We're good.

I love doing that.

Ladies and gentlemen, uh, this is the uh regular November meeting of the Newport Zoning Board of Review.

Uh today is Monday, uh uh excuse me, Monday, November 24th.

And uh we've got a full schedule, so let's get right into it.

Uh starting off the roll call of um of our members tonight.

We will have a couple of different voting groups tonight due to recusals and other such uh things.

Uh but uh our our to start off our uh our voting members will be uh Nicole Chevry, um our vice chairman Dave Riley, uh myself, Wick Rudd, uh Bark Rimes will be acting secretary today.

Russell Johnson is not with us and uh sitting uh in review, except for one where she has to recuse herself is Melissa Padovina.

She will be a voting member and uh Richard uh Richard Berlinski will be uh joining us on a couple of votes tonight um with different recusals happening.

So we will have full five voting members for every uh petition that we have.

Um and so moving on.

Uh we want to uh have a uh we have the draft minutes of October 27th, 2025.

Uh have we all reviewed that?

Are there any comments on it?

And if not, can I have a motion to accept those minutes, please?

I moved it.

We accept the minutes.

Uh uh October 27th, uh 2025.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that motion passes unanimously.

Um now moving on to communications.

We have another extension request for 282 Thame Street.

Um Nick, this is the second 12-month extension that we we've had request?

Correct.

Okay.

And is there any particular explanation for why they need you know that this this ex this extra 12 months?

We in other words, we've already given them a 12-month extension.

Is that correct?

Correct.

I believe they said that there was trouble getting uh the construction started, but the applicant may be here and he could probably explain that.

Please.

If you don't mind.

Good evening, Tanner Jackson, on behalf of the applicant, the aim street, uh LLC.

Um, so I submitted the extension request uh for an additional 12 months.

I identified three issues that have prevented the construction of the uh rooftop uh service area.

One is that the original project architect that did the design plans is no longer involved with the project.

So the applicant has had to seek an additional architect to come on board and supervise the construction.

They have since gotten another architect who's becoming is coming on board now.

The other one is of course financing.

This is an expensive project, and financing has just taken a little bit longer to get than originally anticipated.

That has also been rectified, so that's no longer an issue.

But that has prevented construction up until now.

And then third, and then perhaps um most importantly, there's been water damage to the interior of the property with a mysterious leak that's been, they don't really know where it where it came from.

Uh there have been multiple incursions with water over this past year, which have um occupied a lot of time identifying where the water's been coming in and how to fix it.

And eventually the the roof was just repaired, and that has since fixed it.

There's no longer any water coming in, but I hope you can imagine that um fixing electrical work that's damaged with water, finding out where water's coming in from, filing insurance claims, dealing with contractors fixing water, that that is just occupied their time and taken number one priority.

So that is the reason that we're here for this additional extension request.

It's not by choice, but the circumstances of the project have warranted it.

Okay, well, at least you're getting in before the uh the before it expires, so that that part's good.

Um does anybody have any questions?

Mr.

Jackson?

No.

Okay.

That sounds reasonable.

Thank you.

Um so I think we'll take that up.

Uh would love to entertain a motion to uh to um uh give them the 12-month uh extension, please.

Uh yes, I move that we uh approve the extension.

Uh 12-month extension, another 12-month extension for 282 Thame Street.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Uh you have another 12 months, and it sounds like you'll be moving forward with this then, right?

Figure from very good.

Okay.

Um, and then we have a withdrawal request um as well for for Atlantic Street.

Do we need to make a motion on that, Nick?

Yeah, we do.

It was um they had applied for relief that once they got a survey, we realized they didn't need any more relief.

Um, right before we were publishing the agenda, we we got that survey.

And so essentially they do not need any any uh relief from the zoning board, but we would like you to officially withdraw it since we had publicly advertised for this project.

Okay.

So um what I'll do then is um accept a uh a uh motion uh to uh to allow for Atlantic Street to withdraw their their request.

Yeah, I move that we uh approve the withdrawal request of for Atlantic Street.

Do I have a second?

Second, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, any opposed, no opposed, passes unanimously.

Okay, uh, we're moving on.

We don't have any appeals, which is always a good thing.

Um so now we're gonna move on to the uh summary calendar.

Um for those of you um who aren't at these meetings that often, we're gonna do the summary calendar first.

I believe we have one abbreviated summary, and then um we will move to our full hearing schedule, uh, which I assume is why most of you folks are here uh for maybe one or two of the uh of the reviews of the petitions.

Um so moving on to the summary calendar.

We're gonna do a couple of summaries, uh, but we'll start if we would, uh Mr.

Acting Secretary, uh Mr.

Grimes, please.

Okay, the first one summary calendar is from Susan Eisenberg.

She's the applicant and owner of five Newport Avenue, tax assessor plat 14 lot 026-4 in an R 10 zone for a dimensional variance to construct two additions, increasing the lot coverage from 31.42% to 36.13%, where 30.25% is allowed.

Great.

And um before he moves on, I just want to uh uh ask if there are any objectors in the audience to this petition.

No objectors.

Not seeing any objectors, okay.

Please the next one, Mr.

Grimes.

Okay, the next petition is that of Jessica Conway, applicant and owner of five Blackwell Place, tax assessor plat 07, lot 424 in an R 10 zone for a dimensional variance to install an AC condenser 2.34 feet from the left uh side property line where five feet is required.

Again, any objectors to this petition in the audience?

Not seeing any objectors, no objectors.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Grimes.

Okay.

The next one is uh the petition of Adrian Prezioso, applicant and owner on 24 Byrne Street, tax assessor plat 35, lot 061 in an R10 zone for a dimensional variance to install two AC condensers, 1.81 feet from the property line where fine feed is required.

Once again, any objectors to this petition in the audience?

Not seeing any objectors, no objectors.

Okay, very good.

And the last one, Mr.

Grimes.

Uh, I'm gonna move on to the uh firehouse please.

Okay, uh the next petition uh will be the petition of the firehouse station LLC applicant and owner 118 prospect Hill Street, tax assessor plat 28, lot zero one five in an R3 zone with a historic overlay for dimensional variants to install a generator three feet from the rear property line where five feet is required.

And uh once again, are there any objectors to this petition in the audience?

Not seeing any objectors.

Very good.

Hi, Ms.

Chairman.

Yes.

Uh this is the um uh summing hearing.

We're gonna add a condition on for the uh the generator.

And I just thought I'd I'd read that into the record now in case he is uh the uh petition had any questions about it.

Yep.

But on that particular petition, um there'll be uh an additional condition that the generator uh be tested on uh Monday to Fridays between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m.

Okay.

Great.

Everybody okay with that?

I think so.

Good.

Okay.

Um if we could uh form these four summaries uh into a motion, that would be great, Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, uh I move that replace all the matters called a summary on the consent calendar, and as to all matters on the consent calendar, I further move to adopt the board's finding of facts, information, staff reports, applications, supporting plans and documents, and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under Chapter 17.108 in the Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

Uh each petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially complete within 12 months of the decision.

Um 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 recording the decision.

And as for item five on the summary calendar, the petition of high house station LLC, an additional condition that the generator be tested Monday to Fridays between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

All in favor of uh the summary calendar as uh as as uh written and said, please signify by saying aye.

Uh aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the summary calendar passes unanimously, at least as far as those four are concerned.

And now um we're gonna do one more with uh uh Ms.

Padovina, you're recusing yourself, and Mr.

Berlinzer will be uh voting member on this one petition.

Okay, this petition is that of uh Scotty Mwinney, uh applicant and owner 68 Prospect Hill Street, tax assessor plat 27 lot zero three zero in an R3 zone with a historic overlay for dimensional variants to install an AC condenser 4.6 feet from the pro uh from the front property line where 20 feet is required.

Very good.

Thank you.

Um so that we're not gonna have any discussion on this.

Uh that has been read into the record.

Uh and so at this point, I'm just gonna go for a motion.

We can Mr.

Chair, just check if there's any uh objectors.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes, of course.

Thank you.

Um are there any objectors to this petition out in the audience?

68 Prospect Street.

I don't see any no objectors, no objectives indeed.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

So now we will go on to uh a motion, if we could.

I move to place uh all all matters uh called this summary on the consent calendar, and it's all matters on the consent calendar.

I further move to adopt the board's finding of facts, information staff reports, application, supporting plans and documents, and adopt the board's conclusion of law.

The petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the new part zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

Each petition be granted on the condition that the project be started 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 the decision.

Great.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that motion passes unanimously as well.

Um, and that is the end of the summary calendar.

Uh for all of you folks that are here for a petition on the summary calendar.

Um, you've all been approved.

Uh, you're welcome to stay if you want.

Um, uh, but you're welcome to leave as well.

Um, but thank you, and good luck to you all.

Which one?

Uh yeah, we're not there yet, though.

It's gonna be continuing.

So yeah, that's a full hearing, right?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes.

All right.

So they got it.

Thank you.

Um, yes, thank you, Mr.

Uh, Mr.

Raleigh for uh noting that.

Um it has been uh uh told to me by Mr.

Armour that uh 12 Hunter Avenue, which is on our full calendar.

Uh it's a petition on our full uh full calendar tonight, um, has been withdrawn for the moment.

No, they've requested a continuance.

They've requested a continuance.

I'm sorry.

So that will not be heard tonight.

That was the last uh item on our uh our full hearing petitions.

Um so any if anybody's here um in opposition to Hunter 12 Hunter Avenue, we won't be hearing that tonight.

We have an official motion to continue it just so it uh has to track the advertisement.

Yes, of course.

Um sure.

I will entertain a motion.

I will entertain a motion to continue the uh the hearing for 1200 avenue, please.

Um I move that we um continue the hearing uh for the petition of Michael Gaetano Costello and Mary Beth McNamara Costello to the next hearing.

Okay, very good.

Um do I have a second?

Second.

All favor?

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that passes unanimously, and um so it shall be.

And so they want to be at the next that they're just rescheduling for next month.

Yeah, uh as far as their their plan is is to come back to the next month.

Um, if they choose to request a continuance again, we'll put it on the agenda to continue.

January.

Okay.

Very good.

Um, okay.

Uh thank you for that.

Got a lot of little things on this uh calendar tonight.

Um, so let's move on to the abbreviated summary.

We have one item on the abbreviated summary tonight.

Um, although wait a minute.

Which is that withdrawn as well.

That was the withdrawn application that you motion to withdraw.

Oh, okay.

Oh, that's for Atlantic.

Okay.

Yep.

I'm with you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, so now we've got uh tonight we had four, now we have three full hearing petitions that we're going to be considering.

And if you would, uh Mr.

Acting Secretary, please give us the first one.

The first uh full hearing is the uh uh app number 2025 with the petition of 594-596 Thame Street LLC, the applicants and owner of 594 596 Thame Street, tax assessor plat 35 lot 213 in a limited business zone for a special use permit and dimensional variances to construct a two-story rear edition, expanding a standard restaurant and creating a new one bedroom dwelling, increasing the lot coverage from 46% to 64%, where 50% is allowed without providing additional parking where seven additional spaces are required.

Now, for the record, this was posted as requiring a special use permit.

And I I've been told that this no longer uh requires that uh uh record uh record.

That is correct.

Um, one quick note before um we have the appearance of council, we have a sign-up sheet for anybody that wishes to speak on this.

We're just gonna pass it around um and please sign up if you do wish to speak.

Uh, because looks like we have a number of people here to speak for us.

Yes, that's right.

Thank you.

Um so I just want to say one thing before we get started on on this and the sign-up sheet.

Um we do want to hear opinions both in favor and against this petition.

Uh we just don't want a lot of repetition.

So if you're planning on saying something and you hear what you wanted to say already being said, let's not be repetitive, please.

Just so we can move things forward.

Um, but I assume that there are people here that are both in favor.

Are there people here in favor of this that want to speak?

This petition.

Uh, there have been a number of letters in favor, and there have also been a number of letters against there anybody here against this petition that wants to speak.

Okay, we do have a few.

All right, so we will get to everybody.

Um, but we first we have counsel uh here for the petitioner, I believe, Mr.

Jackson.

So we'll let him present his case first, and then we'll get to um uh people in favor, and then we will get to uh people against.

Uh, is there any counsel here um representing any of the uh the objectors to this petition or a group of them that I can see?

So all of the objectors, you're just here on uh uh of your own accord.

You've not you've not uh hired a council.

Okay, very good.

So Mr.

Jackson, yes, please proceed.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott Holbrook and Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

Um as indicated in the description, uh this is an application that's before you proposing to uh build a modest expansion to an existing uh private club.

Uh the proposed addition will accommodate uh additional service area for the club itself, which for the purposes of zoning is treated as a standard restaurant in terms of calculating parking requirements.

Uh the addition will also provide the opportunity to create a new uh one bedroom unit above the addition and add a dwelling unit to Newport's housing stock.

Um I believe most of you are familiar with this property.

Uh it's called the Protective Club, also for many years called Specs.

It's at the corner of Thame Street and McAllister Avenue.

Uh and it's been uh in existence as a private club for many decades.

Uh the parcel itself, although conforming, uh the reality is it's a very small parcel.

It's only 3,207 square feet.

And again, it is a conforming lot in terms of land area as it relates to the limited business zone.

But the reality is the existing structures uh being the the main building and the staircase behind and the bulkhead uh occupy 46% of the land area of this small parcel.

So the result is that any any modification uh of this uh property as it has existed uh would require some type of zoning relief.

So we're before you this evening asking for two forms of zoning relief, one being lot coverage, a lot coverage variants, as well as parking variants.

Is that the you know this neighborhood is listed uh with the department U.S.

Department of Interior as a historic neighborhood?

It's described as the Southern Thames Historic District, and this building is identified as a contributing structure.

And so part of the part of the rationale for the addition to accommodate a modest expansion of the club is that it makes more sense from uh the in terms of preserving the historic character of the building, uh, in terms of the existing streetscape and the historic streetscape to put this addition tuck behind the existing building where it's less visible uh from the public right away, at least along Thame Street, as opposed to going up.

Um keep in mind that this structure is um as it exists is approximately 24 and a half feet tall, and it's in the limited business zone.

And so structures can be as high as 45 feet, but building up over what's there right now uh would be inconsistent with the historic character of the building and really probably wouldn't make sense from uh in terms of preserving the existing streetscape.

So I think the applicant has worked with their uh architectural designer to come up with a plan which meets their needs while also speaking to the need uh of preserving the streetscape along Thame Street.

Um in terms of the the actual ask itself, I do want to go through uh a couple of those um numbers before I bring up witnesses, and just so um you know the witnesses that I will be presenting this evening are uh Sebastian uh Friesha, who is uh one of the principals of the LLC that owns the property, um, Chris Fagan, who did the design for the addition, and Mr.

Houle, who's our real estate expert.

Uh as indicated, the advertisement and the description on the agenda states that the applicant is seeking 64% lot coverage.

Um leading up to this evening's hearing, um, I was going through the materials in a little more detail and discovered that there was a there was a number that was transposed in the latest plan set, and Nick has uh pulled it up now, and it's resulted in in a miscalculation of what we're asking for in terms of lot coverage.

So if you look at the the sort of the hatched um legend there to the right, which shows how we've calculated lot coverage, the transposition of the number has to do with the size of the lot.

In other words, the plan that was submitted after revisions were made to the original plan, that index says that the lot is 3,027 square feet, but it's not, it's 3,207 square feet.

So this is important to note because we did make revisions to the current to the plan versus what was originally submitted to the zoning officer a number of months ago, meaning that the footprint of the proposed addition did was reduced in size.

So when you plug in the correct um land area on that calculation, you end up with an ask of 60% lot coverage, not 64% lot coverage.

And I I walked through that mistake and I walked through the numbers with uh the zoning officer earlier before the hearing started.

