All right, Mr.

Chair, we're live.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm gonna call to order this uh regular monthly meeting of the uh Newport zoning board of review.

Today is uh Monday, March 23rd, 2026.

And uh want to get right to business.

Uh before we get started, uh I understand that there may be some people here to either testify or um view the petition for the protective club.

Um that petition has been continued to uh April, I believe, the 20th.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And uh so if you're here, um you're welcome to see your brilliant zoning board at work.

Um, but you're also welcome to leave if you want, because we won't be hearing your petition tonight.

Okay.

Um and to that to that end, it has been a couple of months, as I think many of you may know, we got canceled two months in a row by both of the blizzards.

Um so that's the first time I in my memory I can remember that happening.

So it's we're uh we're loaded for the next couple of months.

We're we're ready to go.

Let's get right into it.

Um so the roll call of officers, uh our voting members tonight will be our regular board, which is Nicole Chevry, our vice chairman Dave Riley, our secretary uh Russ Johnson, myself, Wick Rudd Chairman, and uh Bart Grimes.

And uh sitting um as the first alternate will be Melissa Padavina over on that end.

Um moving on to the minutes, uh December 15th meeting.

That's how long it's been uh 2025.

Uh I will entertain a motion to accept those minutes, please.

I make a motion whoops.

I make a motion that we accept the minutes of the zoning board meeting of December 15th, 2025 as read.

Uh very good.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none, that passes unanimously.

Uh moving on to communications.

Um we do have an extension request at 98 Roseneath.

Uh they're looking for another 12 months.

Um, we'll entertain a motion to that effect, if I could.

I make a motion that the uh petition for 98 Rose Meath Avenue uh be extended, the approval rather be extended for an additional 12 month period.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Nicole.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none, that is uh unanimous as well.

Uh and we have three withdrawal requests.

Um, and I always ask this do we have to vote on all these, Nick?

Um uh yes, because they've appeared on an agenda, we should have a motion to withdraw all of these.

Um you could do that as a blanket motion.

I okay, that was my next question.

I could do that as a blanket motion.

Um, thank you.

And so to that end, um happy to accept a uh a motion in that uh regard for all three of these.

I'd like to make a motion that the following petitions uh be withdrawn.

130 Toro be with be uh withdrawn without prejudice.

Zero Pelham and 73 Pallum be withdrawn.

And the appeal of 18 Barney Street and 3 and 4 Barney Fort be withdrawn.

Okay.

Uh do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none.

That was uh passed unanimously, and they are the withdrawals are accepted.

Um staff communications.

Um, do we have to have a motion to accept this?

That uh what do we I mean, what are we doing here with this?

Yeah, I would say let's have a motion to accept the the policy annual report for the green uh sorry, Newport's green and complete streets sure.

Why not?

Uh Mr.

Chairman, are we um are we reviewing that?

Um uh Nick or No, it's essentially an informational document that um by city ordinance is required to be um passed on to you and a couple other boards for your information.

Okay, where we see that.

I I don't know that oh, did we not attach it?

No, it's linked.

Well, yeah, okay.

I didn't I didn't see but that's okay.

I'll I'll look again.

Thank you.

And if I might mention, I would say the the way that report is organized on the last page, it sort of summarizes the zoning changes that occurred and what impact that has regarding green and complete streets.

Might be interesting to look at considering some of the issues we've had.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Thanks, Melissa.

Um, okay, so to that end, um uh I'll accept the motion to accept the report.

Um I make a motion that the board accept Newport Green and Complete Street Policy 2025 and the report as written.

Thank you.

A second, second, thank you.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none.

That's unanimous.

And lastly, on staff communications, uh, if I can have a motion to uh to set our uh proposed special meeting date to make up for one of the snowstorms anyway, and that date is April 13th of this year.

Do I have a motion to that effect?

Yes, uh make a motion that uh we set a special meeting date with a date of April 13th, 2026 for the next zoning board meeting.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none.

We blew right through that.

Very good.

Mr.

Rudd, may I just ask a question?

Uh is there a special meeting on the 20th, or is that the regular meeting?

That's the regular April meeting.

We moved up the April meeting to the 20th during our setting of the annual calendar last year.

Uh, because there's there was going to be an odd gap between March and April, but a very short turnaround for May because of the Memorial Day holidays.

So we shifted up the April meeting by one week, so it gave us a better uh flow.

Okay.

Four weeks in between each one.

There's a special meeting date, but not a special meeting.

Right.

So the special the actual special meeting would be April 13th.

The regular April meeting on a different than normal date is April 20th.

Okay.

Thank you.

A week later, by the way, just so you all know.

Okay.

Um we're gonna get it.

Uh okay, great.

So let's move on to uh the summary calendar, if I could.

Um if you would, Mr.

Secretary, please read in each of these summaries separately, and then I'll ask if there are any uh objectors in the audience for each of them.

Okay.

Uh the first is the petition of Barbara J.

Hughes, applicant and owner.

57 Topa Boulevard Tax Assessors Plat 11, lot 573 in an R 10A zone for dimensional variants to construct a 48 square foot addition, increasing the lot coverage from 25 to 26 percent, where 20% is allowed.

Okay, great.

Um, so just to be sure, are there are there any objectors?

Uh butting objectors in the audience on this petition.

No objectors.

Seeing no objectors, let's move on.

Thank you.

Next is the correct corrected application petition of Robert E.

Justice, applicant and owner, 86 to 92 K Street, Unit 4.

Tax assesses plat 11, lot 249-4 in an R 10 zone for dimensional variants to legalize a previously installed 32 square foot accessory shed located four feet from the right east side property line, five feet required, increasing the lock coverage from 33 to 33.3 percent, where 20% is allowed.

Yeah, okay, great.

Um, first on that petition.

Uh, are there any objectors in the audience to that petition?

No objectors.

I don't see any objectors.

Are is the petitioner here for that petition?

Yeah, you are, and also on the uh an original one, Barbara Hughes.

Is someone here for that one?

Here on behalf of the petitioner, uh chairman.

Okay, very good.

Um just getting back in the swing of things, so we're you know, we're getting there.

Okay, uh moving on, please, Rush, if you would.

Yes, the next petition is petition of Carl Piketty, applicant and owner, 44 Extension Street, tax assessors plat 32, lot 237 in an R10 zone for dimensional variants to reconstruct and modify an existing one-story roof request requiring the increase in height of a wall located zero feet from the front property line, approximately one foot required.

So petitioner here on that petition.

Paghetti?

Carl, do I have that right?

Pagetti, is that how it pronounced it?

Very good.

Are there any objectors in the audience to this position?

No objectors.

I don't see any objectors.

Very good.

Okay.

Please.

The next petition is the petition of NRI 18 ROSA Partnership, applicant and owner, 18 rows of terrace, tax assessors plat two, lot 28 in an R 10 zone for a dimensional variance to install a second curb cut on a property with a lot frontage of 75 feet, 100 feet required to provide two new on-site parking spaces.

Okay.

Uh anybody in the ROSA petition?

Okay, Mr.

Lynch, thank you.

Very good.

Are there any objectors in the audience to this petition?

There is.

Okay.

Um, so we didn't have any written objections, did we?

No.

Okay.

You did.

What's your name?

Um okay, we can take a look.

We can take a look.

Um we should probably move this to the end of the full hearings for tonight.

Yeah, okay.

Um very good, Mr.

Cromwell.

Thank you for coming tonight.

Um, yes, Mr.

Lynch.

Yeah, you want to continue that to be in the special meeting or the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Is that what you would like to do?

Just to prepare.

Okay.

And perhaps communicate with the objector as well.

Okay.

I think that's what we'll do if you're okay with that, Mr.

Cromwell.

We're gonna we're gonna continue the petition.

Um uh this was taken uh the counsel for the petitioner a little bit by surprise, I think, right?

And so he needs a little bit of time to prepare as well.

Um so I think that's what we're gonna do uh at the behest of the petitioner is continue it to next month.

Yep.

All right, well, I have the paper.

I I understand.

You're not I can't take testimony from you right now, okay?

Um we're not gonna get right into that at this moment.

I think what what if you want, what you guys can do is you can go out in the hallway and discuss it, okay?

And if you can come if you can come up with a resolution and come back and say that your objection has now been answered and you no longer have an objection, then we will we will come back to it and and and vote on it as a summary item.

Okay.

So why don't you guys go uh have a chat out in the hallway?

Okay.

That would be great.

Okay, and the last petition is petition of Stephen Lang, applicant.

Now again to adventure partners, LLC, owner, 10 Liberty Street, tax assessors plat 26, lot 35 in an R10 zone for dimensional variants to construct a second floor dormer, six and a half feet from the north side property line where 10 feet is required.

Uh Steve Lang, yes.

Lang's here and I'm also here on behalf of this.

Okay.

And um, are there any objectors to this petition sitting in the audience?

Mr.

Chairman.

That we're not aware of, yes.

Mr.

Chairman, I just had a question for Nick if I sure of course.

Yep, you're on.

Yep.

Um in the um in the files section of the uh petition, there was uh uh piece that addressed a couple of uh AC condensers.

It said attached to PDF with additional elevation, didn't want to know if that was part of part of it, or they just didn't need it.

No, they they've actually we caught that they've separately applied that one is being advertised for next month's meeting.

Okay just tonight is going to be about the dormers.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um did you finish that?

Yes, then that one, okay.

Um, and so no objectors in the audience.

And then so just to try to move things along.

I uh neglected to ask if any of the board members have questions of any of these uh uh items on the summary calendar, please fire away.

Um hearing none.

Um let's move on.

Uh Mr.

Riley, if you could put uh these summaries in the form of a motion, that would be great.

Yes, happy to, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Sam and I move to place all matters called as 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, the information staff reports, applications, supporting plans and documents, and the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

Each petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning office prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Do I have a second?

