of the property.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, the the uh in the staff report, they also suggested uh that a typical uh uh condition is that they do go out in secure uh parking.

Um that that that was the recommendation in the staff report that that was given to us.

That's what uh put on the record.

I am also uh would be um okay with the sunset.

Okay, all right, but you would also like to see the condition that they go out and get uh well it's uh I'm just putting that out that that was a condition, the condition that was recommended by in the staff report by the zoning office.

That's all I so and that's a good question.

Um your point is, Mr.

Monty and Ms.

Pereira that uh that that going to get two more spaces that wouldn't be used would be actually detrimental.

So that's why you're not going to do it or don't want to do it.

Do I have that correct?

That's because there'd be two empty spaces that some other needy uh Airbnb operator could use.

Yeah, it would it wouldn't be sensible under these uh circumstances.

Because you don't think you'll ever use them.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

And uh if there were uh one of these two conditions attached that were the pleasure of the board, I know my client would prefer the sunset uh option.

Right.

Um although I I would uh strongly encourage you to approve it otherwise without conditions.

Understood.

Okay, thank you.

Um so with that in mind, Mr.

Riley and Ms.

Chevry, starting with you two.

Uh do you want to have a condition that they need to go out and get and get the spaces uh uh leased somewhere or no?

We've got the sense that the sunset uh condition we are gonna put in there.

Okay, that is gonna be so now let's talk about the condition that they go out and get um and get the parking spaces.

What's the sense of the board on that so that we can we can fashion a uh uh uh a uh motion that has a good chance of passing, basically that's what we're doing here.

Okay.

So what what do you think about that, Dave?

You want to have a yeah, yes.

I think I think that the applicant had obviously demonstrated since 2017, uh uh good management of um her guest house.

And um I think that she has a good handle on on who she's renting to, who she wants to rent to, and so forth.

My issue with with granting uh with not having any conditions is that this could go to uh um a firm that has a hundred guest houses and rents to anyone and everyone that that uh that uh gives them a credit card.

Um so that's my big concern.

Uh my biggest concern.

So that's why I would So you would like that condition as well.

Yeah, I I I'd like either them to go out and get some spaces that they can satisfy the um requirement in the zoning ordinance, or this is for this one particular property owner.

And you as well, Ms.

Chevry, on that?

No, I'm fine either or with whatever the applicant uh prefers.

Um I feel like either the sunset clause or the additional spaces satisfy and kind of balance the other one out and it's not needed.

Okay.

Russ.

Yeah, I I uh I hear the argument of counsel here.

Um and I think because of two reasons, I have two reasons.

First of all, uh they're saying it's a five-month rental period, so we would be locking up a space that could be potentially used uh for someone else uh for that uh other months of time when it's owner occupied.

Secondly, um it's been demonstrated uh verbally here that um you're a hands-on manager of the property, you're not looking to stick uh eight uh bachelorettes in here or uh you're you're uh conscious of your property, you've maintained your property, you've sunk a lot of uh investment into your property and and obviously want to keep it in top shape.

Um so I'm I'm comfortable with that.

And and the sunset thing uh I think makes sense because it avoids what Mr.

Riley's concern is, which is that someone could purchase the property from you and uh then not have the same strict guidance that you currently adhere to the property.

So I I'm not uh gonna seek that there be a parking uh relief or requirement.

Bart.

Um I want to echo some of Mr.

Riley's uh thoughts and uh Mr.

Johnson's uh I I'm convinced from the testimony from uh Mr.

Monte and Ms.

Pereira, uh that they've demonstrated the true parking demand.

And and I think that is satisfied with two spaces.

Um but the same token, I worry about what Mr.

Uh Riley said.

If they sell that property, then they sell it to uh the McDonald's of uh guest houses.

You'll be running the potential problem of uh this whole thing running a muck.

Um so if there's some way we can bring this in to limit our discussion uh to the Pereira case, I would be in full support uh that they've met the uh uh the the demand uh uh uh for for parking, uh particularly given the type of business and long-term history that Ms.

Pereira has demonstrated on this property.

Okay, thank you.

So um I'm gonna adhere to what Ms.

Chevry said.

So one or the other um I think takes care of the issues that we're all discussing right here.

So I would be in favor of having a sunset provision when you sell and then giving you the variance on the parking spaces, because I'm convinced as Mr.

Grimes said that you're gonna a good manager of the property.

I believe you when you say that you rent to families and that they only even with four uh four bedrooms will be maybe two cars at most.

I believe that, but I wouldn't believe it if you sold to somebody else, as these people as as my fellow board members have been saying.

So I'm gonna suggest, and I believe that we have the support of enough members if we have just one of those, and I would prefer to have the sunset provision uh in in a uh in in a motion if we could.