And I think I think Nick will confirm that that is that's the accurate calculation and the accurate ask.

Yeah, excuse me, Mr.

Jackson.

So because it's it's an ask because of the mistake uh it results in it being less coverage even being asked for, we don't have we can continue.

We can continue, they're not asking for more.

So we've advertised over what they are actually asking for.

Okay, gotcha.

Right.

Thank you.

And that that same that's the same issue.

Um there was also uh in relation to the parking numbers, um, same type of situation resulted.

So again, existing conditions call for um the required parking of eight, uh excuse me, seven vehicles, not eight.

Okay.

And then uh again, with the revised square footage of the proposed addition, once we run those numbers, the total parking requirement uh proposed after an addition uh is built would be a total of 12 parking spaces, not 14.

And again, we acknowledge that there is technically one space on site, and so existing conditions are deficient six spaces.

So the net result is we're asking for a variance of six parking spaces, not seven.

So it's again one space less than what the original application called for.

So I just wanted to walk through a couple of those um miscalculations uh between initial filing and and being here before you this evening, so they were clear exactly what's being requested, and I'm happy to answer any questions on that.

The um chairman, um, you mentioned that there's one space on site that is is gonna be eliminated.

Correct.

Is that correct?

And so that's that's where you get the six parking spaces required.

Correct.

So again, existing conditions would require seven, and there's one on site, and then um proposed conditions which would require 12, but we're eliminating one.

So it ends up with this a six-base deficiency.

We're eliminating the existing parking space.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Sorry for the confusion.

Um, and then before I get started, I did want to just just to so you have it in front of you.

Um, I do I did print out the page from the national register, which gives a description of the building in terms of its history and some of the character character defining features, which um which caused it to be listed in this index as a contributing structure in the Southern Thame Street Historic District.

So if I could this will be applicants exhibit one.

So I did have a question along that line.

Yep.

Um, so is this property subject to any additional reviews with HDC or the Department of the Interior?

No, no.

No.

It is this this neighborhood is not in Newport's historic district, so the HDC has no jurisdiction over what the modifications to the plan are.

Okay.

So again, uh this, like many other buildings along there, could be modified at the discretion of the property owner, subject to zoning.

But uh what we're saying is part of the reason we came up with this design is because we feel as though it's more appropriate for this building.

Okay, Bart, can you um I'll keep score, keep score?

Thank you on the exhibits.

Thank you.

Yeah, pet petitioners exhibit one, yes, please.

So you've got five nine six highlighted here on this.

Is that correct?

Yes.

We're looking at yeah.

Okay.

So this was originally the Newport Gas Company building.

Correct.

That's what it states, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions.

Otherwise, I can start with the applicant.

Any questions?

We're good to go.

Yes, sir.

Please uh raise your right hand if you will.

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.

Sebastian Frischow.

Yes.

Speak under the mic, Sebastian, please.

Speak under the mic.

If you can yeah, point the mic at uh Sebastian, do you could why don't you give your professional background to the uh work?

Uh since 2001, I've owned and operated uh restaurant of some in Boston, all parts of uh Ray of Boston.

I've been in the restaurant business, hospitality business 2001.

And you are um one of the members of 594596 LLC at Derek.

Yes, I am.

So you're here this evening, the applicant, correct?

Correct.

Um and when did your company uh become the owner uh of this property?

Uh November 30th, 2022.

Okay.

And if you could, why don't you describe to the board the condition of property using when you when uh your company acquired the property?

Uh sure.

The property was in disrepair, very neglected.

There was uh I don't think any business going on in there in the club.

When we purchased the club, there wasn't a member list active at all.

So we just went in there and cleaned it up and um did what we thought would be best for the the neighborhood for the community and uh brightened it up.

So what was the what was the property being used for when you acquired it?

It wasn't being used at all, pretty much.

The apartment was totally vacant, like it was unlifting for at least a year.

The club itself, I don't know if it was even open or for there was we didn't get any type of business um membership list or any type of sales or receipts from uh liquor purveyors or anything like that.

So we we started out with a blank slate uh in terms of the real estate itself.

Did you make improvements to the property?

We did.

How did you describe those?

Uh we in the club, we redid the plumbing, the electrical, we restored the bar, the bar to the bar, the back bar floors, kept the original sailings.

We want to keep the integrity of of the of the building itself, but we you know cleaned it up, made it a place where people want to come to instead of an eyesore.

We replaced the awning on the outside that was all torn and looked like it got hit by a truck at one point.

Um there was a broken plate window in the front.

We that was boarded up for uh god knows how long we replaced that, just did the right thing, I think.

And what what changes did you make to the operations of the club?

Well, we we opened it.

I mean, we were well received with the neighborhood.

We just try to treat everybody right, and uh honestly, we didn't think we we didn't know if anybody would come in because that place had such a bad reputation.

I spoke to the when I was opening up the bank account right next door at Centerville Bank, the teller told me she grew up in that neighborhood and was told to cross the street when going by specs.

So she's so happy that you know she saw the uh work we've been putting we were putting in for months and months on end, and uh when we opened it, it became very well received with the neighborhood, the community, and that's what we're looking to do, just be another uh support for the for the area.

So you've referenced this a couple of times.

What's specifically, in your opinion, have you done terms of in terms of uh activities at the club to be a good neighbor?

Sure, we we do a lot of charitable events with the church with uh everything.

We just uh had something for uh Mount Luther King.

We raised 1170 dollars.

We we've done a bunch of different fundraising things to support the community over the last couple of years since we've been open.

So in terms of all the improvements you made to the property itself, um the actual uh sort of plan of reaching out to the community and operating a club that serves as a neighborhood club.

Do you think you've been successful in those devers?

I'd like to hope so.

Yeah, but that's part of the reason you're here with the city.

Oh, definitely.

Definitely so it's your desire to create a modest edition so that you can successfully it is so obviously there came a time where um you and your parking provided that you were constrained by the existing conditions on site, right?

Sure.

That is one if you could just sort of describe that thought process and who you work with to develop the plan this for the board down.

Well, we have uh book club paint night in there for our members or various different events where usual club business and I guess a book night really doesn't really uh get together.

It's conflict of noise and music and whatnot.

So uh we thought having a small event space for our members would be the right thing to really um get engaged and and keep us going, moving us further.

Now, if you could um why don't you just describe sort of the neighborhood?

Describe the existing conditions of the club now and also you could be a general description of the neighborhood where the property is located.

Sure.

Um the property is surrounded on two sides by Wellington Plaza across the straight across the street from the club.

There's a banquet lot and on McAllister Street, there is a I believe a two-family home right there.

So there's there's you're in the limited business business zoning district, correct?

Correct.

So you're right on Lower Thane Street along with a bunch of other businesses.

Sure, yes.

Um, but because you're in London business, there is residential neighborhood to your east.

Correct, correct.

Um you worked with uh designer Chris Fagan coming up with the design.

Yes.

And if you're to say that developed an addition that you think is consistent with the neighborhood, yes.

Why don't you describe um put the what's proposed in terms of the addition?

Well, we wanted to keep something to really keep it looking natural to what it was or how it was originally, like a natural expansion of it.

As uh Tony Jackson mentioned, we could we had the availability to go up, but I don't think that lends in the you know looks proper with with what we want.

And I think the neighborhood wouldn't see that being too much.

If you look at what the existing deck is now, it's only a few feet past that existing deck.

Um so it's really not gonna be too intrusive, it's not gonna go up.

There aren't any open air windows, uh so there's not gonna be a lot of noise.

Uh there's not gonna be loud music outside, there's not gonna be any outdoor space for members to be too loud at night and whatnot.

So we're keeping everything inside like we have been.

All right, just to be clear, this the according to the plans is approximately 419 square feet of additional service area, and that as it takes in the plans is primarily seating, right?

Correct.

So you mentioned before you you were looking for some space that would accommodate uh small functions for club members, right?

Correct.

So you've got this additional room to have small functions, and when it's not used for that, it can be used as general seating for the club members.

Yes.

Now it's your determination that at this point this is something that's needed to the club going, alright?

Yes.

The other question I have is part of the plan is to put a dwelling unit above this edition, correct?

It is so how many bedrooms is that we make one bedroom.

So it's gonna be a small dwelling unit, correct?

And what was part of the rationale for we're including that as part of the plan?

Well, I know that Newport uh is always looking for more housing in the area, and um this is a good way to, I think, provide another unit.

Okay, and the hope would be that based on your location that you can find long-term tenants that smoke units, yes, and given your location in the downtown area, your expectations that you should be able to find long-term tenants work downtown.

Correct.

Um, there's been there's been some uh question phrase or concerns about what the remaining outdoor area of the slot will be useful after the addition is built.

So just to sort of clarify the record.

Is there any plan to incorporate the outdoor area behind the admission as part of an extended service area?

No, so all service is gonna take place inside indoors, correct.

Now, in relation to the addition itself, there's some there's some large windows that face the calendar street home.

Or those one of the neighbors first was concerned that those windows would be open, there'd be noise coming out of those.

What's what's the plan for those new?

Those will not be uh cafe style open air windows, they will be closed.

Uh I think that city neighborhood concern about where eventually pay track equipment will be placed.

You've got you've got space on the other side of the spot facing the Wellington Plaza parking lot to accommodate any of the HVAC equipment that might be required.

That is correct.

Um so the back area um can be used for a couple things.

One, you do need space to have some type of row to hide the uh screen the dumpster, correct?

Correct.

Aside from that, it gives you some space to provide um footer and/or bicycle parking background.

Correct.

Yes.

So that would be the plan.

You recently had a standard standard entertainment license for the premises, correct?

Correct.

And that was recently renewed, right?

Yes.

And there's no plan to have any type of outdoor entertainment, correct?

No.

No plan to open windows because you have any type of loud entertainment taking place inside, correct?

Correct.

So essentially, it's your testimony that the operations that are in 50 now are essentially going to continue as is.

Yes.

Just expanding the footprint a little bit to accommodate more club members.

Is that right?

Correct.

Um also you've made an effort using partners to have some type of outreach with the neighbor, correct?

Correct.

So in uh October, you had an open house and invited neighbors to come and review the plans and discuss them with you.

We did.

And if I in the interest of efficiency, I'll summarize what the feedback was, okay?

From my understanding, uh the main takeaways from your outreach with your neighbors was keep the operations going in a respectful and neighborly fashion.

Yes.

Uh do not create a deer garden or outdoor patio in the rear of the property.

Right.

And keep the windows and doors closed during the hours of operation, right?

Sure.

And that's the plan.

That is the plan.

Um again, ultimately, the addition you feel it's a reasonable request given the success of the club, and you desire to make sure that you have amenities to a comedy.

Correct.

Correct.

Um, one of the things in the staff report was a note that there was summons, there have been a couple summons issued for the property uh during 2025.

Uh the zoning endorsement options.

Correct.

Correct.

One of them you were cited for advertising as a short-term rental.

Correct.

And you have not been renting this property.

No.

No.

And that summons was resolved with the design abortion office.

Yes.

There was another summons issue.

Previous tenants were cell bacons.

Correct.

So they have less than a year lease, correct?

Nine months.

And the new court ordinance requires you to post the lease uh area visible to the zoning enforcement officer, and that wasn't done.

Correct.

Again, that's the summons that you resolved with the zoning zoning enforcement.

We did.

Just to be clear, your plan is not to seek permission to operate the short-term rental or guest house on the property.

No, it's not.

Uh your intention is to rent both those dwelling units on a long-term basis.

Correct.

So let's quickly just talk about the parking situation.

So to be clear, um, there is a curved button along the palace in which services is spotted, correct?

There is.

And that's what's referenced in the application as a parking space for one vehicle, right?

Yes.

Um the proposed location of this addition, however, is going to struct the use of that um for vehicles, right?

Yes.

Um, historically, I know you can't really speak to what previous owners did, but since your acquisition was property in 2022, you have not been using that for parking, right?

No, we have not.

So there's no parking for employees on site, there's no parking for guests.

No.

Or the residents.

Zero parking being used.

The lot is 3200 square feet.

Um, even if you wanted to try to accommodate some parking, the reality is there's just not enough space to get property to do that, right?

Right.

Um, the last thing, what what is the what's sort of the then the if you've gotten feedback, what's been the feedback of your club members in terms of traffic and parking?

I mean, do they come in and say, gee, I really wish you had a parking lot, or I can't find a parking space, or what's that's really not an issue for the members.

They all of most of the members live in the very close vicinity, they're all walking there.

Right.

Yes, so that's not an issue for the any of the members.

And it's not an issue because it's your testimony that this is fundamentally the neighborhood club.

Correct.

This is not people coming from out of town to come here because they're not club members, correct?

And um aside from servicing the neighborhood and many of the members being within walking distance, uh, other members uh, you know, this this may or may not be a destination for the evening.

In other words, they may have a number of stops that they're walking up and down things to you never have never had problem with your club members telling you that traffic is a problem, I'm not coming here anymore.

I wish you had parking in the case of that never.

And what about your long-term tenants?

They're all probably walking, they're walkers.

They're they're gonna be people that are living in the immediate area, working in the immediate area.

That's the hope, and even south they take the other cells you come on some farms, at least they're long enough that they can get residents, correct?

Correct.

They can park in a neighbor in the neighborhood to your east, and then across the other side of the street and you're just they can.

And then lastly, again, just to talk about parking one.

You've got diagonally across uh on the other side of the Hibernian club, you've got the Wellington Resort, correct?

Correct.

They uh use at least a portion of that is the public parking lot, correct?

Correct.

They settled the charge based park, right?

Yes.

Um it's also in close proximity, waits to work, and that's operating the same way, right?

Correct.

Yeah, so so is in your opinion that based on your experience with club members that this addition and the handle of additional parking space that will be required under the public to accommodate the addition, you anticipate that's gonna be a problem in terms of traffic or parking.

We do not.

So to be clear overall, you feel as though you come up with a plan which uh meets the needs of the club and club members, um, at the same time being sensitive to the history of the building, being sensitive to uh neighborhood, that's it.

It is your belief that you by doing that, you're meeting the requirements of the public with the variance and drafts before.

Yes.

You're you're all set, yeah.

Um right, so we'll get to the objectors.

Um right, being that there's no council um for the objectors.

Uh I'd first like to open it up uh obviously to uh board members for questions of you, Mr.

Freeza, if you will.

Do you have questions?

Yeah.

Um Mr.

Jackson and and uh the you're you're talking about the uh the uh current parking situation.

You you want to uh expand your business, and I'm assuming I don't know how much will be expanded by maybe 20%.

So it's gonna be an increased demand on parking requirement.

Could you speak to that?

Or what do you think you how you're gonna manage that?

Uh given the fact that your your facility is bigger and you have more uh places to live in the in that building as well.

So it's gonna be an increased demand.

What's your plan for that?

Well, we could we are gonna provide uh space in the back for scooters, bicycles, and whatnot for tenants.

Yes, yeah.

What I'm getting at, you were just you and Mr.

Jackson were explaining that you that you were able to make it work currently.

Yes.

Uh but now you're looking to expand the business.

You know, so it's up considerably.

Um, and you're gonna have an increased demand on parking.

So I mean, how how are you gonna wrestle that?

How are you gonna get around that?

I mean you you're making it work now, and my my guess is that you're making it you're just making it work.

You're gonna put a bigger demand on that.

So what are your thoughts about that?

Well, I know in Wellington Ave there's plenty of parking there up and down that street, and um it's just a this is a walking neighborhood, really, where most of our members are are coming there walking.

They're walking the dogs, we let the dogs come in.

I mean this is a walking town, really, where all our members see every day walking in and out, very few of them are do we see driving.

So if I can follow up on that, so I guess what your testimony is the addition is not intended to create a dramatic increase in your membership roles, correct?