Second.

And uh, Mr.

Chair, just quickly, can we just clarify that it's going to be items one, two, three, and five while we're waiting to hear a resolution on uh 18 rows of terrace?

We could always move that one to an abbreviated summary if we get a resolution next.

Yeah, of course.

Yep.

Yes, thank you.

Appreciate that.

So yes, this will be on uh on one, two, three, and five is what we're voting on.

Then just so everybody in the audience knows as well.

Um so I do have a second.

Uh and so all in favor of the summary calendar, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Hearing none, uh one, two, three, and five are unanimously approved, and we're waiting on to see how that goes out in the hallway on the other one.

So in the meantime, we will move on uh to our abbreviated abbreviated summary calendar.

Oh, you're here.

Uh 18 rules and tariffs.

Uh we reach an accommodation with uh Mr.

Cromwell.

Okay.

Very good.

Um, so yes, if you want to do that, we'll put you on the abbreviated summary calendar.

So we can we can do that now if you want or you wanna do uh yeah, we might as well get it done.

Yeah, let's get it done while we're here, right?

You don't want to come back, do you?

I'm done.

Okay.

I I I I can't bl I can't blame you.

So yes, if you would.

So yes, uh uh Mr.

Cromwell was uh complaining about some gravel on the side of the existing driveway.

Uh I represented to him that the applicant is going to pave over that area where it's currently gravel area.

Uh both of the driveways, the new driveways are going to be paved.

Uh and the applicant, uh the owner and applicant is going to clean up the gravel that was spilled over onto uh Mr.

Cremell's property.

Okay.

Um Dave, can we can we incorporate that into the motion?

That the that the uh the owner agrees to clean up the gravel on the side of the driveway, which is impinging on your property, Mr.

Cromwell.

Yes, okay.

And is that sufficient for you, sir?

I have no problem with that.

Longly take care of them rock in my yard.

Because like I say, I'm uh uh disabled back in 71 year old the ride new cancer.

And I'm not getting out there breaking out of the gravel and stuff on my yard and not trying to cut the grass or anything.

You got yeah, doctor plans, but more time, boom, they're going to rock and computer somebody's car window or window.

Oh, we we might speak.

We get it, and uh, and so it's gonna be ensconced in the in in in city law now.

That's they've got to do that, okay?

Yes, sir.

And so they will.

And if they don't, if they do not do it, you have recourse.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Okay, very good.

So uh our vice chairman Dave Riley is going to incorporate that uh into the motion.

So the excuse me, the uh the motion is that the uh gravel will be paved over.

Paved over in re and gravel that's spilled onto uh Mr.

Cromwell's property will be cleaned up.

Okay.

Okay.

Um excuse me, uh Nick.

I'm don't know if I'm confusing applications, but was there something that they needed to see that there was going to be engineering to that was another condition that there was sufficient room to locate the two additional parking spaces.

I know I did have discussions with Mr.

Armor beforehand that we are going to apply for the the normal curb cut application, even though there's no curb on the site, but we're gonna go to the that process sent evidence to uh engineering right department that we have sufficient uh width uh okay or length for the drive.

Uh okay.

It's essentially a requirement, anyways, under the code, but if you want to incorporate that as a no as long as it's covered, I'm I'm fine with that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

I will uh this is the number four.

So it's number three.

Um Ms.

Chairman, uh on the petition of uh NRI 18 Rosa partnership.

I move to adopt the board's finding of fact, the information and staff report, application, supporting plans and and documents, testimony of the witnesses, um, and the representation of council, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, adopt as the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the zoning ordinance entitled variances and modifications.

The petition has been 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 relating to the cost of public notice and be paid in full before and as a condition of recording the decision.

And the additional condition that the uh the gravel area on the property is gonna be paved over and all loose rocks gravel impediments be removed from the abutters property.

Very good.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Miss Chevry.

Uh all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Hearing none, that uh amended motion passes unanimously.

And uh if you could prepare that uh that that decision, that would be great.

Um, for all the people remaining that were on the summary calendar, uh, your petitions were uh approved en masse.

So uh you're all good to go, everybody that we uh read into.

So yes, if you want to stay, you're welcome to.

But um your petition has been passed, and good luck.

Give them a moment.

Okay, we have uh a somewhat large abbreviated uh calendar, but let's get right to it if we could.

Yes.

And it looks like number one's been one has been yeah, it's been uh continued.

So the uh second is the amended application of the petition of 11 Gurney LLC, applicant and owner, 11 Gurney Court tax assessors plat 12, lot 20 in an R 10 zone, historic overlay for dimensional variants to construct a chimney edition on the main structure located 2.83 feet from the north side property line where 6.68 feet is required.

Okay, very good.

Yes, sir.

How are you?

Hi.

Good.

I'm gonna have to uh swear in if you don't mind.

Yep.

Uh 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 McComb, architect for the project.

The owner's in attendance as well.

Okay, very good.

And where's the owner?

Okay, very good.

Okay.

Um tell us what you want to do and why should we why we should vote yes on it.

So uh this project or this property is uh very close to the property line, about two feet away.

Um we are adding a wood burning fireplace, and so there's an existing fireplace, which is a typical Newport flu for the for the uh basement, but uh this would be a wood burning one, so it's a little bigger in a different spot.

Just happens to be within the setback.

You can see in the diagram here.

We do have a substandard lot, so the setbacks are even less than normal, but the house is only a few feet from the property line.

And that's where we're that's where it makes sense in plan to put the fireplace.

It's a very minor ask, I believe, given that it's just the flu stack of the chimney itself and no further building components.

Um, and so I think that's why it was uh muted so yeah.

Before we go any further, I just want to be sure are there any objectors in the audience to this petition?

Don't see any objectors, no objectors.

Okay, good for sure.

I'll just um point of clarification because the uh agenda shows it as having an objection.

There was an initial objection to a previous iteration of the project that contained uh another feature to it that we had originally advertised, and then we modified that.

Uh once the objection came in, they removed that feature.

Uh it was in change to the shed that's out at the front of the property.

Once that was removed, the objector removed their objection.

Okay.

So generally speaking, uh, with abbreviated summaries, we don't have objectors, but that's not the case today.

I know.

Correct.

But since they withdrew their objection, we put it back on abbreviated.

Well, I think we have another one where there's an objection that popped up.

But we'll we'll just deal with it when when it when it comes up and um we'll treat it essentially as a full hearing.

Um there's it's almost a distinction without a difference at this point.

So in any case, that's what we're gonna do.

Yes, carry on, sir, please.

Uh you're good.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um board members, are there any questions?

No.

No.

Thank you.

Nothing.

Okay.

And then seeing no objectors, uh, I don't have any questions.

So uh I'm happy to uh get this into a form of a motion.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

On the petition of um of 11 Gurney LLC.

Uh I move to adopt the board's finding of tax information and staff report.

Um testimony of witnesses.

Um, together with comments spread on the record by the board members adopted as a board conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 and new part zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

Uh, and that the petition be granted on the condition of the project be start is naturally completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to exploration and all outstanding invoices related to the cost of public notice and be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Um, I think we're just gonna do a voice a voice vote on this one.

I don't think we need to poll all the individual members.

So for all those in favor of this position, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the petition passes unanimously.

Um you're all set.

Good luck with your chimney.

You wouldn't need it this way, I'll tell you that.

Okay, moving on.

Next petition is the petition of Timothy C.

Tash, applicant and owner, 10 Bull Street, tax assessors plat 21, lot 15, and an R10 zone for special use permit and dimensional variances to convert a two-family dwelling into a multifamily dwelling containing containing three dwellings without providing a two-way drive aisle or parking spaces accessed off of a drive aisle, increasing the lock coverage from 20% to 21%.

Sorry about that, guys.

Yes, please, Mr.

Lynch, if you would.

Um this is an application uh right behind us at 10 Bowl Street.

Uh what we're proposing to do is turn a two-family dwelling into a three-family dwelling inside the existing building envelope.

Uh we do need uh some dimensional relief from the parking uh design standards.

We are providing for six off-street parking spaces, uh two in the garage, two in front of the garage, and then two uh to the I guess it would be the east uh of the uh garage.

Um I've spoke with Mr.

Armour, and I know that one of the concerns about the parking was to make sure that each unit, the garage units and the outside unit, um they'd be back stack parking for each uh one of the two units, so we don't have an issue of uh not being able to access the interior parking spaces.

Um we do have uh there's gonna be some dimensional relief for the uh existing driveway that's been in existence for years.

And if you recall, this used to be a law office uh several years ago, so there's been a number of right there, isn't it?

Um so that there's always been ample uh parking and traffic going through there, never created any any hardship.

So we're asking for uh dimensional standard from the parking design requirements.

Yeah, before you continue, uh again, um just wanted to be sure are there any objectors in the audience for this petition?

Seeing none, that's fine.

Continue.

Thank you.

And we didn't have any written objections on this one, did I?

We had two written objections to this, uh, one from one bull street and one from seven.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, that's right.

Um both of those objections were raising concerns with the parking.

Um, and both were insinuating that the parking could not be accomplished on the subject property, which the applicant has proposed.

They were just questioning that it could function as they have proposed it.

Um because they're not uh represented by attorneys, and because staff went through the standards in detail in the staff report and felt that even with those objections, this still uh was a a project that we could recommend approval on.

Right.

So I I'm confused.

I thought it was another of the petitions that had the objections that came up.

Um and these were recent uh letters, correct?

Yes, yeah.

So you sent those to us.

Uh uh, I think uh umdy, gotcha.

Um, okay.

Um, and so uh they're not here either.

So um I'm just stating that for the record.

But anyway, go ahead.

Uh I have nothing further to add unless you have any specific questions about the application.