Okay.

Why don't we do that, Mr.

Vice Chair, vote on it, and then if it's successful, all's well.

If not, we'll go back to the drawing board.

Okay.

On the sunset provision, is that the vote?

Yes, that's that's that's the one condition that we're gonna put in this motion.

We are not going to put in the requirement to have two extra additional parking spaces.

Okay.

Could I propose some language for that?

Yes, please.

Um, and just just that that brings up my question.

I just want to be clear what we mean legally by a sunset provision.

And I'm assuming that that's probably what you're gonna perceive, Mr.

Monte.

Two two things, yes.

Um the only concern I ever have with this a sunset provision is in it in consultation with with your legal counsel would like to get his input on this as well.

I would want it to say that um the uh any subsequent owner of the property would have to reapply for this variance, regardless of what the then existing status of the zoning code allows, right?

So if it what concerns me is that today, uh Linda owns the property and she has the four and she's a responsible owner, and then she's gonna sell it to someone who's also a responsible owner, and they want to come back before the board and prove the same case, right?

And say we we too should get to do it because we live around the corner and we operate this way.

But what worries me is any that the changes could be made to the the ordinance to no longer allow for that uh eventuality.

So what I would uh suggest is that the restrictions state, and I'm sorry, I know I I make you do a lot of work, um, is that this variance is only valid for so long as the property is owned by the applicant and or any entity owned and controlled by the applicant and or any trust for which the applicant is a beneficiary, and should the property be transferred to anyone outside of the preceding, the new owner shall be permitted to uh make a new application for the same relief before the zoning board.

Right.

So you want the ability to, regardless of what the zoning law says, you want the ability to come back and get the same uh you know, basically the same um to request to renew.

The same variance is grandfathered in.

That's what you want, essentially.

Uh correct.

If they meet the ability for them to come back, regardless of what it is to be grandfathered.

That's the ability to come back and say, hey, we're also gonna be responsible.

We're not the McDonald's of Airbnbs.

And it's also very important to me that it because for estate planning purposes, it might make sense for the property to be in a trust or a limited liability company.

So that's something only a lawyer.

So say it's quote to the heirs and she's moved on in life.

Um, and so she say it's like a a son or a daughter, like how do you protect in that scenario where they're it's in a trust, but it's different people managing the house.

Um I mean, I I would think that if she's the beneficiary of the trust, that would be adequate.

Um in a deceased scenario for no, no.

I mean, so long as she's I mean, we we can so long as she's alive as well, but I I don't think we need to over uh work it, but I do really okay.

Yeah, but I do think that that would be that's not what you're doing at all.

To protect my client's interest is to lay it out where it would be uh in that fashion for as long as the applicant owns the property and or any entity owned and controlled by applicant and/or any trust for which applicant is a beneficiary, all applicant remains living.

You read it.

Do we want to go?

Do we want to go down this pathway or what are we doing here?

I think it's a little too complicated at this point.

What is the board's pleasure?

It seems like the board is interested in how the applicant is operating the guest house and less than how she's owning the guest house.

That's that's understanding of what's transpired this evening.

So pretty much I understand that the condition is on her ownership of the property, but it seems like more what we've talked about is how she's operating the guest house.

Sure.

Can I weigh in if you don't mind?

The um I had just written down that the dimensional variance granted will sunset when the property is sold.

Um I and I understand uh they there could be a much more lengthier paragraph, paragraph and a half long, but I don't see it it's a difference.

I don't think without distinction that the if the property is I don't think there's gonna be a a zoning board that says because you've transferred ownership into a trust into uh LLC with the same person owning this, that there would be nothing more than a summary hearing on that, if I had to guess.

Uh because it I I think you've you've outlined it perfectly.

We're focused on the way that the property is man been managed by uh the uh applicant.

And it just would keep it simple.

I I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So now that we've gotten through that.

Um why don't we why don't we try to put this in the form of the motion if we could, Mr.

Vice Chair?

Good luck.

Where keep keep keep it simple, stupid.

Right.

Not you, me.

Okay, Ms.

Chairman.

On uh petition of uh Linda Pereira, uh I move to adopt as a board's finding effect, the information the staff report applications and supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of counsel, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members and adopt as the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under Chapter 17.108 of the new board zoning ordinance and title variances and modifications.

Uh the petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the course of public noticing be paid in full before and as a condition of recording the decision, and the following additional condition uh that this dimensional variance uh uh granted will sunset when the property is sold.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Miss Chevry.

Who would like to begin discussion on this motion?

I'd be happy.

Okay.

Uh Bart, you are our leadoff man a lot of times.

Please carry on.

Um this is an interesting property, obviously.

Uh Goodwin Street is a is a very unique area.