Correct.

The addition is to accommodate the existing members.

The existing members are primarily walking from the neighborhood.

Yes.

You don't anticipate that's changed.

Yeah.

So I I the that brings up the other question.

You're you're currently a quote unquote club, correct?

A private club.

Yes.

Um do you plan to change that to a more of a public facility where anybody can walk up the street and and drink beer and have a sandwich or uh and that that'll probably no plans to change the uh status of the club, the license or anything.

Okay.

It's a class, it was it, a class D license.

Is that what you guys have?

Yeah, off the top of my head, it's a club license.

It's a club license.

Yeah, yeah.

I think it's class D.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Richard.

Kind of a follow-up of a similar thought as uh Mr.

Grimes when this attorney Jackson stated or asked if you felt the expanse was needed to keep the business going.

And you responded, yes.

I just found that an interesting and curious question.

Is because business isn't good or it's so good you feel you need to expand.

I just found that an interesting question that you need it to keep business going.

Well, I think we have different types of events for our members.

Like I said, uh book night.

Uh there's like Christmas ornament painting night coming up where if we could provide us like a separate space where the music isn't as loud, or have something separate where people can talk amongst themselves because especially a book night.

Get a lot of people talking about you know intricacies of book and whatnot, where you get the music, the TVs going on in the background.

It doesn't make it as conducive for a better experience for that said night.

Uh so they could have their own area to pretty much have it to themselves and without being disrupted by the regular club clientele.

Thank you.

Mr.

Balensky, I may phrase that question poorly.

What I'm meant to ask was followed up later and phrase it in terms of the fancy being a regional accommodation of the existing members right.

So your your point is that you want a separate space where people can go that are having an event or a group meeting of some kind, and you anticipate doing more of that, right?

With your current membership, correct?

Is that what I'm understanding?

Correct.

Okay.

Questions, Dave?

Yes.

Um, I have a couple questions.

Um it's a significant increase in the size of your operation from a square footage point and the number of seats.

Isn't that correct?

Are you doubling the size of your I don't think it's quite doubling?

It's pretty close to doubling.

Yeah.

It's around the existing the existing service area is 710 square D.

Okay.

And the addition will create 419 square feet of new surface area.

So maybe a 60% increase.

Correct.

70%.

Would that be right?

Fair to say.

Yes.

Uh that's going to be open on a regular basis.

We anticipate that, yes.

Okay.

So it's also going to be used as a function room, right?

Yes.

What's your hours of operation right now?

We're open until 1 a.m.

every night.

What time do you open?

Oh, do we open?

Uh I believe it's 10 or 11.

We we can open earlier, but we don't.

10 a.m.

10 a.m.

Yeah.

Yes, they're at 10 a.m.

11 o'clock.

Uh so what are some of the other functions you plan to have in that function room?

It could be anything.

It could be uh uh a baptism, a birthday party, anything of wedding shower or anything that whatever the members have a need for, really.

So a lot of those activities would be daytime, even maybe morning baptism, possibly, yes, morning activities.

Yes.

Um those activities would be attended.

If I wanted to rent your facility, I could go rent your facility.

Is that correct?

Uh I do not believe so.

I couldn't take out a membership and then rent.

Yes, yes.

What what is the qualifications to get a membership?

I don't think it was in really any qualifications you have to pay a membership fee.

Right.

So if I wanted to rent that facility for a baptism after um the the church, uh I could rent that and I uh at 1030 on a Sunday morning, you could have 60 people, 70 people looking for spaces in that neighborhood.

Is that correct?

Uh probably not.

That right now my capacity is 49.

If you wanted to rent the back room, that's even smaller.

So that probably would be too big of a party for that space.

Um so there'd be 50 people.

That could be renting that space.

Well, is that space would that space be limited to a certain number of people in that space versus in the front space?

Yes.

It would be separated.

I believe so.

I believe that's how it when you get the variance, they they tell you what the occupancy is for that, correct?

I I don't know.

Okay.

Yeah, it's maxim maximum occupancy.

Correct.

The uh I'm I'm sure since you've bought the property, you've gone up and down, and and um I'm asking you to comment on the area that's south from um the protective club south, and you go up and down the streets between Thame Street and Spring Street, Thame Street, and down to uh uh Martian Street.

That's almost entirely residential.

Correct.

Isn't that correct?

Correct.

Many of our members look there, yes.

Right, right.

So the um the uh improvements you've made to the the uh the facility and the building and the protective club are uh tremendous um compared to you know its past use.

Um but the expansion seems to be um maybe when I read a lot of the people supporting uh your facility, I heard them talk about uh neighborhood small cozy type environment.

And now I think that you're increasing that size beyond that, right?

It's it's it's gonna add a lot more people in what is primarily a residential neighborhood.

Um the the lack of parking, I know your grandfathered in to some of the parking, uh uh, but you're providing no additional parking uh uh for this edition.

Um and I I see that I see that uh troublesome.

I see that one of the one of the standards you have to jump over, I guess, is uh will it alter the character of the neighborhood?

Will this expansion?

Um you've owned business uh different businesses and restaurants and so forth, and you could sell you could make all these renovations and sell the business, correct?

Sure.

Sure, right?

So the way you're operating that business and the clientele that goes to that business today might not be the same clientele five years from now or four years from now or whatever, correct?

I get we have no intentions of leaving the area leaving.

Completely understand that, but but it could change and and you're gonna be bringing in a lot more people into what what has always been and traditionally been a very small uh neighborhood uh neighborhood uh bar or tavern or taverns like restaurant.

The the uh uh an objector brought up the point that you have a uh uh sliding glass door out to the back.

That made my head scratch to us say if there's no activity out the back of that new edition you're putting on, why would you need a sliding glass door to go out there?

Are you familiar with what I'm talking about?

There could be modifications of the plan.

I think it I think it'd be appropriate to have a second means of egress, but again, uh the purpose of this has been stated if it would please the board to impose a condition that that doorway be reduced for uh the purposes of e-gress only, and there'll be no activity in the outdoor area?

Well, will the fire marshal weigh in on this in some way?

I mean, in terms of suggesting that the what's what's on the original plans had French doors to wide open?

So I'm suggesting that that could be modified to a standard door purposes of egress and the sort like an emergency door, basically something along those lines.

Okay.

Okay.

And the uh other is the current apartment rented?

No.

Um has it ever been rented as uh full-time full-time, like 12-year lease, uh 12 years, 12-month lease, or uh has it been rented at all since you've owned the property?

It has been rented.

Uh it was rented for the last two previous uh school years, uh nine months.

Okay.

We have been trying to rent it for 12 months for the past few months.

And your intention again, as you stated uh with Mr.

Jackson, that that is not going to be, you're not gonna look to do guest uh guest house rentals at that location.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Great, thanks, Dave.

Paul, do you have anything?

No, I guess I'll save it.

Lisa?

No.

Thank you.

Um, so c a couple of things.

Um uh Dave was talking about going south, and that's residential.

So, you know, typically limited business LB is is a buffer, you know, it's like a buffer area.

So I'm assuming that the other side is Wellington.

That is that general business.

Um that would be my assumption.

Do you know, Russ?

Um, I think that uh well here you go.

I think it's limited business.

Yeah, it's limited.

It's still limited business.

The whole board or the east side of Main Street business.

So at some point it it turns into general business, but that's way north, is what you're saying.

Okay.

Waterfront business too.

Yeah.

Well, on one side would be waterfront, on the other side would be general business.

Um I'm looking at that side of the street, the uh the eastern side, if you will, right?

So I get that part.

Um okay.

The only reason I asked that is that there are significantly different um uh uh density, you know, um allowances for general business and waterfront business than there are for limited business.

Um so I just wanted to see in terms of a buffer zone there, but limited business for the Wellington, it's a big that's a big uh property.

Um again to be sure it was 64 percent, but because of that miscalculation is now 60 percent.

That's what you're looking for, and the code is 50 percent.

Okay, so you're looking for 10% more than that.

Okay.

I'm good.

And do you have anything else, Richard?

You good?

I I have another question.

Uh many applicants come before the board uh dealing with uh parking uh deficiency.

And many of them arrange, uh make arrangements with other uh companies, uh uh uh to to create parking to meet the demand.

Um you were mentioned earlier that you're gonna send people down to Wellington Avenue and maybe Waits Warp and everybody's doing that, and sooner or later they're going to get filled.

Um have you given any consideration to having some type of assigned parking off campus that would uh at least resolve some of the parking issues?

I'll be honest with you, Mr.

Grimes.

Uh that was discussed for the applicant, but um that was not pursued, and I'll tell you why, because what I've seen happen over the last year or so is you guys get applications for short-term rental guest houses, and the applicants will go and secure parking somewhere off site, and and I get it, but the reality is uh for every time that an applicant suggests that the zoning officer off often do a calculation of where there's suggested rent spaces and whether or not those spaces are available, uh whether they're already spoken for from a zoning perspective based on the uses that take place adjacent to the parking lot.

So it becomes honestly it starts to become shell game.

Sure, it is, of course.

The reality is we're just being honest, there's most of the businesses up and down Pain Street do not have parking.

This business is no different.

And the testimony that was offered by the applicant, I think was along the lines of we're really talking about a handful of cars, and we don't think it's gonna create that much of an impact, especially the nature of the use being a club, which services people that reside mostly in the area walk to the club.

So that's you know, that's that's the case that's being made as opposed to us coming up with um, you know, a proposal that we're gonna rent three spaces up at 130 Bellevue Avenue and have patrons walk you know half a mile to the club.

All right, good, good response.

Thanks.

Yeah, good response, except for one thing.

Um have you considered parking spaces for the rental units upstairs?

I'm not really concerned.

I understand, and I I take your point that it is a business and not many businesses.

We've been through this.

Um there is no parking, you know, and they everybody's grandfathered in with no parking for the businesses, but um what what what would you say to trying to do something for the tenants upstairs?

And again, you're adding another unit, which on balance is good because we need more units in Newport.

So that I am supportive of, but um would be nice perhaps maybe if there were some assigned parking spaces for the tenants that are upstairs.

Is that a thought that you we would you would consider?

It's certainly something that we would consider and have to discuss it with my client at the fifth.

Okay.

Maybe where you make final deliberations and I can be presented with the witnesses, so response on that.

I I take your point that the business itself, um, that that to me is believable.

Yes.

Um, it generally is a neighborhood bar.

And so people are coming from you know, generally from walking distances around the uh the fifth ward area uh to the to the club.

Um the apartments may be a little bit different, but something just to throw out there um as we go forward.

Anything else, folks?

Good.

Thank you.

Thanks, Richard.

Thank you for your time, but they call Chris Fagan.

Sure.

Uh please raise your right hand, sir.

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

I do, yes.

The state your name for the record.

Chris Fagan.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So um Chris, you've you were engaged by the property under some time ago to come up with a plan to approach edition, correct?

Yes.

If you could why don't you just describe sort of that process the program requirements work from the client versus uh what the zoning board has for them this evening and how this plans evolved a little bit?

Yeah, the applicant was basically looking to add a secondary space that they could host small events in.

So, you know, after looking at the property, it made the most sense to go out the back.

We wanted to keep it a very modest space.

We wanted to very much keep it in keeping with the character of the rest of the building.

So we pushed out, we opted to push out a few feet up the back.

All right.

We looked at that, but it just didn't seem like the most appropriate alternative considering the historic nature of the building.

And why don't you describe the board?

What kind of impact that might have on the actual streetscape?

I think it would seem out of scale, essentially.

It would you know take the proportions of this very modest two-story building and make it something it's not.

And so the the um the addition that is proposed, if you're standing in front of uh um the club on Bain Street, it's not even still correct.

Correct.

You're gonna have to go a little further south and along with Alistair to be able to see what's been built behind the club, right?

Yes, it actually steps in off the corner of the building.

Right.

That was one of the revisions that was done just last month prior to last month's meeting, I was addition to step back a little bit from the existing edge of the building, right?

Correct.

Um why don't you describe the sort of internal program and why um why the size that it is now in terms of the bike units built?

Basically, looking to get enough space here to be able to post small functions.

Uh and it also allows us to reconfigure a little bit of the existing space in the interior.

Right now, the kitchen's extremely small.

So adding this addition is the opportunity to put in a basement where a lot of the kitchen crab and storage can really happen.

So that's a nice bonus for the area.

And as these discussions ensued about creating some additional space for club members, the concept of uh putting an additional dwelling unit above the space also, correct?

Yeah, it seemed more appropriate to add a secondary unit as opposed to expanding the current unit.

All right, and that's secondary unit is rough for the small, isn't it?

It's a very small one bedroom.

Um and the the dimensions of the existing dwelling unit above the main building for nothing open per se, right?

Still stay the same.

And part of the additional square footage also accommodates um additional egress for the upper floor.

Right now there's a exterior stair, which is was added at some point later in the history of this building.

It's not very attractive or in very good shape.

So as a part of this, we're able to enclose that and make an interior.

And that that's essentially a necessary element of safety of the book as well.

Correct.

Again, including the existing blocking unit.

Correct.

So in coming up with the design, um, is it your opinion that you know obviously things can be modified slightly, but you think that this is really a relatively small addition to the club that they're excited?

Yes.

I quoted previously that the service area within uh the first floor expansion is 419 square feet that seems like correct.

Obviously, service area doesn't include the initial restroom as part of this room, right?

Correct.

Um, and the additional area where the staff serve any gas that are that function area.

Right.

Um I know the question is.

Okay.

Board members, any questions?

Mr.

Fagan.

Uh oh, Mr.

Fagan, maybe you can answer the question about that sliding uh door.

You you're an architect.

Architectural designer, yeah.

Okay, so do why the sliding door in the back?

It's not a sliding door, it's uh it would be a French door.

A French door with one operative panel.

So basically it would be one door that would open.

So for okay.

Thank you.

That was not included as any intention to expand the outdoor.

You heard the condition that was discussed with the folks previously about me, I'm sure it's identified as eX only.

Correct.

That's not a problem.

It's not a problem.

Yeah, it would be an emergency door.

We have like a you know, a push bar comes out and it's states it's an emergency door only, something along those lines.

So that's sort of what I was thinking.

It's not something where people are going to be going in and out, you know, to maybe have a cigarette or something like that, you know, or yeah, then come back in.

Correct.

Mr.

Fagan, one more question.

Uh, regarding um soundproofing, do you take any uh measures to uh reduce the sound emitted from the building?

Absolutely, the soundproofing can be done in such a way that it would have you know greater sound protection than just a regular construction condition.

Okay, thanks.

Anything over here?

No.

Oh, we're good.

Thank you, Mr.

Fang.

Thank you.

Uh, yes, Mr.

Wool.

Yes, sir.

Please raise your right hand if you would.

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, sir.

James Hoole, H O U L E.

Good.

Mr.

Chairman.

Except that Mr.

month after month as a as a real estate expert, expert brazier, and I would request it to think the same seating.

Yes, um, I think that's that's okay if everybody's good with that.

Maybe we'll accept Mr.

Wool as an expert in real estate.

Mr.

Wool, you were engaged some time ago by the uh applicant to do an analysis of the zoning position of rights.

That's correct.

And if you could, why don't you sort of walk the board for your analysis and your conclusions relative to this application?

Sure.

So there really are two.

I mean, you know, there are two uh items that are of discussion here.

One is parking, and the second one is the lot coverage.

So when I look at this property, um, we're looking for what the hardship, the hard the hardship being the unique characteristic of the building, I think itself.

This is a very small lot, the building takes up the entire front, it extends back into the lot.

This is a very small lot again, it's only 3200 square feet.

So you don't really have a lot of room to do very much.

The idea of changing the lot coverage, it's already a 46 going to 60.

Um, that's actually in my mind the minimus.