Yeah, Ms.

Hammond, if I could.

Um I couldn't determine from the materials submitted where the exterior uh stairs are gonna be.

Or did I misread that?

There was, I think in the back, they've got to uh uh create some additional uh stair in the back of the building uh because the three units right.

I just I I couldn't figure it out.

It's extremely small.

Uh the stairway.

If you look at the uh the middle diagram here, it's I'm trying to put a cursor on it.

It's this right there in the middle.

Okay.

It's not it was never highlighted or you know, sometimes you say this is what we're adding.

Jump back to the previous image.

You can see that there have no staircase there.

Yeah, okay.

And and the fact that the uh each unit that's rented will have uh like stacked one will have a garage and one will be outside the garage and so forth.

So that there won't be that's the issue raised by the uh the uh objectives.

That's correct.

And Mr.

Romer brought that to my attention.

I said the and the owner and applicant are fine with that uh condition that uh each unit have its own stacked parking.

Okay.

Sounds great.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lynch, is the owner live on site?

Or is it uh yeah, I'll just uh swear, man, quickly.

Question is on the bottom site.

Yes.

Please 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.

Please state your name for the record.

Timothy Tesh.

The question was are you going to be living on site at one of these units?

Yes.

Ground floor unit.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was my question.

That I feel like there'll be a good policing of the parking.

So I'm satisfied with that.

Okay.

Okay.

Or anything?

Okay, I think we're all set, Mr.

Lynch.

We're gonna put this in the form of a motion and vote on it.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman.

On the petition of uh Timothy C.

Tash, I move to adopt as the board's findings of fact, the information and staff report, application supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, and the representation of counsel, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the Newport zoning office entitled Variances and Modifications, and that the petition has also met their burden of proof under each element under Chapter 17.109 in the Newport zoning ordinance entitled Special Use Permit Category One.

The petition be granted on the condition that the project be started substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or the extension requested to the zoning officer prior tax breation and all outstanding invoices related to the course of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Great.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thanks, Ms.

Chevry.

Uh so on this petition, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, you're all set, Mr.

Tash.

Brilliant decision.

Yes, thank you.

I would appreciate that, Mr.

Lynch.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Okay.

Okay.

The next petition is uh for World View Graphics Inc.

Applicant and Owner, 404 Thame Street, tax assessors plat 27, lot 259 and a limited business zone for an amendment to a previously approved special use permit and dimensional variance to expand the use of a guest house from two bedrooms to three three bedrooms without I'm sorry, I'm reading that wrong from uh from two bedrooms to three bedrooms without providing the additional one additional on-site parking space required.

Okay.

Yes.

Are you the petitioner?

Okay.

And your your name is Catherine Norman.

Okay, and you're uh a legal representative?

Yes.

Okay.

So I don't have to swear you in.

No.

We assume you're going to tell the truth.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Okay, very good.

Carry on.

Um, I know this is an abbreviated summary hearing.

Um, I am prepared to make a full presentation in support of the application.

I do have a land use expert with me, Nancy Latendra um with me.

Um, so if you want to, I can go through that, or if you'd rather just answer.

Um, why don't we do it this way?

Why don't we see uh poll the board members and see if there are any specific questions that we want to get answered?

Um barring that, I don't think we need a full presentation.

Okay.

You could assume that we've read all the material that we've uh we've been given.

And again, are there any objectors?

Um there weren't any, and I don't see any.

Nobody's raising their hand, no objectors.

Okay.

Um so uh I why don't I give it to the board to see what kind of questions that we have um for this petition?

Um I can start.

Uh first of all, I I do ask that you speak into the speaker.

Yeah, thank you.

And second of all, um, obviously you're gonna talk about uh the parking and what type of uh plan you have for that.

Correct.

That was my major concern.

I'm sure the board's does concern as well.

Yes, absolutely.

So the applicant right now currently has a parking space lease at Brown and Howard Wharf uh for two spaces.

He is prepared and has been in contact with the owners and proprietors of Brown and Howard Wharf.

Um he actually has to check with him right now.

He's just waiting for the the relief to be granted for the third parking spot.

Right.

So um as we as we've been doing lately for these kinds of petitions, um you would have no problem having that lease be put into the uh the petition into the vote, uh if you will, and that also it needs to be uh um produced uh on an annual basis to the to the zoning board um to review and approve.

Okay, absolutely.

And you have no issue with that.

No, sir.

Okay, so that's what we that's what we would generally require now when there's off-site parking.

Okay, and remake also the other thing is to excuse me.

Um Nick, if you reviewed Brown and Howard to make sure they have enough spaces down there.

Okay.

So that part's been done.

Thank you.

So that's the other part we need to do.

Yeah, and remind me how close Brown and Howard is to this uh this property.

It's like right across the street.

Cross the street.

Just cross the street.

Okay, good.

I didn't want to hear you say it was four miles away or anything.

Okay, all right, good.

Well, I it has to be within half a mile anyway, correct?

Um to be able to do it anyhow.

Half a mile is kind of long, but anyway, you're right there.

I I'm aware of that.

So that's a good thing.

Um it's actually ultimately will be a convenience for the people renting, really, because it's right there.

So not being able to find parking anywhere else, they'll have spots there.

So that's good.

Yes, yeah.

Um, I just want to make sure I get the right number of parking spots because basically we're erasing the first the first uh one, and we're gonna ask in this condition.

I'm gonna ask for two parking spaces.

Correct.

I believe the the reference to there already being two is because there was another application from the same owner that also needed a space.

So at the time that you granted both of those original approvals, each needed one space.

So we obtained two.

There they're uh proposing to add a third space to that, two associated to this application specifically.

So this application needs two parking spaces.

Okay.

Thank you.

So if I can uh I we've got a couple of these, so unfortunately they're kind of mixing up a little bit, but I believe you've got a uh a two-bedroom and a three-bedroom unit in the building, correct?

Yeah, and the the uh previous application applied them to the two-bedroom unit when in fact they wanted to do it to the for the three-bedroom unit, correct?

Yes, so now you're in to kind of amend for that and get take the two that you've already received, receive a third that are applied for the three-bedroom unit, and and give it get the additional parking space, correct?

Correct.

Yes, it was just an oversight from previous council.

It was supposed to be three bedrooms to begin with, but oversight.

Okay.

One other uh clarification too.

This is uh limited business zone, so it needed an on-site manager.

Essentially, in the previous iteration of this project, the three-bedroom unit was going to be the long-term on-site manager.

This would switch it to the two-bedroom unit being the long-term on-site manager.

Uh, so let's still include the condition for an on-site manager.

Oh, yeah, right, right.

Got that.

And got that in that lease with the uh uh tenant, it should it should this won't be part of the condition, but it should reflect some sort of consideration, some sort of uh uh payment uh, you know, to them in lieu of their duties as the on-site manager.

Yes, there currently is right now in the lease.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Great.

I I would respectfully request that um the land use report that we provided to you um be considered as part of the record and as part of the vote.

Um I I think Mr.

Armoir did upload it into viewpoint.

I do have copies if you'd like to review them, but I would just ask that that be a part of the record.

Sure.

Bring them on up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll mark this as petition is exhibit one.

Read that now.

And the expert is here in case you have any questions for her as well.

Um any other questions?

Anyone want to ask questions of uh her expert?

No.

Okay.

I think we're I think we're good.

I would also respectfully request um if you could bifurcate the vote, one for special use permit and one for dimensional variance, um, just because the new Rhode Island law, it is technically two forms of relief.

If not, that's totally fine.

But I just wanted to request that.

That's that's fine by staff.

Okay.

You could essentially make one motion for the special use permit and a separate one for the variants.

Okay.

Separate vote too as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sure.

Why not?

Thank you.

Anything else?

None for me.

No.

Okay.

I think we're gonna move to the uh the vote then.

Uh at this point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Riley, if you would.

We'll have two motions that would appear.

Okay.

The previated.

Thanks for patience.

Um, Mr.

Chairman.

Um for the applicant, the petition uh will world view graphics uh ink.

I move to adopt as a board's finding a fact, the information staff report, application supporting plans and documents, testimony of the witnesses, representations of council, exhibits marked, uh to um together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, and adopt as a conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden approved under each element under chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance and title variances and modification.

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

And that the following additional condition is included.

Um the applicant must provide the zoning department with a parking lease for two off site parking spaces at zero brown and howard wharf before registering the subject as a guest house with the city.

Second, the applicant must must provide the zoning department with a tenant lease agreement between the applicant and the on-site manager, detailing the manager's proposed responsibilities prior to registering the guest get guest house with the city.

Um this paperwork must be provided to the city at each renewal of their license.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Um that certainly wasn't was not an abbreviated uh motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay.

Uh all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that is unanimous.

Okay.

Let's do it again.

Okay.

Sure.

Uh Ms.

Tim, this would be for the special use permit.

Yeah, let's get to it.

Um on the petition of Worldview Graphics Inc.

I move to adopt as a board's uh adopt as a board's finding of fact, the information staff report, applications supporting plans and documents and testimony of the witnesses, uh, and representations of council and exhibits marked together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met um their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.109 of the newport zoning ordinance, uh entitled uh special use permits category three.

The petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision, uh, or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public noticing be paid in full before and as an addition of recording the decision.

Very good.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none.

Um that is unanimous as well.

If you could, uh if you can uh write those decisions up for us, please.

That would be very helpful.

We appreciate that.

Thank you.

You guys are all set.

Good luck.

Okay, I think this is our last abbreviated summary.

That is correct.

It is moving along okay here.

Petition of Cynthia Rich, applicant and owner, seven Sylvan Terrace, tax assessors plat 33, lot 97 in an R 10 zone for dimensional variants to demolish an existing detached carport and construct a new one car garage located 1.92 feet from the right west side property line, 6.03 required.