Uh it's in the waterfront business, and the type of work uh with guest houses um uh very common in this area and uh it's very much in character.

Uh what you're asking for, uh basically two things.

You want to you want to have two extra rooms in the in the place, and and the the question is, you know, what about the parking?

I think we I think we exhausted that that night.

And and the city ordinance is real real difficult to meet.

Um the the ordinance says you must have parking.

Do and you know, month in a month out, we people come up with crazy stories.

Oh, yeah, we're gonna park over here, or or I'm gonna park over in Potalka, God knows where.

But um you you have a reasonable amount of parking spaces already on your property, which makes you quite unique.

Uh you you're also uh you you appear to have a very good track record.

You're out of the you're not uh any any police reports, the neighbors like you.

Um and um I I just think what you're asking for is very reasonable, and and um uh so I'm not gonna beat a dead horse.

Uh, for those reasons, I I'm gonna fully support this petition as uh with as defined in the uh uh in the conditions.

Great.

Thank you, uh Bart.

Miss Chevry.

Sure.

Um, so I will also be obviously supporting this petition.

Um there is a clear hardship with the land being an undersized lot uh in the area that you're in.

This is a by right use.

Uh what we see time and time again though is once folks are granted these variances or the special use, the they sell the property.

And I think because you made a big emphasis on how you manage the this rental is because of you and what you do to make it great for your neighbors.

That's why I advocated for that sunset clause.

And I think if you were to sell it down the road, not saying you will, if it does happen, and it's someone that's a major company and they're renting out to college students or um making it a party house, it would impact uh the characteristics of the neighborhood.

And so I think that's why that sunset clause was so important.

Um but for those reasons, I will be voting for this petition.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Uh yes, I'll also be supporting the petition as uh as read.

Um the hot ship, obviously the small lot, lack of additional parking on site.

You have five letters of support, uh, which is incredible for guest house, but it also I think uh points to the fact that this is uh an area that is uh has uh has many guest houses in it because guest houses are uh uh uh okay by right in that in that zone.

Uh I don't think it will alter the character of the neighborhood.

I think the relief sought is minimal for reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use of the property.

Uh uh because it is a buy right use.

So uh I'd be happy uh to support this petition.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

I'll go next.

Um I will also be supporting the petition um to echo my fellow board members.

Uh it's clear, Ms.

Pereira, that you're doing a good job down there.

You've got you know lots of uh support of the neighbors, um, you know, for really an uh uh an airb essentially an Airbnb use, a guest house use.

Um so that's important.

Um the integrity that you've shown here tonight.

That's very important.

These things matter to us.

We pay attention to these things, as you can see.

So the concern has been is that if and when you sell it, we we understand you have no intention of selling it, and that we that makes sense.

But that if you do sell it, then who knows what's what's gonna happen down there next and um and who you may sell to.

My guess is you'll probably vet the vet the buyer if you ever sold it.

You know, I mean, based on what you've been telling us, and you know, you would try to sell to the right kind of buyer.

That would be my sense.

Um, but you know, one never knows.

Um, so that matters.

Uh that's a very, very, you know, tight-knit neighborhood.

It's a very, very uh, you know, narrow streets.

It's really part of old Newport, you know, down by the wharf there.

So we do have to pay attention to all those things.

Um so my point is is that is that the people matter, we do pay attention to this.

And so you've shown yourself through your petition and through your testimony that uh you will be can you were doing the right thing and you will continue to do the right thing.

And so for those reasons and uh those expressed by f my fellow board members, I'll be supporting this petition.

And um, last not least, Mr.

Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I too will be supporting this petition uh and echo the comments of my fellow board members.

Uh I'm satisfied that the the with the hardship, uh also with the with the fact it will not have uh impact on the neighborhood.

Uh and also satisfied that um the sunset provision uh protects any uh misuse that could possibly happen upon a sale.

So uh for those reasons and other reasons expressed by my fellow board members, I'll be voting uh to approve the petition.

I just hope that 12 months is sufficient time to unlock those two doors.

Very good.

Love it.

Very good.

Yeah, we don't want to see you back in 12 months.

Let's be clear.

Okay.

Um so we're gonna uh close the discussion part of this now.

I'm gonna poll the uh the board members on their vote.

Uh let's start with you, Mr.

Grimes.

Mr.

Grimes, aye.

Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Johnson, aye.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Ms.

Chevry, aye.

That's five-nothing in your favor.

Thank you.

Okay.

That's unanimous.

And if you would, Mr.

Monty, uh, please write up.

It's a little bit of a simpler decision.

Um since we were wrong.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

You bet.

Uh move to close the meeting.

Yes.

Is there a second?

All right all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Hearing none, we're closed.

Thank you all.

We are closed up.

No, that was last month.

37 minutes.