And the reason why I say that is because when I look at lot coverage, and I've testified this way frequently when we talk about items like swimming pools.

When you talk about lot coverage, you really are leading in to a compound calculation that has to do with massing.

And when you look at this property, the massing of this property will remain a two-story building with the original historic streetscape along Thame Street.

The total massing of the property is smaller than all of the neighbors that are between 602 and two Wellington Avenue.

So you you look at the other lots, the other lots are very large.

You have it's 603, it's 605, you have a six-unit condominium complex.

Um across the street is a very large three-unit building.

Um, each of the buildings, including the Wellington and the timeshare, I'm not timeshare, the short-term rental that are across the street uh on the corner of uh Wellington and Thames are all much bigger buildings on very similar size lots, and their total massing is much greater.

When you're driving down or walking down Thame Street, and you look at the footprint of this property, it will be totally unchanged from the front.

And Mr.

Riley brought up a point about it extending into the back.

And I did want to address that for two reasons.

One, because the industry standards on people in a room is in this type of a um facility is usually between 12 and 15 people.

So when you're looking at uh the total square footage uh for 400 square feet, 420 square feet, you're talking about uh maybe 25 to 30 people that would be using this route.

Um, and that I think is going to be pretty much what the fire marshal would allow for the use.

30 people at a maximum, I don't consider to be a really large space.

The second thing is if you look at my report on page seven, there's an aerial of the neighborhood, and you can see where the small extension is going to go, the 400 square foot extension is going to go in the back of the building.

The entire um northern side and the entire eastern side for a good distance is simply the parking lot of the Wellington.

And you have uh the McAllister Street and you're already on the residential uses are already facing um that parking lot, and there's only going to be a little bit of an extension on the back of this building, which is going to maintain it's going to be parallel to the other commercial use along Thame Street.

So it's not going to jut back any further than the next building that's on the corner of McAllister and Thame Street.

And I think that's important to bear in mind because the residential uses don't start until behind that building.

So there's actually quite a distance.

There's a buffer, a really strong buffer around this building where it's situated on its lot.

So I I think when I look at it, I look at the concept of this being expanded on two stories, maintaining really a lower mass than the buildings around it.

And from Thame Street, either walking or driving, you're not going to see any impact whatsoever.

It's entirely to the back.

Um, and it's not higher than what's existing there right now.

Um, so you're going to maintain a historic streetscape, and I don't think that's a problem at all.

The second issue really is the parking.

And quite frankly, as Ms.

Chevry has quoted me in the past, I constantly am here saying that I really consider the parking issue to be a macro issue for the city and not a micro issue for each individual business or property owner in the in the city.

Um the the owner has already testified that the primarily receiving clientele that are in the neighborhood.

I think that that's really quite valid.

Um, and and I do not believe that a one-bedroom apartment is going to increase the traffic or the parking issue significantly.

I think that if people are aware when they're renting an apartment that they are not being given a parking space, they're going to make use of scooters and bicycles and shoe leather to just walk down Thame Street.

This is a really well-located property.

It's very close to a lot of um, if people are working in restaurants, it's tremendous amount of opportunity right in that area.

Um, the public transportation runs by there.

And I think that if you're renting a one-bedroom apartment and you're making it known to the tenants that they don't have parking, I don't see it as an issue.

Um, I think that with the expansion of the business, um, Mr.

Jackson handled that really well in terms of the fact that this is a neighborhood.

This is the same clientele, you're just trying to give them more room to move when they're in the building.

And I don't see that this is a destination.

People aren't driving down from Providence to go to go here.

This is really a local watering home.

And I think that that will remain that way.

So when I look at the hardship, the hardship is a small lot, the position of the building.

Um, did they create this?

No, this building's been here since 1800s.

That it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood.

It's physically going to be the same.

And I don't see it encroaching at all into the residential areas.

Especially with only a 30-person potential increase in use for that property or for the extension.

And I think that it will it conforms to the comprehensive land use plan, and that we're asking there for an additional dwelling unit, which is necessary that's already been stated by the board.

And the comprehensive land use plan calls for the expansion of business.

And you have a successful business and successful businesses need to expand as they as they continue to do this.

So I think overall that the variances are well handled by the standards and the plan.

So quickly, Mr.

Poole clear.

That's fair to say.

And your conclusion is that the application meets the requirements for the granted with dimensional variants.

Yes.

And you're going to do that same analysis in relation to the parking variants, correct?

Yes.

Your testimony that the application meets all the elements necessary for ranting uh apartment variants.

That is correct.

Adopt the analysis and conclusions set forth in your report until that there is a report's already has uh included part of the record, right?

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

Questions, board members?

Anybody?

I do have one, Mr.

Chair.

Sure.

Um good evening, Mr.

Wool.

Hi.

Uh about massing.

I appreciated what you said.

That was um, you were, of course, very knowledgeable about that.

Is the only reason not to go up the allowable 20 feet, um the historic character of the area.

I'm asking this question because instead of expanding out where you need a variance, it sounds like the building could actually go up for space within its rights.

Yes, there's two issues.

One is the streetscape and the fact that the building, you don't want to really change the character of the building because it is a it's kind of an attractive building.

So I think that you don't want to be doing that.

I haven't really spoken with Mr.

Fagan, but I appraised that property when it was no when it was being coming out of the estate years ago before the current owners purchased it.

And the building itself has it's kind of there's kind of like a gap between the top of the first floor ceiling and the floor of the second floor, and it's kind of an irregular floor on the second floor.

I think that if you were going to go up, you you would really be very, you know, I just think that it would be out of character completely out of character, and also not very uh conducive for the business, or wouldn't be very uh it really wouldn't work well for the business to go up onto the second floor because you you'd be asking people to either go up a lot of stairs or you'd go elevators, and that sort of just defeats the purpose of the it's sort of the ambiance or provenance of the property.

Sure.

I was just as you were describing the different buildings around, and I understand that this in particular is a contributing property.

Um I just kind of pondered the question about why not just despite the fact that you know it's historic in nature, why not just go up where you can legally do so?

Um so thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I I don't think I think this is physically better as well as visually better.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Anything else?

Go ahead.

Anybody good over here?

Anyone?

Very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Hole.

So that's all we have, Mr.

Chairman, uh, members of the board in terms of witnesses.

I would just ask that I have the opportunity at the end to make a comment or two before you start delivering.

Yeah, and we have uh right by my calculations a few objectors.

I think there's a couple over here and and one over there.

Um do we have um before I go to the uh to the uh butters that object, are there any is anybody here sign that list that um is in favor of the project that wants to speak?

Yes, we have a list of approximately 12 people so far that have signed up.

We have a list that can be signed by others if they would like.

I can bring this up for you and you could call them out in turn.

That's fine.

Um so is it in any order in terms of whether they um are in favor of the project or not in favor of the project?

It's kind of a mix.

So uh that's fine.

And but we can do that.

But what I'd like to do is um just more or less on the honor system.

I want to get to the people first that are in favor of it and then have the uh the abutters that are objectors get their chance to talk as well.

If you see what I'm saying, yes, I I don't want to I don't want to have people in favor that are butters and then have one not in favor and one in favor, one not in favor.

I'd like to I'd like to group them together.

Okay, um, I should actually clarify.

We did not ask on the sheet whether they were in favor or not in favor.

We just asked if they were um if they owned property within 200 feet, so essentially if they're an official abutter, okay.

So here's what I'm gonna do.

I don't need that right now.

Um I'm going to uh you know, we're sort of on the honor system.

If you sign that, I believe you, okay.

Um, but what I want to do is um I'd like to bring up um some folks for the moment that are uh in favor of the project, and um again, with the idea that I don't want to be repetitive.

So does anybody here sort of feel like they want to be an ombudsman for the group?

Or I mean, you know, we'll try to we'll try to if there are things that people want to say, we'll try to get to you.

But um, I want to be able to get the points across, but not have them be repetitive.

So who wants basically who wants to go first?

Okay, back no excuse me, I got back there in the in the back.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, do you want um a three-minute timer on these?

Or are you um yeah, why don't we try to keep it to three minutes if we can?

Um although I I do want everybody to be able to get their points across.

I just don't again don't want people to be repetitive.

Um, you know, we're we get it.

If you tell us the first time, we got it.

So we'll figure that out.

Yes, sir.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his proceedings?

Exhibit I do.

Please state your name.

My name is Tony LaRusso.

Majority owner of Wellington Plaza and several of the businesses within the plaza.

Um, I first like to say thank you.

Um, you know, having the property in such distress before and now what it is today is a big improvement for for our neighborhood.

Um, I have a bird's eye view of everything that goes on there.

And when Attorney Jackson says this is a neighborhood bar that people are walking to, I see it every day.

And that is a hundred percent true.

Um, there aren't people that are coming in from out of town, you know, looking to park and try to go to this establishment.

Um, we have what I consider cheers in Newport.

Um, a great bunch of people.

Um, and when you have competition, you know, I have restaurants, I have bars right there.

And Albert Bouchard told me many years ago when I was working with him that competition is good for restaurants and for bars.

Right.

We have a few groups of restaurant owners that are kind of taking over our town, you know.

So when you allow people, you know to start businesses to expand them.

It's good for the customers, you know.

They've made you know our businesses uh more competitive.

It's good for the the neighborhood, you know, it's bringing people down.

Um that come to my establishments.

Um you have Veste and hooked, right?

I have yesterday hooked.

Vino wine bar, we have Boku.

Um, we have the bank.

And it's it's been a good spot for our neighborhood to really stay within Lower Thames Street.

Um, you watch the traffic patterns.

I mean, everybody's walking, you know, down towards Bowen's Waff.

Um, we've created something now on Lower Thame Street that um you have people walking the other direction, and that's good on the parking part of it.

You have restaurants like scales and shells.

They have a capacity of 240.

They don't have one parking spot.

And there are a lot of people that come in from out of town in different places to go to establish things like that.

You know, so to make these guys stuck on parking when, you know, it's a it's a newport problem.

Um but the competition is good.

I think they've done a great job for the lower thame street, and I'm in favor of this.

Um I think it'll be a good addition.

And looking forward to have hopefully a birthday party for one of my grandsons in that room.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, can I just ask um Mr.

Russo?

Sorry.

Or I know your business is right next to where are you also on a butter?

Are you technically I am in a butter?

Um probably the largest of butter.

Okay.

Because in Wellington Plaza, if you look at the back lot, yes, um, that is all the property that I have.

Familiar.

Yeah.

And are you a member of the protective case?

Thank you.

Okay.

Just wanted to check.

Thank you.

Just a yeah, not necessarily for you.

How many members does the protective club have?

Does anybody know?

That's a right now, 1100.

Okay.

Wow.

Okay.

Any other questions from Mr.

LaRusso?

Very none.

Thanks.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

Okay, yes, sir.

You wanted to come up and say a few things.

Why not?

We know you too.

Please raise your right hand, sir.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

I do.

Please state your name, Mr.

Ruiz.

My name is Rui Reese.

I'm uh primary residence at 15 Simmons Street.

I am here to speak in favor of the uh approving the variants.

Uh from the basis of the uh expansion of the or the ability to generate revenue for the city.

One through the uh meal and beverage tax and the amount of the lack of uh from the previous owners, the lack of revenue that that property contributed to the city and how much it contributes now.

And also, if the expansion is granted, it will also increase the property tax the property value, which will then help everyone in the neighborhood raise their property values and then uh raising further tax revenue for the city of Newport.

And I'm also a member and long time a butter.

Absolutely.

Um questions for Mr.

Reese.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Appreciate your comments.

Yes, of course.

Good evening.

Hi, please raise your right hand if you would.

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.

Michelle Esley.

Yes.

I live at 603, 605 Thames.

I own two units, and we are delighted to have you in the neighborhood.

What has been done is incredible.

The place was an eyesore.

Wonderful, wonderful hosts.

Speaking of the mic, please wonderful hosts.

Um amazing people.

It is the most fun to go there and meet your neighbors that you would have never met otherwise.

I just can't tell you how happy we are to look across the street, see the beautiful flowers and all the welcoming faces.

Thank you.

Very good.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Hearing none.

Good.

Anyone else have something to add to the mix?

Why not?

You know me.

Well, you might be surprised.

Yeah, hold on, hold on.

Please raise your right hand.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

And you do.

And please state your name for the record, please.

Tom Leonard.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I've been in uh Newport area uh since 2007.

Uh watched Tony do his thing, and I watched these guys do their thing.

And the earlier point, the earlier point, added such such tremendous value to the uh to the area.

Uh I probably know more people now in my fifth ward district than I did prior to these guys doing you know what they do.

Soccer matches, you know, you just run into different people.

I was one of those people that was told to walk around on the other side of the street uh when I went by the old specs.

And uh to see what these guys have done to the property.

I did go into the old specs once, I never went back again.

Uh they've done a tremendous job with that area.

I have watched people come in, uh, talk to many people.

I haven't heard anyone today that I've run into to say that I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna come here again.

I couldn't find a parking spot.

Um, I can't, it's a neighborhood bar.

I don't think invest any more money in that place if parking was an issue.

They're investing in the place because I think they feel they can get more out of the neighborhood.

When you look at the inside of that right now, they do some neat things with games and stuff like that, but it gets very crowded in there at times.

So if there was additional space in the back, in addition to the parties that were being spoken about, you have kids in there sometimes, which is great.

I mean, you see families in there you know on Saturdays and Sundays.

Uh, you see people trying to play games on on you know, small tables, it gets very crowded.

So they I I'm envisioning that they would have more space in the back so the families could gather young kids and things of that nature, but also a little more space to play games and things of that.

Now, when they renovated the bar, they redid uh you know the front of the bar, which was very, very nice, but they also kept the 10 tin roofing, which makes it very, very noisy.

So I'm assuming that the backspace is gonna not have the tin room, and it'll be a little easier for families to gather and talk, for people to play games and have you know small little meetings, or to have the events are talking about.

Um, from your standpoint earlier, uh if anybody in I hope you never do this, but if anybody ever came in to replace this business, I don't you know why would they?

Because if they're gonna bring in a business that requires parking, it doesn't make any sense because there is no parking to be had.

The reason why this is successful is because of what these folks have done to it, but the fact that it is a local neighborhood bar or whatever you want to call it.

No, that's all I have to say.

Great, thank you, Mr.

Leonard.

Did I hold on one second?

We haven't did anybody have any questions.

Carry none.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we've have we run the gambit yet?

No, okay, we've got something new and interesting.

All right, come on up.

Please raise your right hand.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

I do.

Please state your name.

Christina Orso.

Okay.

Uh good evening.

My name is Christine Orso, and I'm a Newport resident, and I run the marketing and host some of the events at the club.

Um, I'm here in support of the club's extension, mostly for us to be able to do more events.

Um, right now we share the event space or the event space with the rest of the club, which makes it kind of hard to organize a separate um activity.

Some of my favorite events that we have done all for charity include us donating to the Martin Luther King Foundation, um, food pantry.

We did a tailgate competition, we did a cookie competition, um, we did a Christmas hamper that went the money went back to St.

Augustine's church.

We did another event that went for Toys for Pots, and then my favorite event was in February.

We did a card making Valentine's Day card making um event where we created cards for St.

Clair, the residents of St.

Clair.

Throughout the year, we host a variety of events, like I mentioned that benefit local families and nonprofits.

Um, I also run a monthly book club at the club, which has become a really positive welcoming group for people who want to connect around reading.

Right now, we meet in a shared space that's next to the bar, and having a designated space would allow us to hold these programs in a more thoughtful and structured way.

Um this proposal is not really about changing the nature of the club, but it's about improving how we use the space we already have so we can continue serving the community in a responsible, well-managed way.

Great.

Anything?

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Have we sort of run the gamut on supporters, or do we do is there anybody else that can add something to this, or should we move on to objectors?