Okay, very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Uh yes, and are you Cynthia Rich?

Yes.

Okay.

Please put up your right hand.

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

Yes.

And please state your name for the record.

Cynthia Rich.

Yes, okay.

That was my name.

I was married, so my new name is Morgan, but Cynthia is still on the property.

Okay.

Um so for our purposes tonight, you'll be Cynthia Rich.

Yes.

Okay, very good.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, are there any objectors in the audience tonight?

Okay.

The audience is dwindling and still no objectors.

Very good.

Yes.

Um, please tell us um what you're doing.

And um, I don't there were no written objectors for this one, that's for sure.

Yes.

Go ahead.

It's a single car garage, and it's no second floor, wasn't built per second floor.

It's um following the driveway, the existing driveway path, but due to like the the lot, irregular lot, it's going over the um line, the variance.

Okay.

Um gotcha.

What else can I tell you?

It's um very similar to other buildings are close to the line in the neighborhood.

It's gonna be my primary home.

Okay.

That's good to hear.

Okay.

So basically, um you're not doing anything any different than you know, it's generally that's you know, people are within the setbacks on the uh in the neighborhood, is what you're trying to say.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

So you feel like you're in sync with what's going on in the neighborhood.

So yeah, it hasn't been overbuilt, no sinking floor, still a single family as it was.

Okay.

Very good.

Um, any questions from the board for uh Ms.

Rich.

I have a quick one.

Uh, just uh I'm gonna restate the obvious, but you're only using it for a garage, right?

You're not going to use garage and storage of yard tools.

All right, great.

Thank you.

I had a uh quick question.

The existing carport uh location and the location of the new one car garage, are they approximately in the same position?

The garage is going to follow where the car port ends.

So the original car port, which is built in 1968, ends at the at the end of the house.

So the garage is going to sit back a little bit farther.

I think the diagram should show that right there.

Um so the existing carport you can see at the 175.

So it sort of overlaps.

Do you see you see that part?

So it's basically in the same location.

Basically, yeah.

Is the carport take coming down or it's coming down?

Yeah, because you said it was rotted, right?

So yeah.

So it's basically a one-for-one type.

Yeah, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions.

Hearing none, um, I will entertain a motion uh for this petition, please.

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman, on the petition of Cynthia Cynthia Rich.

Um, I move to adopt the board finding of facts, information staff report, application, supporting plans and documents, and testimony of the witnesses, uh, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met the burden of proof under ETL amendment under Chapter 17.108 of the new board zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications, the petition be granted on the condition that the project be started substantially complete within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration, all outstanding invoices related to the cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of the courting the decision.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

You're all set, Ms.

Rich.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Good luck.

Okay, that uh finishes our um uh abbreviated summary calendar.

And uh we do have a couple of appeals tonight.

Um unusual appeals, if I can say, but uh let's uh get started if we can with the first one.

They're they're they're interrelated from what I understand.

Yes, they are.

Yes, I'm so we'll do the first one and then hopefully uh we'll see what happens with the second one.

But uh they I'm not saying that they have to be the same, but I think they're the same issues as I understand it.

So why don't we do the first one and then go from there?

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

This is the appeal of four good LLC applicants.

Excuse me, before you go, I want to be clear that the way that we do these appeals, um this is not a full case, okay.

You're gonna have a chance basically to give us a summary uh of what your appeal is.

Uh, you can assume that we've all read the written material, you had a brief that was in there uh as well.

The city uh responded uh with theirs.

So you can assume that we've read all that stuff.

What we're really looking for is um is is a summary of what of what your appeal is, okay.

This is not going to be a full-blown case.

Do you understand that?

Uh yes, understood.

Okay, very good.

So, yes, under those circumstances, please.

Yes, once again, this is the appeal of four good LLC applicants and owners for Goodwin Street Unit 1 tax assessors plat 35 lot 236-1 in a waterfront business zone, appealing the zoning officer's determination of an incomplete application.

Application zoning board review dash 25-111 requesting dimensional relief uh dimensional variance relief to exceed the maximum number of guest house bedrooms for a single property.

Okay, very good.

And you are sir.

Thank you, Michael Mano uh for the appellants for good LLC.

Um, and I do appreciate uh the board's comment.

Uh, I will try to be brief.

I do want to make the record and um summarize the arguments that were contained in our memorandum that was submitted that's part of the record tonight, um, and answer any questions that the board has and also respond to the uh solicitor's memorandum that you reference.

Absolutely.

You uh preliminarily um to answer the earlier question, this appeal is essentially um identical in most respects to the next agenda item.

It deals with the exact same legal issue, the same property.

Um, and these are two uh condominium units.

It's a townhouse style condominium.

Uh for Goodwin Street.

So the one um that we're speaking on now is Unit One, which is owned by Four Good LLC.

Unit two is owned by uh Dorothy Costek and Shannon Dunnegan.

Uh each of those units has separate entrances and facilities.

Um although the city um has classified um this as one building because they do share a wall, even though they're entirely separate condominium units.

Uh each unit has four bedrooms, um, and that's been the case for many years.

Um both units uh currently have uh valid guest house registrations, uh which only allow uh rental of two bedrooms per unit.

So that's two bedrooms in unit one, two bedrooms in unit two, even though each of those units has four bedrooms total, um, meaning that if you're classifying this as one building, uh there are eight bedrooms on the property.

Um and so a 30-day rental, um, which is allowed by right in the waterfront business zoning district, as is the guest house use.

Uh but uh if this were a 30-day rental, uh all eight bedrooms could be rented out as a matter of right.

Um if it's a 28-day rental, um and it's under the guest house registration, um, only two units or two bedrooms per unit can be rented out.

Um so back in October 2025, uh my clients applied uh each separately for both a variance uh to the uh definitional limit of five bedrooms per building um to increase that and to allow for up to four bedrooms in each unit to be rented out, and also for a parking variance.

Um and I can get into that um specifically, but since the board's not hearing the merits of those applications tonight, and this is an appeal, um, I might just reserve that if the board has any questions about the specific parking that's available and what they were seeking.

But that's all contained in our appeal and memorandum.

Um and so as I've argued, um, while the case law on this particular issue is scarce, uh admittedly in Rhode Island.

Um I did cite to a uh Rhode Island case, uh, that's the Litio uh versus North Kingstown case, um, which does have language in it that I believe is uh instructive, if not controlling here.

And that essentially is that um if the use is permitted by right, uh the analysis shouldn't focus on the use when you're talking about dimensional criteria, um, but on whether or not the um the proposed variance would um be out of character with the neighborhood.

So for example, uh in that case, the court talked about you know, if a building uh if the building height was allowed to be so tall that it was greatly disproportionate to other buildings in the neighborhood, you know, those are the types of analyses that should be focused on if the use is permitted by right.

And here the guest house use is allowed by right in this zone.

It's a unique situation with this townhouse style condominium.

So uh this isn't um a two-family property owned by one owner.

The unit uh one and two owners are entirely separate, unrelated uh people.

And really they're being unfairly penalized here by at least not being able to appear before the board and try to make their case that they're entitled to a variance.

Um and also, as I've argued, the fact that this five bedroom limit is in the definition section, um, I think uh really shouldn't be um dispositive of this issue.

Um so one example would be you know, if the the city council put um a height restriction for particular use in the definition section, I'd argue that that similarly could be uh altered by a dimensional variance.

Um there was an argument that was made by um Mr.

Armour and also in the solicitor's memo that um because the city council um established this limit, it can't be modified by any variance, even a use variance.

But really, the city council adopted everything that's in the zoning ordinance, including all the various criteria which can be modified by a dimensional variance.

So if this five bedroom limit appeared in some other section, uh so for example, um in the waterfront business district section of the zoning ordinance, where the other criteria are where it lists the permitted uses and the specially permitted uses and the dimensional criteria.

If it were in that section, um I I don't know that that's um I think it's a distinction without a difference, basically, that it's in the definition section.

Um it should be modifiable by a dimensional variance, just like any other um dimensional criteria, um, it operates as a limit on the scale or the intensity of a use that is allowed by right in this zoning district.

Um, if the use were only allowed by special use permit, maybe it would be a different analysis, but uh the city council's already determined that that use is appropriate in this district.

Um, and as I said, this property already has eight bedrooms, and so uh they could have 30-day rentals and fill up all eight bedrooms on the property, and I think that's where um it should be for the board to determine whether rental of all eight bedrooms as a guest house would um create undesirable effects or result in uh traffic or parking issues, and all we're asking for is the ability uh to come in and make that case and have a hearing um and to sustain our appeals in these two uh cases.

Okay.

Any and does anybody have any questions so far?

Um yes, I do.

And and and and maybe you'll be getting to this, but um the solicitor talked about this expressly conditioned uses.

You didn't address that at all in any of uh of your memorandum.

Um I found it quite compelling.

Can you explain to me why that uh concept wouldn't apply in this case?

Or why you think it doesn't apply.

So that citation in the solicitor's memorandum was to um a treatise by Roland Chase, who I have a lot of respect for.

Um he's had this treatise for a long time summarizing various aspects of zoning law in Rhode Island, but there's no case cited that supports that proposition, nor is that phrase in the definition section of Newport's ordinance.

Um so I think it it does not apply here.

Um, even if that uh is controlling law in Rhode Island, I think the case that I cited too is the closest thing to what uh the courts have articulated um in a situation like this, where you have a use that is permitted by right.

Um this isn't a conditionally permitted use, which would be the case if it were only allowed by a special use permit.

Um it's permitted by right.

So the um the city council's already made the determination that the use is allowed in this zoning district.

Um and so this is simply a request to be able to um vary that um that density limitation, and just because again, it's in the definition section, I don't think that that it takes it out of uh the realm of um of various dimensions that can be altered uh through a variance procedure.

So um so your point is is that eight bedrooms uh four on each side, correct?

Um, and that's you're looking for a variance for that.

Why not 20 or 30?

I mean, where you know, what's the number?

So the city council said five, okay, for a guest house use.

Um you're saying that that's that there's that conflict there between the definitions and and you said said it should be in the waterfront business section.

What's the number?

Well, so this is the pre-existing structure.

The bedrooms are already there.

Um, I mean, conceivably, if there were a structure that had 20 bedrooms in it in the waterfront business district, well that weren't classified under one of the other guest house uh categories, which it probably would be the board could theoretically be asked to take that question up, but it would be up to the board to decide if that uh would meet the various criteria for granting a variance, and it probably would be a difficult case to make.

Well, you understand what I'm getting at.

You're asking us to substitute our um uh opinion on this with what the city council came up with and put in their definition sector.

And um, you know, what's the number?

You know, where I mean you're saying that that should be allowed.

The other question is is um uh, you know, the idea on a guest house, yes, in a waterfront business uh in a waterfront business district, it is allowed by right.

We understand that.

Um, however, uh there have to be some uh uh constraints put upon that, particularly in view of the fact when you're talking about 30-day rentals uh as opposed to overnight rentals, which are guest house rentals, there is more in and out.

Um typically on a 30-day rental, that's one family on guest houses.

You've got multiple people coming in on these things for four bedrooms.

Uh, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't see four or five cars on a daily basis down there.

So I you know, the I try to explain to me why that why the city council, in their opinion, uh I think recognizes that.

So they didn't want that intensification on this property and so or on any property that had more than five that more than five bedrooms.

So um explain to me how a 30-day uh you know, how a 30-day you got that intensity level, why is it that uh a guest a guest house rental on let's say a daily basis is not more intensive than that?

I guess that's my question.

And my clients are prepared to articulate that it's not more intensive and maybe even less so.

And that's why we're just asking for the opportunity to make that case as part of their variance applications to the board that in fact there's not more traffic, that generally you you might have a couple or one family renting these out when they're used as a guest house.

And um that you know the people use the property in the same way that a long-term tenant would.

They sleep in the bedrooms, they eat in the kitchen, they go out to eat, uh, they walk around.

Um I I understand, but what you want us to do is you want us to argue the case, and we're not going to do that today.

Right.

Okay.

That's not what we're doing.

That's not what we're here for.

We're talking about points of law relative to what the city council said.

We're not talking about the specific situation, although I get the fact that it is there.

So we're gonna rule on whether uh, you know, uh that the application is is complete or incomplete based upon uh the city uh code and the zoning code uh as well.

So we're not going to get into testimony today.

That's for a different time.

That's if now if we accept your appeal, then that means um I don't know, the city's probably going to appeal to superior court.

If you lose, you're probably gonna appeal to superior court.

I understand that.

So it's not all I don't think it's over here, regardless of what we do.

Um so that's what we're gonna do.

We're gonna get that ball rolling, and then when with this thing gets adjudicated at some point, wherever it may be, then if it does get remanded back to us at the zoning board to make a decision because your appeal has been ultimately successful, right?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Then we'll we'll hear it.

But we're not gonna do that today.

No, I I understand.

And I wasn't suggesting that we hear that tonight, but that my clients are prepared to make that case.

And also to address your prior question, uh the city council set all of the limits um and requirements that are in the zoning ordinance.

And in some cases, they have to follow what the Rhode Island statutes say, but um that's that point is true with height limits with setbacks with density, um, with any numerical limitation or um or restriction that's in the zoning ordinance.

Um, and so they've made all those decisions as well.

And the board has the power to vary those limits if it finds that applicants have met all the applicable criteria.

Um, and so again, I posit that this isn't any different than those other categories.

It's it's a limit on the intensity or scale.

Um we're just asking for the opportunity to try to satisfy the zoning variance standards for that.

No, and I understand that, and it's a legitimate point.

I mean, you feel like you're caught in the middle here, you know, because there's an overall point.

But I think what we're at least I'll speak for myself.

When I'm thinking of is I'm thinking of the overall, the big picture in terms of you know how this is going to go forward, not your specific case.

And I do understand, I think you made uh somewhat of a compelling argument that that you are unique, but so that's gonna force this point, okay?

And I think that's what we're gonna be talking about here when we make our decision.

So I'm good for the moment.

Does anybody else have any questions?

I think that might yes, sir.

I'd like to just say a couple things um as a zoning officer.

So um, firstly, you know, we did deem this project incomplete, both of them.

Do I have to uh by the way, you guys swear you in?

Is this testimony?

Um no, I'm serious.

I believe so.

I mean I just want to do it.

If you want to do it, go for it.

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 for the record.

Nick Armor, zoning officer for the city of Newport.

Yes, sir.

Carrie.

Um, so we did uh we deemed the project incomplete for a dimensional variance.

At the time, um, I don't remember whether we left the door open for a use variance later on.

I did talk to Mr.

Mino and we talked about the possibility of it being uh able to proceed under a use variance standard.

Um our uh new assistant uh solicitor Kevin Gavin also took that same stance that a use variance could be applied, just not a dimensional variance.

There's different standards under Rhode Island law.

Um, just as a couple points on this, um, we have consistently applied this bedroom count limit standard across the board in the city to both single unit property owners as well as properties that contain multiple privately owned condominium units, and that has always been a limit.

Uh essentially, I would even take the stance that one of these two units could have applied for a fifth bedroom, and they would have been fined to do so.

They would have needed a parking variance even for that one additional bedroom.

Um, but that that could have been permitted.

Under the idea of the expressly conditioned use, I would actually say that this guest house definition has several expressly conditioned components to it, depending on where you're doing it, whether you're in an area that needs a special use permit, you require an on-site manager.

That is not a dimensional variance that could ever be asked for.

We've had people ask for that under a use variance that uh standard.

Um there's a requirement for you know, in in the home occupation standards for uh for guest rental of bedrooms, that a owner occupancy requirement is in there.

That is not something that you can ask for a dimensional variance too.

So our stance is that for a guest house, the limit of five bedrooms is not a dimensional standard, it is a maximum limit on a property.

Um we also talked, uh, Mr.

Mano and I talked about a different kind of short-term rental being a transient guest facility, which is another type of use that is permitted in this uh in this district that has a dimensional limit to it, that is a number of bedrooms per lot square footage that is a dimensional um limit that could be uh you know you could pass over it with a dimensional variance if requested and if the standards were met.

So that's why we took the stance that this is an expressly conditioned use that you cannot aspirate dimensional variance to, but you could apply for a use variant if you can meet that standard.

Right.

So what I I think but what I'm hearing is is you're saying that this they're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole um in some respects.

Sure.

Fair to say.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions questions of this witness?

Hearing none.

Okay.

Um are you all set, sir?

Or yeah, well, I just going back to the original question on the unit two appeal.

I mean, I can go through this entire analysis again.

Uh and all the same questions and answers um procedurally.

I haven't dealt with this scenario before where I have identical appeals back to back involving the same property, but um I would be comfortable for the record if it was agreed that all my comments and your questions and uh uh Mr.

Armor's testimony just now on unit one would be applicable to unit two for the purposes of the record.

Yes, that's what I was hopeful you would do.

Thank you for doing that.

I appreciate that.

It'll save us some time and and we we recognize that the the issues are are you know the same um on on both of the condo units.

Um so yes, indeed.

I would just make the um the one stance that we should have separate motions and separate votes on the oh yes, of course.

Preserved that absolutely no, we won't do one motion, we'll do two.

Um follow along.

So are we all set, Mr.

Minot?

Or did you have any other comments?

No, that's it.

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

So we will now proceed to a motion and we will take a vote on this uh on this appeal.

We need to hear from anyone else from city or do we need to hear it from anyone else, city or uh attorney Gavin?

That that's all we have.

Okay.

Please, Mr.

Riley, if you would.

Okay, Ms.

Chairman.

Um I move to sustain the appeal of uh for good LLC.

Um we adopt all the information in the record on this appeal, along with all the testimony that is provided at this appeal this evening.

Okay, very good.

Um should we um proceed to some discussion on this, or are we just gonna have a vote?

Yeah, no one do you want to have some discussion if we want?

Okay, let's do it.

Anyone care to take this up?

I'll be happy to.

Please, uh, Mr.

Grimes, if you want.

Uh, thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh this really got into a complicated legal uh matter.

Um, but based on the information that the zoning officer had.

And based on uh uh input from the experts uh with the city solicitor uh and the assistant uh uh as well, the the assistant solicitor for land use, Mr.

Gavin.

Um I I feel that um the zoning officer uh was correct and saying that uh saying that the termination of this uh application was incomplete uh based on some of the regulations that are in place uh in the city of Newport.

Uh particularly um about the number of guest houses allowed on a single building.

Um and it's and according to our uh local uh ordinances should not exceed five.

Uh and that would we would be uh exceeding that uh uh very easily here.

Um so therefore I would say that that this was uh this information uh is the application was incomplete, and I would therefore deny the appeal.

You'll be voting nay on the appeal.

Okay.

Yeah.

Looking down this way, anybody?

I'll go.

Um I yeah.

Yes.

I would just like to uh make one direction just for clarity.

Um the motion was to sustain the appeal.

So that would technically mean that you're overruling the zoning officer.

Really, it should be a motion to uh sustain the determination of the zoning official rather than sustain the appeal.

Oh, okay.

Um I that yeah, I mean, that's fine, sure.

But I mean that that I I mean we usually do it just this way, so we deny the appeal.

If you want to get an app, you know, sustain being a positive motion, but you're what you're sustaining is the determination below.

You're sustaining is the determination below.