Not seeing any hands.

Um, I know we have a couple of objectors here.

Who wants to go first?

Yes, ma'am.

Please come on up.

Uh please, Ray.

Yeah, thank you.

That's very good.

Uh, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

Please say your name.

Linda Stevenson.

Yes.

Live on Dixon Street.

Um, okay, so I'm going to address a couple of things that have already been said by counsel and the witnesses.

Um, one was parking.

Uh, they said there's currently not enough space to provide parking.

Well, when John Harrington owned it, he had three cars back there.

He and his family did park back there.

So I would argue that that is not true.

You could make parking.

Not only did he be have parking back there, he still had the dumpster and he had a dog run.

So there was a lot of space back there, as well as junk, I will admit.

But there are ways to accommodate cars.

So I don't agree with that testimony.

There's not enough space.

There is.

Um, they also had Mr.

Hill say that um parking's not a problem uh uh according to him.

Well, he doesn't live in the neighborhood.

I do.

So I'm gonna give you some facts on parking.

If you look at just the first four houses on McAllister and Dixon, which is where I live, okay.

You are short based on the number of cars per household right now.

You are short 18 parking spaces.

So in other words, I have three cars in my household, I have a driveway for two.

So I'm counting, I'm short one space.

That's how I'm doing it.

Okay.

18 cars just from four houses between starting at Thames, going up Dixon or McAllister.

I'm not counting the their business.

I'm not counting the business on the corner.

I'm not counting most of the houses on Thames between Dixon and Hammond have no parking, and they're a multi, they're multi-unit buildings.

So a lot of people park from those houses also on Dixon.

In addition, I can tell you that their patrons and their employees park on Dixon.

I watch it happen every day.

Okay.

So I would disagree that parking is not an issue.

This is a very dense neighborhood.

Parking is a huge issue.

By increasing a larger business as well as a larger dwelling unit, you can say, oh, it's one car.

Well, it's one car in an already very dense neighborhood that doesn't have parking.

It's already a huge problem.

Let's not exasperate it.

Um the lot square foot coverage.

I'm very sensitive this to this right now.

We lost three huge trees in the neighborhood in the past three years.

I happen to know from Scott Wheeler that the tree canopy in Newport, there's only one city that has less, and that's Central Falls.

We are losing our green green space in Newport at a rapid amount.

And the zoning laws that have come down from the state that are allowing houses to be built closer to each other, houses to become larger.

This is becoming a huge problem.

So again, in a neighborhood like ours, this is very clear.

And lastly, I want to say that if there's a housing crisis going on, which I have been told repeatedly by anybody that you talk to, um, why do they have a four-bedroom unit that's not rented?

Now they're going to add another.

I'll tell you why.

It's because they're doing short-term rentals, which is why they were cited, including the two properties on Dixon Street, which the same owners have rented as short-term rentals, despite the fact that that is not allowed.

They've been cited multiple times and continue to do it, even though they were cited.

These are things I think you need to take in consideration.

I think they've been great doing cleaning up the business the way it is now is wonderful.

I'm all for it.

Put a nice face on it, love it.

Most of this noise is down.

But they were before the city council last meeting to expand the entertainment license to have music from 10 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

and 11 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

seven days a week.

This business is increasing.

It's getting more and more concerning to the neighborhood.

We remember what it was like to have the boathouse restaurant down Thames Street.

And when they closed at one o'clock, it was a nightmare going down Thames Street and the neighborhood with everybody pouring out.

So these are real facts for us in the neighborhood, and I really appreciate your consideration of that.

Thank you.

Sorry, I went over.

That's all right.

Want to hear what you have to say.

Do we have any questions?

Any questions?

No, I I just have one quick thing, if I may.

You you mentioned parking with employees on Dixon Street.

Um, so that would be during the day, right?

Because Dixon Street is residential parking, right?

Correct.

These are they don't have stickers, right?

I didn't I didn't look at the car.

I don't know, but it it takes up the space.

Right.

Which, you know, the patrons come in in the winter, you don't need a sticker.

So then when the kids come home or we come home, you know, there's no space.

Like I had people over for dinner the other night, the street was filled.

So you, you know, you say it's one car, but think of if you're deficient that many spaces, that takes up half the street, three quarters of the street already.

Right.

Just the people that live there.

Right.

Okay.

Did I answer it?

No, yeah, you did.

Yes.

So along that line, I know in the past, when we see issues like this in the neighborhood, we refer formally a memo to like the city council to look at the parking situation there, maybe extend the residence time frame on a yearly basis with a board entertained doing something like this in the scenario.

I I is that something that's under our purview, Nick?

I don't really think it is, is it?

I mean, it's not exactly under your purview.

You could put an informal memo and we can send it to the city council.

Uh, I think that the resident parking uh program only runs for certain months out of the year.

There's it's not anything that's extended to 12 months.

There's a way to extend it from being um 6 p.m.

to 6 a.m.

to being a 24 hour residence sticker.

So that might be um more applicable here.

So would would it be would it be okay for us to put it in motion?

Something along the lines of that would include a memo be put together to the city council on that, or would that be something separate we would do?

Um yeah, it could be put in a memo, we could forward it to the mayor essentially.

Okay.

Maybe we'll say maybe we'll consider that see how it goes.

If I could just follow that up, I almost think um, you know, based on a lot of the issues we've had with different applications with parking.

I think it should be comprehensive to say, look, here are the you know, three main places that were having the most issues with moving parking around or shipping it around.

Um sorry, I don't want to take us off this application, but I just want to put that out there for thought.

If we're gonna do a memo, I think we should make it comprehensive.

You just I mean, we we're constantly running in these scenarios where we're robbing Peter the PayPal with parking and it's flooding into these residential neighborhoods, and there should be some protection someplace for folk folks like this where this business is in accidentally flowing over as an unintended consequences of the actions we're taking.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we'll we'll consider that when that comes up.

Okay, yes, sir.

We have some objectors over there.

Is that right?

Somebody.

Yes, ma'am.

Please thank you.

That's very good.

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

I do.

Please state your name.

Gail Holmes.

Yes.

And I own the property at 10 and 12 Dixon Street.

It's um diagonally across from the back of the protective club.

So the back corner of their property is about 20 feet from the back of my property.

Because on Dixon Street, all the houses face Dixon, but then the backyard is a McAllister.

There's no double lots there.

Gail, can you speak into the mic a little bit better?

I can speak into the mic.

So I had sent a letter to the board, the zoning board.

And um, my biggest objective is the fact that the addition that they're trying to build is all glass.

Um, so from an acoustic perspective, um, it doesn't provide any soundproofing.

I worked at Newick for a number of years as an engineer in the acoustics department.

And noise doesn't have any soundproofing capability.

And then if you are able to open the windows or doors, then noise is just going to propagate right up into the neighborhood.

So we had this issue with asterisk.

The city allowed a restaurant to move into a building that was originally an auto repair shop, which had doors that rolled up in the front and were all glass.

And so when they would be operating at night, the noise from that building, which is the vacant lot they're talking about, that's now across the street from the protective club, faced directly up into the neighborhood of McAllister and Byron and all those streets up there, Hammond and stuff.

And the noise would it was like a nightmare.

It was like it would the noise would just propagate up into the neighborhood, and then they tried opening the doors, and that became even worse, you know.

And so you can't say that you're gonna put up a wall of all glass and somehow going to soundproof it at the same time.

Glass doesn't have that property.

It just doesn't.

And then it's still after all of the questions that were asked and everything that was presented, I still don't understand why the design is a wall of glass on the south side and a wall of glass on the east side with French doors.

I guess it's not sliding glass doors, but French doors.

If the purpose was to have an egress, why wouldn't they just put a door off to the north?

Where there's like, you know, the you know, there's a wall right now in their new design, they could easily have put just a door out that side as well.

It just doesn't, I still nobody's answered the question.

Why are they making it all glass?

Um so I think that in some sense the neighborhood is changing.

It's been a lot of salve students for a long period of time, but Salvay's changed their regulations now, and they're going to be moving more to like you have to spend three years on campus.

So that reduces the rental market for people that are renting down in that area by half.

So people are going to have to start moving to long-term rent.

And I can't imagine trying to rent a piece of property to young professionals who are being kept up till one o'clock in the morning with an entertainment license.

That's right, also been requested by them.

You know, if you're going to have baptisms and weddings and stuff like that, why do you need an uh entertainment license till one in the morning?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Um so I mean, I think the protective club has done a wonderful things.

I you know, my I have lots of friends that are members, you know.

Um I think that their book club and building a community and all that is great, but I don't think the neighbors in that neighborhood up behind should suffer because they want to expand and they want to create this thing that's all glass again.

It just is crazy to me that they would put they're not gonna open the windows or door ever.

I live over in Middletown, and I'm a half a mile.

I did it on the map quest from Rusty's, and all Rusties has to do is open their door on a Saturday night, and I can hear the noise coming out that one little door of Rusties that faces my property a half mile away.

And you'll be glad to know they're closing next week.

So make the setup.

That'll take care of that problem.

Yeah, so I just I know they say it's a neighborhood bar and stuff that, but like if you have 1,100 members, all 1,100 members don't live in the neighborhood, and they're all coming there to park.

Most of the people that I know that are members do not live in the neighborhood.

And I just looked it up real quick, but on Instagram, they have 5,000 followers.

So they're very more extensive than they think.

They don't have a neighborhood bar.

They're thank you very much.

Hold on.

Do we have any questions?

Ms.

Lopes.

I just one point to make.

Um, in terms of the door, the French door, I think one of the things that we discussed was just turning that into an emergency door.

Um, you know, if we if we're gonna look at that in terms of the the windows, the uh the panes, I believe.

If I if if I'm correct, um those what they're not gonna be open, those windows, they're just they're pained glass windows, I think.

Is that correct?

Do I have that correct?

I just want to make sure I'm hearing seeing nods back there.

So um it just uh again, why you're gonna you want to put glass that looks over the dumpster?

So you're saying that the glass, even if it's gonna remain closed 100% of the time, still is gonna change.

Any night of the summer, and you just can hear the music coming through the glass.

Well, Gail, I did ask Mr.

Fagan about this whole matter of soundproofing, and it was his uh expert opinion that the room the the building would be so appropriately soundproofed.

Um so anyway, that had been addressed.

I I'd like to see how you do that.

I mean, I used to own the rhino bar, and we had two foot thick walls and little tiny glass windows, and you could still hear beans out the little tiny windows.

Oh, I'm not an expert in acoustics, but I didn't expect that he would be.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it, Ms.

Lopes.

Yes, sir.

It appears that you are going to actually go last.

So you can uh you can incorporate all the uh testimony into your into your please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and I do Chuck Boldock, Ixon Street.

Yep.

Um I came up with my points.

Mr.

Jackson did a great job.

You answered a lot of my concerns, and I have to agree with the folks who are abutters that have come to be an opponent or the folks that have said, yay, it's a great place.

The merits of the club for what they do is not something about zoning.

It is definitely the physical plant that you folks have to look at and make a decision as to whether or not it's appropriate, whether it pushes the envelope too much, whether it intensifies the use too much.

You folks team to your physical plan is the concern.

Uh we get to do the other side of the program.

We get to look at the concerns of intent intensified use that affects the neighborhood, the neighborhoods, whether it be the Irish American Club, Fred's old place, asterisks in the this little tongue of Thame Street that is limited business on each side, which happens to have a lot of residentials along that limited business point.

Mr.

Hoole stated that the corner of McAllister and Thames across the street was limited business.

Technically it is.

Claim to be a standard restaurant?

No, under a D license, which is a club license.

You can have food for your members with a victualizing license, but you're not open to the general public.

But you just already made the point that anyone can buy that membership and become general public walking through the door to a private club.

Special events.

So we've got a business that's got all of these revenue streams in a small spot in a residential neighborhood, technically.

Yes, Mr.

LaRusso owns a giant swath of commercial next door, but we didn't hear anything about the tenants who live upstairs, how they're getting along with the different noises.

The parking, big issue.

Always has been.

I've been for 47 years on Dixon Street, and it's the ghost parking places that keep coming back to bite us.

The last the last big point is the intensification of any business means it tries to grow, more people, more people coming from away to try and get into the little club that's suddenly the star.

And as Guy Weston always said, if you've got one that caters to the neighborhood on a small scale with the hours of the neighborhood, you're better off.

If you want to be bigger and compete with the big boys that are down in general water general business and waterfront, that's where you should be.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Ladies.

Thank you.

Any questions?

See if we have any questions.

Nope.

One last question.

Mr.

Precio, where did you park tonight before you came here?

You left the club.

You you sir, you need to address your questions to me.

Oh, okay.

I just curious where Mr.

Fisher parked when he left the club to come here tonight.

Okay.

Um we'll let that one go.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Um where are we?

It's just about eight o'clock.

Um, is there anybody else that wants to speak in as an objector to this?

Those were the two groups I saw.

So I think we've covered all that.

Very good.

Um you'd like to make some closing comments, I assume.

Um do we want to take a break now, or we want to hear Mr.

Jackson's comments.

I could just stand up for like a minute.

I think it's gonna be a long time.

So why don't we take a break now?

Okay, we're gonna take a break for about seven or eight minutes, and we'll come back and then we'll have your closing comments and we'll make a decision.

Okay.

Um we are done with the testimony part of this uh petition.

Uh we are now going to hear closing argument, closing comments, if you will, from Mr.

Jackson, who is the attorney for the uh for the petitioners.

And then I don't there isn't a lawyer for the other group, so we'll just proceed from that point to a motion and we'll take a vote and we'll have some discussion.

So when you're ready, sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

I was finishing a discussion that um I had with my client and with the zoning officer during the break.

Um the first discussion had to do with I think uh the suggestion you had, Mr.

Chairman, about trying to figure out a way to accommodate at least two vehicles for parking in relation to the new dwelling unit.

And um Nick and I were discussing the fact that traditionally when you've done those type of things where you require off-site parking somewhere, uh it's usually in conjunction with a short term rental, which is licensed on an annual basis.

So there's a mechanism to enforce it.

Correct.

It becomes a lot more complicated to do that um and attach it to a use that's already that's allowed by right and uh is not licensed on an annual basis.

Right.

Right.

Uh so where's the enforcement mechanism is what you're saying.

So that led to a a further discussion about, and that's why I was just chatting with my clients.

Um going through the site plan a little bit with Nick.

There appears to be sufficient space along the eastern boundary of this property to create a driveway to stack two vehicles.

It would require moving the curb cut.

You know, it's all doable, but the problem is I can't I don't think it's appropriate to suggest it as a condition of this petition because that would require a separate variance, and therefore we'd have to we'd have to s either amend this petition or submit a new petition and come back before you for that relief.

Yeah, the issue here is that this is a mixed use property with commercial parking standards, which doesn't allow uh the stacking of vehicles or the reversing onto the right-of-way.

And so we have to um have the amended application or a new application that proposed to stack a couple parking spaces um and allow for the reversing onto the right of way.

Uh while it's a technically an existing condition right now for approximately one vehicle, because it would be moving and kind of intensifying by having two parking spaces there, we would have to re-advertise that so that it is uh done legally and so that we can have that discussion.

We could not have that true discussion tonight.

It I don't feel comfortable having a condition of approval that they apply for that and that it's granted before the this well, yeah.

You don't get to advertise it either.

Wouldn't you have to advertise it?

We would have to advertise it.

So that that's that's that's that's a non-starter.

Yeah.

I mean, could there be some way to, you know, sort of, if you will, on their own recognizance to just say, yeah, we will come back and try to get that?

I mean, you know, pending whatever we're gonna do now.

Yeah, I think then it comes becomes complicated about whether the approval of this project, if that's what ends up happening, if it's contingent on that variance being approved, and then that variance isn't approved, then it effectively didn't.