Okay.

So you'd like us to re-re uh redo the motion basically.

Okay.

Can we redo that uh Dave?

Um okay.

That no, that's a first for us.

I mean, most of the time we've either sustained the appeal or deny the appeal.

This appeal of a zoning officer determination is a first for us to well it is, yeah.

I mean, it's this is unique.

Anyway, yes, Mr.

Riley.

Um and uh hopefully this will be good.

I move to um deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the zoning officer.

Um we adopt all the information in the record on this appeal along with all the testimony uh provided for this appeal this evening.

Okay.

Is that okay, Mr.

Gavin?

And so you're gonna go back in.

You'll be voting to sustain this uh petition.

I well, I I yeah, sustain the uh the decision of the zoning officer, but deny the appeal.

The white got that right?

Yes, okay.

Um we're just trying to put it in a positive light to um if we're gonna be voting with uh our zoning officer to sustain his objection.

Yes.

Um and his decision, if you will.

So yes, okay, Ms.

Chevry, if you're ready to go, please.

Um I wanna echo the sentiments of my colleague on the board that has already gone here.

I will also be voting to sustain the zoning officer's decision and denying the appeal.

I believe uh that the cap on guest house bedrooms is absolute in our um city's ordinances.

Um I believe, based on my interpretation of the record in this appeal that the Palace Attorney's reference to the case um leash show the zoning board of review of town of North Kingston, um does not apply here.

Um, and that the correct course of action if relief was to be sought was either to obtain a use variance granted by zoning board um through another means or um through uh going to the city council to amend uh the zoning ordinance.

So for that reason, I will uh be voting against uh this appeal and sustaining the zone.

You'll be voting to sustain the yeah, uh the uh the city's decision, right?

The mouthful, yes.

Okay, very good.

Dave?

Yeah, I'll also be voting to denying the appeal and sustaining the um uh actions of the zoning officer.

Um I really believe that this uh expressly conditioned uses is the key uh component to this appeal.

Um they put that five bedroom limit in there for a reason.

There's no discussion in the definition of a guest house about parking, for example.

So parking is is free game for us to have a discussion about, but they put the five units in there for a specific reason is to contain I it's obviously to contain the size of the uh operations of a guest guest house in in that uh in those districts, and I I think that that was the uh the proper decision by the zoning officer and um uh I'll sustain that.

Very good.

Russ.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, so I read all the submitted documentations and I I believe both sides make a very compelling argument.

Um I I don't disagree with the city's uh position regarding uh this this application and the property and that it has eight eight bedrooms and it is uh one uh one site with eight bedrooms.

But I also think that uh Ms.

Minone makes a uh very valid argument.

Um and uh you know his points uh were well taken.

Uh and I I'm not sure that I would go as far as his point saying they were unfairly uh prevented from uh having their case heard in front of the zoning board.

Um but um uh it's you know this is a first.

And so um I know when I first cut on the zoning board, I would read these petitions and I'm saying, what what are these people asking for?

That's that's not allowed.

That's that's prohibited.

But I think that's the whole purpose of this zoning board is to to look at these uh look at these requests to exceed or uh do something outside of the realms of the zoning board.

that I would go as far as his point saying on they were unfairly uh prevented from uh having their case heard in front of the zoning board um but um uh it's you know this is the first and so um i know when i first got on the zoning board i would read these petitions and i'm saying what what are these people asking for that's that's not allowed that's that's prohibited but i think that's the whole purpose of this zoning board is to to look at these uh look at these requests to exceed or uh do something outside of the realm of the zoning board so uh i feel like typically um you know we hear a lot of cases that that are uh perhaps pushing pushing the limit or um aren't necessarily aligned with zoning regulations so i'm not looking for any additional work and it doesn't sound like i'm gonna gonna be getting it but um i'm gonna i'm gonna vote to sustain the appeal i think uh i think there were valid arguments on that so i'm gonna vote for sustain you're gonna vote to deny this motion then no i'm sustaining the decision on the zoning officer and deny the appeal oh you are no no he's doing no the appeal is from the attorney and i am sustaining his appeal right so you're gonna vote no on the motion that's on the floor that's what you're doing because we put it in a different way right okay that's what you that's what you're doing what he said yeah that's correct i think i have that correct right mr gavin yes he's supporting the petitioners uh on the appeal so he's gonna vote no on the motion okay very good okay very good so it comes to me um uh uh sort of a moot point um in terms of where we are but um i do want to say a couple of things uh you had mentioned mr minot that uh where if it if it wasn't in the definitions part the five bedroom limit if it was in the waterfront business section then there wouldn't be a question but so my point on that is is that it's there for a reason um that they do want to have uh a in the definition section that it's no more than five bedrooms um and to uh Mr.

Armor's point I mean maybe the place is is to not to do a dimensional variance but to come in and try to do a use variance which is something that might might be able to be addressed under those circumstances um however um I think you're on to something else here um and so the in in just a general sense what I want to say is is that um I'm not so sure that this is the decision ultimately anyway that's going to be made by us on the zoning board um I think it I think it's probably a decision that's probably going to end up in superior court and I'm I'm sure that there will be a decision made on that a either to remand it to agree with your position or deny your position and um quite frankly I think that that's where it belongs um so I'm not trying to kick the can down the road because it doesn't matter how I vote but um for those reasons and because of the fact that uh uh they do want to have some uh some limits on how many bedrooms can be done uh in a guest house use and so that's why it's in the definition part of the uh of the code of the zoning code uh for those reasons and for the reasons that um I'm not saying it's beyond our abilities to be able to do this but this is very unusual for the zoning board we we deal with other issues um related to the zoning board so um uh you know I I'm sure that this is going to be appealed so for for those reasons I'm gonna be voting to support this petition and uh and deny the appeal uh as well so um but thank you and and so and I but but I will say that you do have some good arguments um I just don't think that we're the body that's really we should be necessarily making these decisions and um I also want to support our our zoning board and their their decisions um uh our zoning department uh I think they do a very good job so for all those reasons I'm gonna vote to uh uh to sustain uh excuse me I'm gonna be voting yes on this motion that's on the floor um so why don't we uh poll all our members uh on this if we can uh starting with you Mr.

Grimes how do you vote on this motion can you clarify the motion I want to so if you support the position of the zoning office and Nick Armour you will be voting yes on this on this motion Mr.

Grimes votes yes yes okay and Mr.

Rudd votes yes uh aye on this motion Mr.

Johnson's an A.

Mr.

Riley's uh yes Miss Shevry is a yes okay so having polled the board members um it is four to one in favor of the motion that's on the floor um so your appeal is denied um sir and um and for your clients and now we will go and have another motion for the uh for the companion uh uh property uh there on goodwin street if we would Mr.

Riley okay um I move to deny the appeal of Dorothy C.

Kosteck and Shannon K Dunn again uh we adopt all the information deny the appeal and um uh uh sustain the decision made by the uh zoning officer uh we adopt all the information in the record um uh on this uh appeal along with all the testimony uh uh that has been provided for this appeal this evening okay great um we've already been through our discussion do you want to start Miss Chevry I will just echo the sentiments of my prior um discussion decision and vote yay Dave I vote to support the uh zoning office uh that's a yay Mr.

Johnson Mr.

Johnson's a nay uh Mr.

Rudd is is a yay Mr.

Grimes is an aye or a yes did you need a second on that did we get a second on that I don't think I did I'm sorry I seconded it you did second it okay um from the solicitor if you can adopt your previous statements from the previous appeal that would help the record oh okay so let's go through it again um uh if we can so we have we have a second which I I didn't ask for sorry about that and so Ms.

Chevry if you can let us know that you want to adopt your your comments from I adopt my comments from the previous appeal to this appeal.

Okay great and you still vote yes on this uh on this motion I vote yes on this motion and it and adopt my comments that was spread on the record on the previous appeal.

Great thank you Mr.

Riley Rush Mr Johnson would like to adopt his uh statements for the record uh for this second appeal and vote nay Mr.

Rudd uh would like to adopt his comments that were spread on the record in the first appeal uh and vote yay on uh on this uh motion mr grimes will also vote yay or aye and adopt his comments from unit one decision um and I'm gonna apply to unit two okay so um we are done that again is a four to one decision uh in favor of the motion uh to support the uh the zoning office and and their determination that it was an incomplete application for the uh the guest house use so thank you and thank you for your argument sir um it's interesting stuff uh so i'm sure it's not the end of this so um you know good luck and so we'll see what happens with it okay thank you all very much a little break um do you do we want to break what time is it what time is it 7 30 7 30 pump yeah we want can you come get through one withdraw that the office you think we can get through one one full hearing yeah we can do one we do one full hearing and then uh then come back there's one you guys want to break or request to withdraw yeah can we do one full hearing yeah yeah yeah that sounds good okay another appeal that needs to be uh oh yeah so didn't we already do that one yeah appeal number three for 18 bar was at the beginning withdrawals of what's withdrawal do we have to do like a formal withdrawal um no because you did it as a blanket motion earlier in the meeting okay yeah we did it at the beginning of the meeting I think okay let's uh can we get an official motion on item number one of the full hearings to continue it to April 20th we effectively did that at the beginning of the meeting just for the record oh okay you want to do it again all right sure I'll entertain that motion um for the uh the protective club oh we got to move that to April 20th do I have a motion to that effect yes uh recommend that the petition of 594596 Dame Street LLC applicant and owner for 594 596 theme street be continued to the April 20th 2026 meeting do I have a second second all favor say aye aye any opposed okay um real quick um for that petition being at the April 20th one uh I won't be here so I want to make sure that we have a a quorum for that um I have heard from Russ that he he was not part of the first um meeting on that one so he would not be participating Melissa I believe you were on it yes so we would have four members if the rest of you show up I believe the um Bart you were here for the the original petition on that one I'm always here Nick yeah and Dave so we would still have four um we can discuss that with the attorney whether he would like to continue it to a further meeting so that he can have all five members from the original so that there is a odd number in case of a split vote um I will discuss that with uh Mr.

Is Richard with us anymore?

Uh he may have been here.

We can check the record on that, but he would have to, yeah.

He if so, we can check in with him if he is ready to participate and be a voting member.

Okay.

So Nick April 13 out of the question on this case.

It's out of the question on this one because we need to re-advertise it.

That was by the request of the attorney.

He believes that there is a small deficiency in the in the uh legal description.

That's why he wanted to continue tonight to April 20th.

We have to do it to April 20th because we need to re-advertise, and I don't have time to advertise.

I think under the abbreviated summary, the item number one that shows continued a 413 special meeting at the request of the applicant.

I don't think that that happened.

Um, because it was listed in the agenda as continued specifically to April 13th.

We don't have to make it.

Oh, we don't have to protect club one because it was supposed to be heard tonight.

That's where we needed an official motion to continue.

Any other housekeeping issues before we move on?

Okay, Rush, if you would.

Or for or number two, I think is on the list.

This is the petition of 130 Toro Street LLC, applicant and owner.

130 Toro Street Tax Assessors Plat 21, lot 121.

No, we're on number two of the right page, but the wrong two.

Okay, let's try that again.

It's the petition of Cafe Zelda Properties LLC applicants and owner, 528th Aim Street, tax assessors plat 35, lot 149, and a limited business zone for a special use permit to expand the existing two bedroom guest house to a four-bedroom guest house and a dimensional variance to not provide the required on-site parking.

Three additional spaces required.

Right.

Okay.

Yes.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the zoning board.

Michael Monte of Sarah Egan and Ther on behalf of the applicant and owner, Cafe Zelda Property LC.

Um, what you have before you this evening is uh a request for a parking variance and special use permit for 528 Thame Street, which is the Cafe Zelda property to expand the existing guest house use from two bedrooms, six guests, which is what they're permanently excuse me, presently permitted for under a pre-existing use to a four-bedroom, eight guest uh guest house use.

I'll briefly explain the the details of the application, and then following that, you'll hear from Craig Kilroy, who is one of the principals of Cafe Zelda.

He'll testify to his family's ownership and stewardship of the property over the past decade.

They purchased it in 2016, the current operations, and then the plan for the future, which will allow uh the property to thrive over the next decade.

Uh, after my remarks and the testimony you'll hear from Mr.

Kilroy together with the application materials submitted.

We're confident that you will be able to make positive findings of fact on each of the standards for this application.

Um, because there are no exterior alterations proposed.

Um, the standard really comes down to the parking variance standard.

Um, which, as you're well aware, uh, we're gonna be showing that Cafe Zelda suffers a hardship due to the existing characteristics of the lot and the structure, that that hardship is not the product of any prior act of my client that the granting of the relief to expand two additional bedrooms will not alter the general character of the neighborhood, which is broadly speaking the fifth board, and that the parking variants requested is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the use proposed.

Um that said, what what is this project about?

Um Cafe Zelda was uh the the structure of Cafe Zelda was built in 1895.

It was built as a pub, a brewery, and an event space, and it's a three-story structure.

The build the building footprint is 2200 square feet approximately on uh a lot that's just over 3500 square feet.

Um there's only a very small paved area in the rear of the lot that can accommodate two vehicles.

There is a plan there.

That's the interior, but there is a plan which shows the exterior, and there's only a small driveway in the rear where you could put two vehicles.

Other than that, there's absolutely no on-site parking.

In terms of the current uses, the first floor is Cafe Zelda, which I'm sure we all know.

The second floor hosts one small administrative office for Cafe Zelda.

So on the second floor, we've got one small business office, and we also have a three-bedroom residential unit.

The third floor of the structure is a four-bedroom residential unit.

So this property has again the first floor, the restaurant and bar, the second floor, a three-bedroom residential, and a small business office.

And the third floor is a four-bedroom residential unit.

All of these existing uses are um consistent with the zoning code, either as allowed or as pre-existing uses.

So what's there today is all permitted.

When we initially approached the zoning board, um, we had applied to expand the existing two-bedroom guest house use, which we have a permanent for five bedrooms.

Um however, the zoning office pointed out to us that that's really not practical because we have a four-bedroom on the third floor and a three-bedroom on the second floor.

So they said, How is this going to work?

And we said, you know what?

We think you're right.

It probably won't.

Um, so the application before you is to just use um four bedrooms for short-term use.

So in practice, what we intend to do is the third floor, excuse me.

The second floor, which is the three-bedroom, will be used as a long-term residential unit.

And because we have a requirement of an on-site manager, the tenant of that unit will be designated as the manager for the property on site pursuant to a lease.

And then the third floor, which is a four-bedroom, will be where we intend to do the short-term uh rental use.

Um, we also modified our application over the course of working with zoning in an important way.

Um, we had initially intended to provide off-site um but off-street parking at the Perry Mill Wharf, which is located just under a half mile from the property.

Uh, the zoning office, they're always we're telling them what we want.

They're saying, you know, that might not work.

And so they told us that there's actually not enough parking there to accommodate three additional spaces, given the existing uses.

So we went back to the drawing board, we continued the application, and we found three uh spaces at a parking lot that's a standalone commercial lot located on the corner of Spring Street in Lee, which is right across from O'Neill's funeral home.

Um, but it is a separate lot, and we have a lease for three parking spaces at that lot.

Um, so that's how we intend to solve uh the part the parking situation in accordance with the board's practice.

Um that's what the application is.

Unless there are any questions for me, um, I can have Craig Kilroy come up and speak now, but I'm I'm happy to answer any questions about that.

Okay.

Okay.

Craig, come up.

Sir, Mr.

Kilroy, 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.

Craig Kilroy.

Okay.

Could you please tell the board a little bit about yourself?

Uh, yeah, I come from uh a large family, the youngest of seven.

Um we've been in the hospitality industry for a long time.

My great-grandfather started Crash's bakery uh in the early 1900s.

My parents opened the landing in the 79, and my brother and I opened Zelda's in 2016.

So a long line of hospitality industry throughout my whole entire family.

So just worked in that and a part of Newport born and raised.

So you've been living and working in Newport pretty much your whole life, correct?

That's correct.

And in what restaurants is your family currently own and operate in the city?

So we own uh as far as my family, the landing, which uh the lapsabar as well, um, Cafe Zelda and I just partnered up with um the New Park Playhouse Kitchen.

Okay, and when in particular did um your group acquire Cafe Zelda in 2016.

Okay, and prior to that it was still operating uh as Zeldas, correct?

That's correct.

Uh Tom Cat Lee and owned it as Cafe Zelda's prior to us.

And did you make any improvements to the property since uh you purchased it?

We did, yes.

Um shortly after the first season and a half.

We noticed there it could be improvements in there.

Uh we opened up some walls just to have a little more uh open free-flowing space in there, kind of get the feel the room a little more comfortable.

Okay, excuse me.

Um again, um, just a little bit rusty, but we do have uh well there was a recent letter of objection came in on us, right?

On this one.

So do we we have one or two objectives?

Is anybody in the audience that objects to this petition?

Okay.

Uh uh, we got an objection December 6th up on the board right here.

And just as a a brief interlude, I can represent that I spoke um with Scott earlier today.

And if you read his objection, he says I'm sorry, who's Scott?

Scott Allemaney, I believe.

Yeah, yeah.

He is the objector that submitted this letter.

Right.

I spoke with him around one o'clock in the afternoon today.

In his objection, he says that he owns the property across the street.

Right.

He likes Zeldas, he thinks they're respectful and have operated respectfully.

However, he's concerned because he doesn't know how the parking is going to work.

So on the phone, I explained to him what I just explained to the board in terms of where we're proposing to put substitute parking.

And he said to me, I'm fine with that.

I'm okay.

I said, Would you mind emailing Nick?

He said, I'm pretty busy.

I may or may not be able to get to it.

Um, but I can represent that um once he was knowledgeable as to the details of the application he expressed to me that he did not have an issue with it.

Okay.

We'll take you at your word.

That's fine.

I mean, that was his objection was the parking.

So correct.

And you seem to have, you know, um it the at least as far as he's concerned, taking care of that issue.

So yes, it's great.

That's correct.

Um Craig, um, you presently have a short-term rental license for the property, correct?

That's correct, yes.

And and how many units is that for?

It's a two-bedroom, six guest.

Okay.

And the proposal for this project is to expand that to four bedrooms, eight guests.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And is it your intent to make the entire third floor the four-bedroom, the short-term rental unit?

That's correct.

Okay.

And you intend to use the second floor as the business admin for Zeldas and a three-bedroom residential long-term that will also act as the manager for the property.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yes.

Okay.

And um the substitute parking that you've arranged for, where is that located?

Um Lee Street across from O'Neill's Gunno Home.

And you uh executed a lease agreement your company has for three spaces at that lot.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yes.

I don't have any to be clear.

That's not the parking lot for O'Neill Hayes, is it?

It's it's I can I can speak to that.

It is the parking lot across the street from O'Neill's.

So Neils has some parking immediately in the rear of their building.

They also have a lot immediately across the street that is used in practice um for O'Neill's, but it's it's not, they're not required to for any reason because it's a separate parcel.

Oh, okay.

So I've discussed that with the zoning officer.

Um, and my understanding is our prior proposal to use Perry Mill Wharf was unacceptable to the zoning office, but the proposal to use the the street that's up on the board, Leon Spring lot, was acceptable.

It's my understanding.

Right.

Mr.

Mondi, how close is how close is that uh to the building?

I think Zelda.

Point one miles.