No, I I understand that's not what I'm saying.

So we would consider this on its uh on its own accord.

Correct.

Okay, as it is, but then ask them if they would consider coming back afterwards to try to get that you know, the extra parking, correct?

Either as a separate application or a separate application.

Nick, what's the would if if if the application were amended, is there sufficient time to get on the December 15 docket or no?

There is not.

We already sent out the advertisement.

All right, so it would be the January docket.

Correct.

Right.

Okay.

So Mr.

Chairman, I've discussed this with my client.

I think the I think the the best because we've discussed again, leasing spaces elsewhere, which is a viable option, but for the reasons stated previously, it gets complicated as to how it how it's enforced.

So my clients are willing to um develop uh an alternate site plan which stacks two vehicles.

And if we're not going to be heard until the January meeting, my clients are willing to wait.

We'll amend the application that's currently before you.

Okay.

Um, and then we can come back in January and have a very short short presentation regarding the new variance request relating to to stacking vehicles and backing out into McAllister Street.

Okay.

To accommodate those two.

And then you'd have the record that's been created this evening, the additional testimony uh about the parking parking arrangement, and then you'd be in a position to approve or deny the petition at that point.

In completeness, completeness, yes.

Gotcha.

I think that for a lot of reasons, that's probably the cleanest way to do this from both the city's perspective and also my client's perspective.

Well, I mean, it it in in some sense as well.

I'm sure the objectors would appreciate at least that.

Um, I know it's to your point, it wasn't exactly what you were looking for, but it's it's it's a it's a beginning, it's something.

Um so basically what you're saying is is that you want to continue this um until until the general.

I think yeah, I think that makes the most sense.

Okay.

What's the sense of the board?

Is that okay?

I'm glad I'm I'm fine with that.

I think maybe during that time it might be a good opportunity to take into some of the comments that the objectors have about the soundproofing and the egress door, maybe those modifications can be provided to us in some kind of visual or architectural plan.

Okay.

Yeah, that that's actually an excellent idea.

So some that I think that's really well said.

Some of the things um that the uh objectors brought up, the neighbors, uh, maybe you can address that with them specifically.

I think that that would be a good thing to do um uh as well.

So I definitely agree with that.

Bart, did you have anything?

Um just the thought of having to re review all this material again in a couple of months is uncomfortable for me because it's uh it's a lot of work.

But I but it does make sense.

Um I think we have no, it's the only option we have.

I think it's viable.

It addresses the question I asked you earlier, too.

So I can I can live with a January uh uh decision making.

Melissa, you okay with that?

I'm yes, I'm perfectly finding that my content.

Okay.

Do we need to make a motion on it?

Absolutely.

Um, I would say we should uh make a motion to continue the application to January to allow for readvertising for an amended application.

Okay.

Get that sorry.

Mr.

Grimes, uh I'll make January as painless as possible.

Um yes, the January 26th, 2026 meeting.

I move that we continue the petition of 594 to 596 Thame Street, LLC to the January 26th meeting.

Uh January 26, 2000 and 26 meeting uh to allow for advertising and uh amendments.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All is in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

So it shall be.

Thank you.

We'll move to January.

Okay.

Bet you all didn't think that was gonna happen, huh?

We can continue this thing.

Okay.

Off we go.

So that was a good one.

We'll give them a minute.

Yeah, okay.

And then I'll make add conditions and stuff.

Just make sure that it is done.

Okay.

Thanks, guys.

I'm gonna just come straight over and it's uh oh, you're recusing, that's right.

Uh who's who's reading or are you gonna read the motions on this?

I'm gonna read them.

Oh, you're gonna do it?

Yeah, you just have to like prompt me because I'll probably it's not my area.

You'll do fine.

I think I see something egregiously wrong, I'll let you know.

Okay.

All right, Dave.

I hope you can make we'll miss you, buddy.

I believe in that.

Oh, you're you're excusing so I gotta wait for you to drive the phone.

So the Chevrolet's one you can add your paperwork to Ms.

Shabry.

All right, Miss Chevrolet.

What?

Okay.

Eventually I'll get it.

A little bit.

Okay, folks.

Okay, everybody's sort of cleared out.

That's okay.

Okay.

Um so we're gonna move on to the next petition, which is uh 22 Narragansett Avenue.

Uh, but before that, I just want uh to let everybody know that uh Dave Riley, our vice chairman, uh, is recusing himself from this petition and uh sitting in as a voting member um along with Ms.

Padavine is gonna be uh Mr.

Belinds or Richard.

So we do have five uh five voting members on this petition, which is a good thing.

And if you would, Mr.

Grimes.

I would okay.

The next uh uh petition was that of Ronald Dunbar Jr.

and Kristen T.

Dunbar.

Um applicants and owners on 22 Narragansett Av, uh tax assessor plat 35, lot 197 in an R10 zone for special use permit and dimensional variants to construct a 350 square foot roof deck over the third floor, including a walkout access, reaching a height of 39 and two and five ace inches where 30 feet is allowed.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, just um the staff report had a an updated project description because there were modifications made since we advertised.

I don't know if you want to read that one in or we can have uh Mr.

Lee's explain the differences in the petition.

I do we have a copy of that somewhere?

I don't think we have a copy of that.

Do we have a copy of that?

Was that in the vote?

It was in the staff report.

I don't have a paper copy.

But that's where we want to go to 30.

All right, essentially 34 feet, right?

What yes, and they've further revised that today.

Okay, so you'll explain that to us.

I will, yes.

Yeah, we've got Matt Lees is representing the uh the petitioners on this.

So please carry on, sir.

Uh uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, Matt Lee's representing the applicants.

Um, first off, this application was submitted under the old ordinance relating to decks.

Um, and so what we're here for is a uh a height variance, um, essentially, which is essentially what the revised plan is for uh essentially for a railing and a category six special use permit to alter a dimensionally non-conforming property.

So as uh Mr.

Armor indicated, we've submitted revised plans since the original application, which have significantly reduced the size of the deck.

Um the deck went from about 350 square feet to 117 square feet, so it's now nine by 13.

Um we've eliminated the walkout entry, uh, which uh generated uh a lot of the height variants that had been uh almost 40 feet.

Um it's now been replaced by a hatch.

So that reduces the height variance and also addresses some of the um view issues that I think some of the objectors were concerned about.

We've also moved the deck away from the east side neighbor uh who is objecting.

Um so those are essentially the three uh uh key modifications to the deck.

And we actually the the height going from about 39 feet, I think nine inches or something like that, is down was down to the with the revised plans to 33 feet, seven and three quarters inches to the top of the railing.

Now, since then, um the architect was able, because the deck got smaller, the deck members were able to be reduced in size a little bit, and he was also able to uh sink the deck into the roof a little bit.

So there is a was a further reduction in the height uh variance request down to 32 feet, 11 and a half inches.

And I think, yeah, these are the plans that I submitted today.

Is that that right?

Correct.

I believe the architect might have made another revision.

I do not have uh access to that.

33 feet three feet to the rail.

So it's 33 feet.

Um, and these are our plans that uh they do two things.

One is it represents you know the use of the what the use of the deck would be, which is essentially for two chairs and a and a side table, and it also contains sort of the revised heights that that I was just mentioning.

So if I could make these exhibit one, uh please.

Thank you.

This would be petitions exhibit one.

Thank you.

So it's 117 feet right now.

Yeah.

No, it's going to be pardon me.

117 square feet is that 117 square feet.

And that's down from 400 from 350.

350.

Okay.

Um the other thing we wanted to just in a sort of an by way of opening statement address is the the original application didn't really address uh the hardship issue.

And I know that was an issue in the staff report.

And um we're gonna present evidence tonight that the house has a very limited backyard um relative to others in the area and and just in general.

And so that this deck is really an effort to gain reasonable outdoor space for this house.

Um, you know, for the family that's gonna be making this their full-time residence.

Um also the other thing just uh to address by way of opening is that the house has been undergoing renovations um recently.

Uh, and the purpose of those renovations were to address you know the hardship that the house faced, which was it it was really inadequately sized for you know modern living standards for for a family.

And so what they did was they took a two and a half story house and they made it three-story house.

That was done all within um the terms of the zoning orders within the height, within the setbacks.

They did not expand the footprint at all.

Uh it was all done by right.

So what really has been going on with this property, there's really two separate and distinct hardships that it faced.

One was the interior living space, which was really inadequate the way it was, of circa 1900 house, um, with small rooms, small closets, so forth.

Um and two was to address inadequate outdoor space, really lacking any kind of inviting um uh backyard or anything of that nature.

So that's the the deck that we're presently here for tonight is to address that that second hardship.

Um so with me tonight, I have the applicant, um Ron Dunbar, uh as well as the architect, uh Spencer Alexander and uh Mr.

Jim Hole.

So with that, I'd like to call Ron Dunbar if I can just know of the recognition representing uh the uh butter 26 Narrogancet LLC.

Okay, so how because there were a a few uh letters of objection.

How many of them are you representing, Mr.

Lynch?

Now 26 Narragansett.

And who's that?

That's the abutter to meet uh east.

And their name?

It's 26 Narrow.

Oh, that's the LLC.

Okay, gotcha.

Never mind.

And they're to the east, okay.

And there are two parts.

There was zero uh narrow answers avenue, which is the garage, which is attached to the uh the dwelling.

Uh part link in the middle.

Correct.

Well, okay.

Gotcha.

Um of course, Mr.

Lynch will you'll have your say after uh Mr.

Lees's uh made his presentation.

Yes, sir.

I like that.

The hand is up.

Um do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this uh proceeding?

I do.

And please state your name for the record.

Ronald Dunbar Jr.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Dunbar, uh, you and your wife are owners of 22 Narraganth Avenue in your capacities as trustee of the Clarity Trust.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

How long have you owned the property?

Since 2015.

And in that time, how have you used it?

We've used it on weekends when it's not the summer, and during the summer we live there from May till September till the kids have to go back to school.

And we come down for winter fest when Newport has winterfest.

We come down for nice weekends when we see the weather's gonna be nice in Newport.

We live in Lincoln, Rhode Island, um, which is where we live since 2017.

And have you ever rented the house out at 22 Narragansett?

Never.

And you have much longer connections to the neighborhood than just 2015, that's right, correct?

Yes, I was born um in Newport.

I grew up on Stockholm Street, which is one street over.

Um my mom had 10 brothers and sisters.

Um, they grew up on Stockholm Street, Grafton Street, McAllister Street, Carol Ave, Roseneath, um, they're the Homers, the Downies, and the Dunbars.

My dad's family was on Roseneath.

And uh what is your plan now with 22 Narragans?

So our house is on the market in Lincoln.

Uh we decided about maybe eight months ago, nine months ago, to sell the house and make Newport our full-time residence.

Um my 13-year-old son is at Thompson, my 14-year-old son is at Rogers High School.

So we're selling the house, and we're gonna move the family into our house on Narragansett Avenue.

Um, I have four sons, so we're a family of six.

And you've all you and your wife have also moved businesses here in Newport, is that correct?

Yeah, so several years ago, I think it was two years ago, my wife started a business that's on Mill Street.

Um, I have office space at 26 Pellam.

And as I mentioned earlier, you heard me say the house is presently undergoing renovations, correct?

Yes.

Uh I think it was about a year, year ago.

Um, we had a flood, the third floor toilet leaked.

Um, we weren't there.

It was about a week long.

We came in.

Um we decided we needed to renovate.

We knew we were always going to come back to Newport.

The damage was very extensive, so we just decided now was the time.

So we are renovating the entire house, but the real impetus was the flooding.

And um, you heard me indicate earlier that all your uh renovations that have been done so far within the terms of the zoning ordinance, is that correct?

Yes.

And you haven't expanded the footprint at all of the house, correct?

No.

And you didn't obviously you didn't create the lot that you're currently on, correct?

No.

On it that way, in other words, yes.

Um you have no intention of renting the house out in the future, correct?

Never.

And so what is your per purpose of the application for the board tonight for the so we have a very small backyard.

Um and the backyard's made even smaller by the a bulkhead that comes out into the backyard.

So it's really not a lot of room back there to get any air, light, um, you know, sunshine.

So we would like to be able to um you know increase our access to the light and the air by using more usable space because the backyard just isn't that usable.

It's very tiny.

And to get to it from the house, you've got to go out a side door down this little tiny alleyway.

So it's it's just not that useful of a backyard.

And would you say your property has less outdoor space than others in the area surrounding area?

Yes, much less.

So if you're facing our house, the house to the right is a very big backyard.

Um, I mean to the left, the house to the right has a lot plus a backyard.

So for that neighborhood, we have a very, very tiny backyard.

And you're familiar with the neighborhood, not only having owned the property for about 10 years, but growing up there, correct?

Yes.

I spent all my childhood there.

I went to St.

Mary's, I went to St.

Lucy's, I got confirmed and had my first community at St.

Augustine's church.

All my relatives were within a hundred yards of me growing up, so I I know it very well.

And are decks such as the one that you're proposing out of character uh with that neighborhood in your observations?

Um, no, there's one across the street at the old Carey School.

Um, there's one at the top of Narragansett in spring, and then as you get down Spring Street, there are about three or four in the 300s of Spring Street.

Um there's one right next to the old firehouse pizza on Wellington.

Um, so there are there are quite a few um roof decks in the area.

The one on Carey Street was the one that kind of gave me the idea because they don't have a yard.

It's the parking lot for the school.

So I thought, well, it would be nice to have a deck on the roof to be able to go up.

And uh Mr.

Bull included photos of many of the area uh rooftop decks in his report, but you also took some pictures of additional rooftop decks in the immediate area, is that correct?

I did.

These true and accurate copies of those pictures.

Yes.

I'd like to make these exhibit two if I may, and still sure.

Come on down.

This exhibitors uh in the two petitioners for the two or two.

Thank you.

Right.

Yep.

And by the way, would you say that all the decks that are shown in these photos that we just handed out?

Uh are they all larger than the deck that you're proposing?

No, having a hard time hearing you.

Oh, sorry.

Uh would you say that the the decks that uh are shown on the pictures that I just handed out uh are all larger than the decks that you're proposing uh for 22 Nariant?

Yes.

Yep.

Uh the one on the first page is that's the one on the corner, Spring Street.

And uh what is that, Dean?

Dean, yes.

Yep.

That's on that's on the north northeast corner.

Yep.

Um have you ever experienced uh being on 22 Narragansett, have you ever experienced disruptions from the roof deck at the Carrie School condominium or at the top of the street at five uh top of Narragansett at 525 Spring Street?

No, I have not.

And are there also uh buildings in general with or without roof decks in the immediate area that are above 30 feet in height?

Yes, Narragans, excuse me, Narragansett Avenue has a lot of larger houses.

There are uh multifamily houses and some pretty big houses in that area.

And if this deck were to be approved, how would you and your family use the deck?

So the deck is going to be for my wife and I um to go up, you know, she'll have a glass of wine, I'll have a Coke Zero, get away from the children, relax, be outside.

Um so it's just for us to be able to go up and enjoy each other's company.

So essentially, as it's shown on the exhibit one that I submitted with the two chairs and uh and the side table.

You could you could go to page one of that.

It's essentially how you'd propose uh to utilize it, is that correct?

Yes.

Um and you agree that modifications were made uh to the original plans that were submitted with the application, is that correct?

Yes, the application had a much bigger deck.

I think it was 350 square feet.

Okay, and what uh why did you make those modifications?

Um I made the modifications because the um zoning staff had expressed some concern.

Um some of the abutters had expressed a concern.

So we changed the size of the deck and also got rid of the I guess they call it a doghouse walkout, though it's no longer um the concern that the Carry Street objectors had.

So we wanted to take into consideration, you know, everybody's concerns about the deck.

Now you received uh an objection from the manager of the limited liability company that owns 26 Narragansett Avenue, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And does uh he live at the property to your knowledge?

No, as far as I know, um, he rents it out.

I've never met him, I've never seen him there.

Um and I was pretty friendly with the family, the lynches that rented the house for quite some time.

And um, do you have reason to believe that there will not be any negative impact on the property at 26 Narragansett from the deck?

Yeah, I don't think there's gonna be any negative impact.

I mean, we've moved the deck over, so you know we're not gonna be closer to his side of the property.

Um, I don't drink or party, we're just gonna be up there with my wife.

We're gonna be looking towards the Newport Bridge, not towards his property.

Um I just don't think there'd be any impact on his property at all.

There's a vacant lot, but with the exception of the garage between your house and 26 in the house at 26 Narragans.

Yes, there's there's more space.

Um you're facing the house to the right, there's a vacant lot before you get to his house.

And did you attempt through me uh contacting his lawyer to see if a resolution of this application could be achieved?

I did.

And what happened?

Um, there's just no compromise.

He doesn't want any roof deck, correct?

No, no roof deck at all.

Um, and to your knowledge, is he here tonight?

You know, um I don't believe so, but I I actually have never seen him, but I I don't think he is.

Is that 26 Narragansett?

You're representing him, is that right, Mr.

Lynch?

So you're here for on behalf of your client.

Very good.

Um, and he made zoning applications for the property at 26 Narragansett, is that correct?

And did you object to those applications?

Um I did not object, but yes, I think maybe a year or so after I bought the property, I got something in the mail that he wanted to do something for zoning relief, and I did not object.

Now there was uh there were uh another objection to the plan came from a Miss Coons at 13 Narragansett Avenue.

Is that correct?

Yes, she's our neighbor across the street.

Did you try to reach out to Mrs.

Coombs to find out uh whether the resolution would be achieved with her?

I did.

I sent her an email, and I know my wife did too, because in reading the objection, it had a lot of information that was incorrect.

It had us living in North Attleboro, it had us as um such just summer residents that we I think it might even say we uh intended to maybe rent the property out.

It just had a lot of information that wasn't correct, so I reached out to her and say I wanted to know if I could address your concerns, I wanted to see if I could clarify some things, and she never responded to my email.

And um, and then there were some letters in from the unit owners at the Kerry School economy, correct?

Yes.

And do you believe those objections were resolved by the removal of the walkout entry?

I do.

I uh the carry school objectors, I think all of them were concerned that the old uh doghouse entrant to the deck was gonna block their views.

Um, and we got rid of that, so now it's just gonna be a hatch.

And you have letters of support from a couple of your neighbors as well, correct?

Yes, we get two uh two neighbors wrote letters of support.

Um both houses within, you know, a few houses of ours.

And those I believe are are in the both those letters are in the record.

Yes, we and there was an additional one you sent, I think yesterday.

Right.

So we did, we saw that as well.

And that was a letter of support, I believe.

Correct, I believe so.

Yeah.

I think that was the second letter of support.

Right.

There was one that was in the original package.

And you said along Allen.

So yes, we have seen.

And you've reduced the size of the deck quite a bit from 350 to 117 square feet.

Would you be willing if the board were uh inclined to require a smaller deck to accept the uh a reduction further in the size?

Yes.

And would that be as long as you could use it for Mr.

Lees, please speak up.

Sorry.

And and that would be if you as long as you could have two chairs and a side table up there so that you can enjoy the outdoor space as long as it was sufficiently sized for that, that would be agreeable to you.

Yes, I would.

Um and would you also agree to a condition that if the property were ever to be sold out of your immediate family or conveyed out of your immediate family, that you would remove the roof deck?

Yes.

Um those are all the questions that I have for Mr.

Dunbar.

Okay, um, we'll get to the board.

Do you have any questions, Mr.

Lynch?

Please.

Have a start with you.

Uh Mr.

Dunbar, uh, did you uh and your wife apply for a building permit to uh add an addition to the second curve before this uh property?

Uh that would have to be a question for the architect.

I'm not sure.

Let me show you building permit, see if you recognize uh that building permit.

No, I'm just gonna introduce this as an exhibit anyways.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

2025.

Uh yes, it is.

And that was to add a second and third floor edition to the existing structure.

Yes, that's what it says.

And your plans to part of this permit increase the height of the roof from 25 feet, which would increase like 29 feet 10 inches, is that correct?

I believe that is correct, yes.

So you went two inches right up to that the maximum record.

Yes.

And then approximately two months later, you filed a subject uh zoning out location, get a height variance for the deck on top of the uh yes.

Why didn't you uh incorporate the uh roof deck into the original design in March?

Uh that would have to be a question for the architect.

I don't have any idea.

Would you ask your architect to put a roof deck on when they send up a plan in uh permit in March of 2025?

Uh I don't believe so.

I know that we were always intending to have a roof deck, and I think this building permit mentions it.

But to be honest, the architect, my wife, and the builder uh really handled most of this.

Now you indicated that it's difficult for you to get the backyard uh your existing, right?

Yes, from inside the house.

Have you uh did you explore any options to make access to the back garden easier for outdoor space?

Um we have made it easier.

We removed like the old um there was a lot of shrubbery and some overgrown bushes, so we have made it easier, yes.

But the issue is once you get back there, it's very small.

Uh I think so.

Uh just a couple questions on the photographs uh that you submitted.

Petitioners exhibit two, I believe.

Did you do any investigation to determine the height of any of these uh decks that the photo of I did not?

You have any knowledge of what the height of these uh roof decks are?

I don't know.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Mr.

Lynch.

Uh board members.

Any questions for Mr.

Dunbar or Mr.

Lees?

Nicole?

Yeah, so I live over on West Narragansett, not too far from where you are.

Um, just did a similar renovation project.

So I've been familiar and watching your project progress.

Um I notice it's been at a standstill for a little bit.

Is there anything going on like with stop work order because of what's going on here?

Or can you hear that?

No, no stop work order.

Okay.

So you are you just waiting for this petition?

This was part of it.

Other part of it was I think ordering some windows.

Okay.

Um and some materials.

Um, but there's a lot of work that's been going on inside.

So uh, but no, no stop work order.

It's been very smooth.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Or Melissa?

No?

No, thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it, Mr.

Like to call Spencer Alexander, the architect.

Yes, sir.

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.

Spencer Alexander.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Alexander, what is your profession?

I'm an architect.

Okay.

And are you licensed to practice architecture in the state of Rhode Island?

Uh yes, I am.

And how long have you been a licensed architect?

Uh I graduated my master's in 2013, and then I've been practicing architecture since then.

I got licensed probably eight years ago or so, seven or eight years ago.

You hold any positions in the field of architecture in Rhode Island?

I'm currently the president of the AAA Rhode Island chapter uh for American suit of architects.

And do you have experience with zoning?

Yes.

What is that?

I'm on the zoning board in Barrington.

Um and I've been in a bunch of these zoning hearings, rubber money projects.

And have you testified before local boards for as an expert on architectural matters and in support of variance requests?

Yes.

Including this board?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I'd like to ask that uh Mr.

Alexander be accepted as an expert in architecture.

Sure, you don't happen to have a resume handy, do you?

I'll throw it out to the board.

I'm I'm willing to, yes.

Um he he you've been before us before, right?

Yeah.

And I believe we we uh deemed him uh uh an expert at that time.

Um that's what I recall as well.

I seem to recall him being here before.

So yes, we I think we will unless I hear any objections.

I think we will um stipulate that you are an expert in architecture.

Thank you.

Um and you've been retained by the owners of 22 Narragansett Avenue, is that correct?

Yes, I have.

And the property is currently undergoing renovation, as we've discussed, correct?

Yes, it has.

Could you describe the house before the renovations?

Yeah.

Uh it was a two and a half story house, and then the back portion with a one-story uh kind of addition in the back.

You know, roughly how many square feet it had by the tax assessor's record.

17 something on the tax records.

Um and how about there anything characteristic of a circa 1900 house in terms of room sizes and that nature?

Uh everything was very small.

Uh the rooms were small.

There was some tiny closets, uh not really suitable for a six-family to be living in.

Um, so the bedrooms are upstairs, they were all very cramped, and then you had the living space on the first floor.

And by the way, the building permit that was introduced earlier as exhibit uh objectors exhibit one, I believe it was, referenced a addition over the a second and third floor edition.

Was the second floor edition was that part was just over the back part of the house?

Is that correct?

Yeah, the second second and third floors over the back part of the house.

We maintained the existing footprint.

We didn't change any part of the footprint of the existing home.

Okay.

And so what what was the goal?

What is the goal then of these renovations?

Uh to make it suitable for this family to be able to live here and have their family here and be a part of this community.

And there's nothing extravagant about, say, for example, the ceiling heights, correct?

No, we have eight-foot floor-to-floor ceilings, which I think is pretty standard.

Uh we kept everything to be under the 30-foot height limitation, uh except for this railing.

Um, so uh eight, it's a nine-foot floor-to-floor with a one-foot sandwich.

So you have eight foot ceilings.

And that's uh pretty normal residential ceiling height, is that correct?

Yeah.

Um, can you describe the lot itself and the site layout and how it affects available yard space?

It's an R 10 district.

Uh the lot is probably about a quarter of a half to a quarter of the size of a typical R 10 district size, so you have just the rear yard for any kind of green space, and that's about it.

And is there anything else about the lot?

Is it a long and narrow lot and a long and narrow house on the lot?

Is that correct?

Yes.

Uh very very tiny side spaces to get to the backyard.

They're about three feet.

And I believe you just testified that you didn't expand the footprint in conjunction with the renovations, right?

Everything stayed the same footprint.

And do you agree with Mr.

Dunbar that this property has less uh outdoor space than most in the neighborhood?

Yes.

Um you submitted now you're here for the proposed deck.

Um, and what is the intention for the proposed deck?

Uh it's just for their private use for themselves as a family.

Do the plans that I submitted as petitioners exhibit one uh truly inaccurately represent uh what two chairs and a table would look like on that deck?

Yes.

And the deck it uh the deck itself, uh the face of the deck complies with dimensional requirements of the zoning.

That's correct.

Yeah, the deck itself is at exactly 30 feet.

And it complies with the setbacks.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

And we discussed earlier the height variance that's now being sought as far as it's three feet.

Is that correct?

Just for the railing.

Just for the railing.

And in your opinion, will the relief alter the character of the surrounding area within 200 feet of the subject property or in the area in general?

Uh no, I don't believe so.

And um in addition to other decks in the area, is there uh is the proposed height to the top of the railing, the 33 feet out of character for the surrounding area within 200 feet or the area in general?

No, I the condo unit deck is above the 30 foot, and as well as the building at the top of Narragansett Avenue.

I think they're about 40 feet tall, but it's an older historical.

That's 525 Spring Street, yes.

And these may be obvious, but since we're here for a special use permit, there'd be no net increase in stormwater runoff from the site as a result of this application.

No.

And any lighting that would be added would be dark sky compliant, is that correct?

Yes.

Um that's all I have for Mr.

Alexander.

Sure.

Mr.

Lynch, anything.

Uh Mr.

Alexander, how will you working with the moment uh to design the structure that was uh covered in the uh March of 2025 building?

Uh before I submitted the permit.

Uh probably about three three months.

What discussions did you have with the uh the owners about adding a roof deck to the house had been destroyed by water and they wanted to get back into their home?

So we were looking at how we'd file this to get the home going and the construction going.

We were looking at different options, but we wanted the construction to start so that they could get back into their home and live here full time.

And you intentionally went up to the maximum height for the district, right?

It's only eight-foot board of uh ceiling heights.

There is no way with the 30-foot height requirement to make it any other way to make it a little space.

Habitable space at six foot eight.

You just with ductwork and everything else, you just you're not gonna be in a space that's seven foot tall ceilings.

So the previous house was 25 feet, right?

Yes.

And you intentionally designed this house to go up 29 feet 10 inches.

Yeah, we designed it to fit for the family.

And then after you submitted your uh application for building permit, and it was approved by the building official, but you didn't need any token.

Yes.

Then you came back to this board and asked for a variance for height variants for the deck.

Yes.

Very well put it if you knew you were going to put up a roof deck, could have lowered uh the height of the finished space.

Had the railings under three, correct?

No.

Why not?

You need multiple bedrooms for a six-family.

Where would you put the bedrooms in the house?

Well, I'm talking about compliant building.

You could put it on the house by the net height limits, but it was only it wouldn't meet the standards for the occupant.

They have unique, their own individual space.

I mean, your home is your home, right?

Your individual taste.

You understand, do you understand you're on the zone?

What do you understand that you have to prove this is not a self-relevant?

Yes, and the lot is the hardship, right?

The size of the functionality of the house, I can't say would be a hardship, right?

Well, the hardship here is the house that's designed at 29 feet in a 10-inch distraction.

The hardship is the not access to outdoor space.

The hardship is the lot is only so big and you can't use the outdoor space properly.

That's got nothing to do with the height.

Well, you only have so many places to go.

So you have to go up to meet the requirements.

That would mean to destroying the existing uh walls.

The existing exterior walls are still the same.

That would mean destroying the foundation and destroying the exterior walls.

And to do that, you wouldn't need a height parents and put up your own.

And I guess I don't understand the question.

From the side of it, if I made the side smaller, you're saying then I wouldn't need a variance to go up.

I'm just asking what you indicated that one of the reasons is that it was difficult to access outdoor space.

Yes.

And I'm just asking what efforts you and the owners made to work with the existing buildings and make access easier to the backyard.

Well, there's a structure there with a concrete foundation.

I'd say that would be a pretty big hardship to try to move that existing structure.

Now looking at the design of the house on the rear of the prop, you have two decks off the back, correct?

Uh and not decks, uh they are the minimum size that I worked with Nick to make by the size of that little, I guess they're Juliet balconies you would call them.

How big are they?

I believe they're one foot and one.

They're very tight, they're the smallest allowed that would be by zoning.

And you have one in the second floor and the third floor.

Yes.

Yes.

I don't know if questions.

Okay, redirect?

Uh Mr.

Alexander, um, there was discussion about the height, raising the height to make three full floors.

Is that correct?

Yes.

And was that height necessary to create reasonable living space by modern living standards for 22 Narragansett Avenue?

Yes.

And eight foot is is a building code.

Six foot eight is a minimal for habitable space, but I nobody lives in a six foot eight feet space.

So um there's discussion about different alternatives creating different access, the backyard.

Uh, but access is only one of the problems with the backyard, correct?

Yes, it's still small.

So even if even if you improve the access, it's it'd still be a small rant backyard.

Yes.

And it would still be reasonable to add more outdoor space to this deck, right?

Yes.

That's all I have.

Yeah, is there a picture of the backyard that we can review for our uh education?

Uh you know, the funny thing is I do have it on my phone.

Yeah, because if you pull it up on the GIS map, it looks like every single backyard along that road in terms of sizing and spacing.

No, if you you can see there's actually an addition on the back there, which makes it a lot less.

There is a in Mr.

Holmes report, you have the GIS um he has a snapshot from GIS that shows the building footprints and the back relevant backyard size.

I think illustrates that better than that.

It's hard to see.

Yeah.

Because on the GIS, it looks like it's like a concrete slab or something there.

Yeah, I think they're I think there's some sort of patios for the neighbors.

We call it the report.

The two houses on the left side.

Ms.

Chevry, I think that that mass thing in the middle of the lot there is the old ground floor edition.

Okay.

So the yard is above that.

Yeah.

And what you don't even see from there is it's all seen bulk as it goes off it from that.

And then you have the garage or five-car sewn the rod in front of the extorable source boxes.

And I assume you're gonna have Mr.

Wool testify as well.

Yes.

So we'll we'll get to that.

Maybe that would be helpful.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Richard, listen, no.

No.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Allen.

Thank you very much.

You actually don't have to raise your right hand, Mr.

Wool.

You're already been you've already been uh sworn in.

So it's you're good to go.

And as well, and you're also can be an expert in this case, too.

All right.

Mr.

Who, you've been retained by uh Ron and Kristen Dunmar to review the application related 22 22 Narragansett Avenue for a deck, is that correct?

Yes.

And you prepare a report with your findings.

Yes.

And that has been submitted as part of the record tonight, correct?

Yes.

And what else did you do to prepare for your testimony tonight?

Well, of course, I went down and looked at the property and the neighborhood.

But fun fact is I used to own this house back in the 70s, like 1978.

So I actually am very familiar with the house.

And what's interesting, I'm just gonna go.

I'm just gonna start talking about it.

On page four of my report, there is what Mr.

Lee's was referring to as the GIS, the clip from the GIS.

But I marked on there where the back door, and that back door is actually at a very uncomfortable place to walk to the backyard.

It it goes down, it it takes steps from the kitchen.

It's really more of a cellar way that goes out onto the side of the house, and you have to walk through past that extension of the back of the house to get to the backyard.

So I never lived in this house.

I rented it.

Well, the people who rented it never used the backyard for that reason.

It was just uncomfortable to get there.

But in addition to that, I actually sold the house to a friend of mine, and I would go down there frequently, and they never used the backyard because it was very uncomfortable for people to back yard to get there.

Right.

So I can see the back door.

So what the testimony earlier was from Mr.

Dunbar is that the that back addition creates a little alleyway between the property line and the house, correct?

So it's difficult to get back there.

And I actually knew the people that bought it from the guy that I've sold it to, and they never did the background.

So the truth is that there is history that I know of that it's just not very conducive to using it as an outside space.

It is small, it is boxed in with the garage, and it really has a very uncomfortable access to the rear yard.

What Mr.

Lee's also said is the bulkhead is off of that back addition, so it further cuts in to the actual use of the backyard.

So when I, you know, I knew immediately when I when that this was they were correct in saying that the backyard is not a great backyard to be used for uh recreation or entertainment, it's just uncomfortable to get there.

And because of the way the bulkhead is placed, it doesn't really even allow you to exit off of the back room, and the back room really, if you knew the layout of the house isn't really, it was added as a mother-in-law bedroom originally by the people that I bought it from.

And it's it's kind of high off the ground, so they'd be building some kind of an access.

The access would have to be over the bulkhead, so you'd be back looking for a variance for lot coverage anyway, right?

Because of where it's situated.

So for what it's worth, there really is a hardship.

It's a very small lot, and the building, the way the building is structured, doesn't allow you to use it very well.

So when I looked at it, I knew there was a hardship because of the eating characteristics of the lot.

There certainly wasn't any result of what the they had done since I knew three of the owners, and they had not had done it either.

And the the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character.

Again, if you look at page six of my report, um, just in six just in a quick uh browse through the neighborhood.

I found these roof decks all on various streets.

Good 525 Strain Street is the end of 22 is at the end of Narragansett.

You have 32 carry, which is across the street.

But I noticed tonight on the first petition that the aerial actually showed roof decks on 14, 16, and 20 Lee Avenue.

And I did include the photographs of each of those to show you you can see the roof decks in every one of the cases.

Actually, the one on 30 Lee Avenue is kind of interesting because they built a tower off the back of the house.

If you look at the photograph to do nothing but hold up the deck, which I'd found to be kind of really quite interesting.

So the point is the granting, it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood.

Yeah, there's the one on 30 Lee Avenue, which I find to be kind of and then the granting of the dimensional variance, the hardship uh would be um more than a mere inconvenience minimal to the reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use for the reasons of the hardship.

Uh looked at the category six uh special use permits, and again, uh the only one that really um I think is Vanny Breal relevance.

I looked at them all.

I feel that they adhere to them, but the only one again is relevance is the nature of the surrounding area, and um we address so I think uh it does satisfy the uh request.

Sorry, yeah, okay.

And so in addition to there being many roof decks in the area, there are there also many houses above the 30-foot height limit in the immediate area within 200 feet and otherwise.

I I'm not an expert in measuring uh heights, but it certainly appears that way, in that there are nine and a half narragans at uh, you know, is a full three-story with attic, the 26th, I believe.

I mean 28 uh Narragansett, I think two houses up, very large house, old Victorian, full third story with uh with the and there are roof decks in the immediate area above 30 feet in height as well.

Yeah, well, I would assume the Kerry School is certainly over 30 feet, and and 525 Spring Street certainly appears to be over.

And could you discuss the benefits of reducing the size of the deck from 350 square feet to 117 square feet?

Well, I mean, I think that that's you know, sort of self-explanatory by reducing the deck.

One of the things people are always worried about is that there's going to be a party on the deck.

117 square feet is really the minimum, um, you know, uh some chairs and um you know a small table.

Uh, you're not going to be able to have um you know huge parties on the on the roof deck, which I think is of concern.

And regarding the size of the deck, would you say that the nine by thirteen hundred and seventeen square feet is actually smaller than most or all the roof decks in the immediate area?

Well, the ones that I could find on the tax records for the ones that I was able to measure using Google Earth, all appeared to be larger than 117.

Um you've testified earlier that it in your opinion the application meets the standards for a dimensional variance and special use permit, correct?

Yes.

Um, and do you believe the road that the hardship was the result of prior action of the applicant?

Well, no.

Why why is that?

Because this is the hardship is the size of the lot and the position of the house, and that has existed for 100 years.

Um will there be any negative impact on the property at 26 Narragansett Avenue in your opinion?

Oh no, I don't see that.

One of the things that um Mr.

Dunbar testified to, and he's right, is that the deck had shifted from sort of the center or when it was 350 it extended uh across the majority of the route at 117 square feet, it's been moved to the western side away from uh 26.

And of course, there is the very large vacant lot that has been referred to several times here that is between this house and the actual house at 26.

And um those are all the those are all the questions I have for Mr.

Hole.

Um okay, thank you, Mr.

Lee's uh Mr.

Lynch.

You have any questions from Mr.

Hole?

Yeah.

Mr.

Hole, uh, first of all, I think you you testified your vast experience with this property going back decades fast, and you explained that the hardship uh that uh your tenants had faced was it had a difficult time getting to the backyard because of the back door being located on the north north uh no, it's on the west side, yeah.

And you explained that the hardship uh that uh your tenants had faced was it had a difficult time getting to the backyard because of the back door being located on the north north uh no, it's on the west side, yeah.

Yeah, um and that created the hardship.

Well, it certainly contributes it's it again the hardship can be the existing building or the proper the lot itself, and here you have a combination of factors.

Can you review uh the applicants uh approved uh design for the house?

I did.

And did you notice on page three of your report that they no longer use uh that west doorway to access the rear yard?

It's it's right off the back of the house.

Want to look at page three, your report.

Can you show to me?

I don't think I I think three is still on the file.

So you have the elevations, page three, correct?

Yes, yes, and the they have uh doors right off of the west off the north side of the house directly under the backyard.

This is easier.

I have uh the exhibit.

Oh, good.

Yes, okay.

Oh, yeah, I see.

Okay, yes.

And well, wait, it's not a not that no, no, would not be if they have a direct access.

I'd like to see the interior to see where this comes from.

You want to weigh it?

Do you have Mr.

Alzheimer's?

Do you want to weigh in on this?

You look like you want to say something.

You're still under oath.

Thank you.

So those two doors, there's one that comes off the kitchen, and then there's the other door on the other side.

They're both very tight corridors.

The one on the right hand side that's at grade is the worst one.

The other side though, there's bushes right along, and it's it's not a clean access.

It is easier than the other side, but it is uh doesn't mean that the access is easier or better, but they're both there.

There are two doors and what two way two ways out.

Okay.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Again, so when you're looking at uh mention uh you look at either the lot or the structure, right?

Right.

And if a lot is creating a hardship, usually it affects setbacks, lot coverage, etc.

Correct?

The size of the sorry, I'm sorry, repeat that's the size of the lot cause issues with lot coverage and setbacks.

Yes, correct.

And when you're talking about the structure, the structure uh of building, that usually impacts setbacks as well, correct?

It could, yes.

And it also impacts height.

Yes.

A lot does not impact height, correct?

No.

And in this case here, uh the applicant is is seeking relief from the height variants due to this structure that's on the site, correct?

Yes.

And you're aware, you own this property, uh, that the height of the structure was approximately 25 feet.

Yes.

And at that point, you had six feet to go up, and you could have gone up six feet and met the built within the height that you structure.

Okay, correct.

You had six feet to play with.

It was 25 feet before.

I I think that's sorry, yeah.

That's fine.

Five feet.

You had five feet to play with.

Right.

And at this point, you could have put that deck on as a matter of length.

You could, but then you wouldn't be able to use the third floor.

That's the question.

So the applicants decided to increase the volume of the house.

Yes and maximize the house to the full third feet, correct?

Yes.

And that was an app an action that the applicant took.

Correct?

Yes.

And they took that in March of 2025.

And then two months later, they applied for this roof.

Yes.

So you can't say that the hardship is not caused by any prior action.

Yeah.

Correct.

Well, when I looked at it, one of the things that I found that I looked at when I saw was the fact that by adding the third floor, the architect testified that the ceiling height is eight feet, which brings it up to the 30-foot level.

The reality is if you wanted to use the third floor for living space, which would be a very practical um eventuality if you wanted to bring the house up to the size of the what is sort of the standard uh newer house, because it was a smaller house.

That if he had gone to the six foot eight, um that he mentioned as being the height of the zoning code of the building code, that you still would have needed a variance for height on the three feet of the railings that are being added.

But that's not the fourth, correct?

Well, the what's before the board is whether or not the a variance is uh extraordinary to this property, and I don't see it.

Could they have could they have designed the house differently?

That's out of my purview.

Well, what I want to focus on is that the hardship is not the result of any required faction.

And you acknowledge that the applicant designed a house right up two inches under the height.

Yes.

Two months before you applied.

Yes.

So the hardship is the height of the house.

That's the hardship, correct?

It is.

And the only reason you're up at 30, 29 feet, 10 inches is because the applicant decided to build a house that high, correct?

I I want to clarify one other thing.

The hardship is also the fact that the backyard is not a usable, not a very good space to be used for outdoors.

It's bigger than 117 square feet.

It is bigger than 117 square feet.

Now just but it's not as far.

Couple questions on your uh report with other roof decks in the area.

Yes, sir.

Um looking at page six, if you have that, you have that up.

That I do.

Maybe I don't.

Oh, yeah, of course.

Sorry.

So just looking at uh that's not there.

We have looking at comparable number four, six, and three.

Those are all properties on Main Street, right?

Yes.

And those are all in the limited business district.

Yes.

And the height limit for the limited business, it's 45, right?

Yes.

Three feet that we have in the uh no, that's correct.

That's a different animal, uh, the limited business district residential.

Well, I was only comparing the idea that there are several roof decks that are within immediate eye side of this property.

It's a very common usage, and and quite frankly, we don't know the height of these, they could very well be over the 45.

Or they could be under 30, right?

They could.

You don't know.

That's right.

You didn't, you weren't asked to measure the no, I wasn't measuring and never even remotely said I did.

So looking at your report, and I'll just tell the folks on the comparables in the R 10 district.

One, two, three, four, and that seems to be Lee Avenue uh to the north to Webster Street to the South.

Uh you've got four uh roof decks that you were able to identify.

Yeah, well, I just said there's four 1416 and 20 Lee Avenue also.

And what would you estimate?

How many houses are there between uh main street and Spring Street south of uh the Avenue north of Webster, more than 75, probably 125, 140.

And you were able to come up with five or six yeah, yes.

So it's it's really not common, it's uncommon.

No, I wouldn't say that because I've been in on many um variance requests for roof decks, and I was looking at several of my other reports all along Spring Street and Lower Thames is loaded with them.

There's simply these were the ones that I wanted to stay very close to the subject property.

I don't have anything for the question, number of the questions.

Any redirect, sir?

Yes, please.

Uh Mr.

Hole, Mr.

Lynch sought to characterize the hardship as limited to the access to the backyard.

Is that is that correct?

Yeah, it's more than just about the access.

I you know, I totally I will admit I missed that on the on the um plans, but I will tell you that knowing the internal layout, and I did say this knowing the internal layout of the um interior, um what the architect said is right, it would be more of a passageway than uh than a just a broad opening into the yard, so it would be very difficult, irrespective of having a better position for the door.

And uh Mr.

Lynch mentioned that the hardship you analyze hardship as the lot or the structure, but it can be a combination of the case.

It's a combination.

I did say it's a combination.

So in this case, it's for example, it's the the long undersized nature of the lot, a long narrow nature of the lot, and the long narrow nature of the structure, correct?

Yes.

And my clients didn't create any of those features.

No, they do.

And you would also agree that my clients would have a right to address the hardship of an undersized uh outdated house by adding a full third floor, correct?

Yes.

I mean, the size, the total size of the house now that the it's been expanded, is very much in line with what we see as a standard new construction.

So that addressed the inadequate size of the interior of the house, and now we're coming back to address the inadequate output space, correct?

Yes.

Yes.

Um I think that's fair to say.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board for Mr.

Who?

Anybody?

Good.

It's two in a row for him.

Um Nick, are we gonna hear this next thing or what are we doing?

Our typical standard is that we don't take a new item after 9 30.

So it's it's at the pleasure of the board, but my assumption is we will likely not be done with this with the full discussion and vote.

Well, yeah, not only that, but um uh then you have a split hearing between two meetings.

And I mean, in this case, I'd I'd really rather do it all at once.

Um for myself personally.

In other words, if we started one, we wouldn't finish it, so they'd have to come back and there'd have to be some split off there.

Correct.

Um that's my sense.

What do you guys think?

I agree.

So uh I'm sorry to keep you guys here.

I know it's been scintillating tonight for you, right?

You're listening to all this other stuff.

But I think we're gonna we're gonna um continue to next you.

But you'll be the good news is you'll be first on the docket for uh for December.

Um December 15th.

And we're doing it December 15th.

We can't be here.

I mean having me.

Um, not well, I mean, if you're if you are being represented by counsel, um, then no, that wouldn't be the case.

I don't see any counsel with you, but it looks like you have your architect here with you.

Um so he could be an erstwhile counsel for you.

Um, if as long as he's getting all your points across, it's up to you guys.

Mr.

Chair, our standard approach is that it has to be the property owner or a legal counsel because if there's any um, especially if there's any conditions that need to be agreed to, we only consider an attorney to be uh legally authorized representative to make those decisions.

Uh in January.

Can you guys come in January?

I I the problem is is that um we're not going to finish this tonight.

So it's gonna move on to the next month anyway.

It's not gonna happen.

I can just tell you that we're not gonna do it in 25 minutes.

And then that doesn't that's not good for you because then we have to come back and we have to consider all the testimony we heard tonight, and then and then hear other testimony and whether it be closing arguments or whatever else is gonna happen.

So uh I I just uh and the other issue is is we've been here for three and a half hours.

So, you know, and and so these meetings are four hours for a reason because it's hard to concentrate beyond four hours.

So you're not gonna get the full benefit of our brilliance here on this board.

Um, you know, in the fourth hour.

But I think we'll get them first on whenever they come up, right?

Correct.

So you will be heard.

You have the president when when next when next you come here.

So we will get it, we will get it done.

So I think it's for your benefit as well.

I really do.

So thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

So um where does that leave us with you guys?

We're gonna have some closing arguments, or I would like to make a closing statement if I um excuse me.

Um there were a lot of letters of objection.

We have is there anybody else besides I know Mr.

Lynch is only representing one person, right?

I don't see anybody else.

Um else here.

Okay.