Point one.

Okay.

It's a block away.

Okay.

Right up the street.

Yep.

Um, I don't have anything or uh else for Craig unless the board has questions for him.

Sure.

Any questions for Mr.

Kilroy?

Um, I'm curious.

Uh the two short-term rents you currently have now.

How do you manage those?

Uh we we have a property management group, but um, you know, we just want the the one that we're we're going for right now.

Okay.

We're you know looking to move into compliance, and that's why we're here today.

Okay.

So uh was that a requirement previously?

And it sounds like did you inherit the the two short-term rentals when they purchased the property, or was that a previous was that something that came before the board before?

Is it the the two uh units you got?

You're a prior property manager had applied to the city on your behalf for those.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

So that was not an inherited uh situation.

That was something that a prior property manager had made a submission to the city, correct?

Right.

That was granted.

For whatever reason, it's listed and it's it's in the application as two bedrooms, six units.

That was what I'm it's a bit odd.

Yeah, um, but this will bring us up to the standard.

Well, yeah, it would appear that you're going from two bedrooms and uh excuse me, two bedrooms and six guests to four bedrooms and eight guests.

So you're going from a density of three to a bedroom to two to a bedroom, correct?

That's fair to say.

It's a fair characterization.

Is that what I'm what I'm saying?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um just to clarify.

So in the past, I probably two and a half or three years ago, the city council changed the the ordinance and officially set the limit of two guests per bedroom in a guest house.

Previous to that, there was not technically a limit.

Um, the previous zoning officer tended to put a limit of two because it um it connected it to the the limit of a transient guest facility bedroom of only allowing two guests, but it wasn't officially in the code until a few years ago.

So that's probably why it wasn't looked as uh as odd to have six guests in that uh particular unit.

Um my assumption of why there was only two bedrooms approved was the as we talked about the parking credits between a dwelling needing two spaces and a two-bedroom guest house at that time, only needing two spaces is likely why, even though there was a three-bedroom unit and a four-bedroom unit, that only two bedrooms were actually permitted to be guest housed.

Um we also took the stance that because this is in the limited business zone, and since the original approval there, um the city council changed the rules and required a special use permit for limited business guest houses, that this now needed a special use permit where one wasn't previously needed, it was considered a legal non-conforming use.

Now they're attempting to make it a legal conforming use with the special use permit and an on-site manager and uh the limited number of uh guests.

Right.

So instead of just sitting there and being grandfathered in, they're coming with a new petition and coming into the current zoning regulations.

Correct.

So okay.

No, that's admirable, actually.

So thank you.

Appreciate that.

I I have nothing further.

Um I would just request that if a motion is made um to approve the application, that the motion um not be specific with respect to where the parking is located, because presently uh for the first year it's gonna be at this particular lot, but you never know three, four years from now, we might have to get it somewhere else because we're doing it by lease agreement.

Yeah, um, so that would be my only request.

Sure.

And as long as we're going to put into it as we do, that you need to present whatever lease it is for whatever parking lot to the zoning office on an annual basis.

Certainly.

Okay.

So it doesn't have to be that lot, but it has to be approved by them.

And then they'll need to go out and make sure, like Perry Mill, they have enough spaces and all that stuff.

You're okay with that, then that's what we're gonna.

Thank you very much.

Yep, absolutely.

Okay.

Any other questions?

No.

Hearing none.

And seeing no objectors here, and understanding that the objector that wrote in has been satisfied.

Um, I'm happy to accept the motion.

So, Ms.

Chairman, um petition of Cafe Zelda property LLC.

I move to adopt the board's finding of facts, information, staff reports, boarding documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of council.

Together with the comments spread on the board by the uh spread on the record by the board members, and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element in chapter 17.108 newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications, and that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element on the chapter 17.109 of the newport zoning office entitled special use permit, uh, category three.

The 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 exploration, all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

And the following additional condition.

Um that the applicant must provide the zoning department with a parking lease for three off-site parking spaces within one half mile uh of uh Zelda's uh and they also must provide the zoning department with a tenant lease agreement between the applicant and the on-site manager detailing the manager's proposed responsibilities prior to registration, uh prior to registering the guest house um with the city, and these documents must be provided each year for the renewal of their guest house license.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Uh anybody care to go.

I'd be happy to go again.

Well, and we you're you are our lead-off, man.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um Jerry Remy of the zoning board.

Uh he's returned.

I know.

Um the Opkins uh cafe's altars uh looking to uh for special use permit to increase the number of uh guest houses from two to four and also dimensional relief for the parking.

Um I I'm I'm satisfied that they they uh have actually met both uh uh the special use uh permit guideline and dimensional uh uh variants here.

Um they're they're allowed to have uh uh extra uh four get four bedroom guest house in this uh I believe it's a limited business zone.

Um and um I I do believe there's uh certainly a hardship.

This is a small lot.

Um and they're asking really minimal relief.

They already have existing space, particularly in the third floor, which I think makes makes sense.

Um I think this the what they want to do is very much in character with with the neighborhood right now, and and and frankly, it won't change the character.

It's it's pretty much what goes on down there.

And I'm okay with that.

My my concern uh as was the object's concern was the uh the parking.

And um uh a little bit leery about O'Neil Hayes funeral home.

Uh, but you know, if you if you've got a lease, that that's great.

As long as there's a sign lease, um, and you you uh update your lease uh year to year.

I I'm satisfied with that.

So um but with that for those reasons I I would uh accept or or approve this petition.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Grimes.

Um I'm happy to go.

We'll just go right down the line here.

I think that's fine.

So I'm gonna vote to approve this petition as well.

Um specific to uh what I was getting at earlier, which is you know, you you are essentially coming into compliance now with it with what was a grandfathered non-conforming use.

So the way I'm looking at this is you're adding you're adding two more guests um, you know, with two more bedrooms.

So you're going going from two and six to four and eight.

Um so for me, uh I think that that's a a good thing.

Uh you will have an on-site manager in the other long-term uh unit, and uh you've got parking leases and you've agreed to, you know, make sure that we get those leases.

There's a lot of that going on in Newport right now.

We see these things every month with the guest house uses.

Um you know, for the time being, uh, waterfront, general business, yes, they're there by rights, limited business.

Um, yes, with a manager on site.

Um, so you know, I'm I'm okay with that as long as those are what the regulations are, and that's and that's what the what the um what the city council is is the guidance that they're giving us on the zoning board.

And so um for all those reasons uh and you know, I mean, you know, I mean, just as a as a general comment to put on the record, um, you know, where are we going to put all these people?

You know, I mean, that's that's that's the issue.

So um, you know, I think that this is a a good use of that, and I appreciate you guys coming into compliance.

And so for those reasons, I'm gonna vote to support this petition.

Okay.

Russ.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I too will be voting to support this petition.

Um for the comments mentioned by my fellow board members, um, in agreement uh to the chairman's point of uh really uh addressing and improving the condition, taking a two-bedroom with six occupants and and uh going to four bedrooms with with only an increase of two more.

The uh meeting the the use uh use uh variants and the uh special use variants and the uh dimensional variants for parking.

I'm satisfied that the petitioner and the attorney have have uh met those requirements and uh the long-term ownership uh of this property uh with Kilroy's, I think speaks uh as well uh that this will be a uh a well-managed and uh well-handled uh uh short-term guest uh facility.

And so I'll vote to approve.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Mr.

Riley.

Uh yeah, Ms.

Chairman.

I'll also be voting to approve this petition.

Uh Mr.

Monte spelled out the hardship.

Uh we have a uh 250-year-old building or whatever it is uh with three feet of parking.

Um we have a restaurant, we have apartments, we have short-term rentals, sort of everything that's within a block of you.

You have in that one building there.

Um you've uh secured or you will secure the proper parking off-street parking, very convenient, actually, where it is, but uh it'll be convenient for most people to get their cars off the street as there's little to no parking down in that area.

So um uh it will obviously not alter the character of the neighborhood.

There's plenty of all that there.

Um in the relief sort.

Um with the lease condition is the minimal reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use for which the property will be devoted, and finally it it meets all the uh conditions that are outlined in in the special use category three uh conditions.

Right.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Ms.

Chevry.

I will also be voting to support this petition.

I believe the applicants met all uh the burns approof um with the dimensional variants and the special use permit.

There's obviously a clear hardship uh with the land um and the lack of parking on site.

Um it's not gonna alter um the general neighborhood or the characteristics.

Um it is the minimal um relief sought to um reasonably enjoy the permitted use um to which the property is proposed to be devoted.

Um, and as many of my colleagues have already echoed, it's really intensive detensifying the use from three uh people potentially being a bedroom down to two people in a bedroom.

Um so for those reasons I will be supporting this petition.

Great.

Um, thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

So we'll start with you on this petition.

Um for Zelda's.

How do you vote?

Miss Chevroy, aye.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Mr.

Johnson, aye.

Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Grimes, aye.

That sounds like five nothing unanimous to me.

Um good luck to you guys.

Thank you.

Um, and thank you for de-intensifying the uh the the situation.

Mr.

Monty, if you don't mind, could you write up the uh decision?

I would imagine you wouldn't.

Thank you all very much.

Have a good night.

Take a break.

Uh yeah, sure.

Um, so we're gonna take a break.

It is uh 757.

We'll be back here at 8.07, 10 minutes, please.

We have two more petitions to go through.

I think we'll get them.

Yeah.

All right.

Questions we could ask no more lies.

And will be for the rest of this meeting.

We're good.

Okay.

All right.

We are back.

Um, we have two more petitions to go.

Um, and not a lot of people here.

So we have uh hopefully we have the people here that are for the petitions uh to be here.

Uh if you would please, I think we're on number three now, correct?

Correct.

Yep.

Three is the petition of Heidi Woolert, applicant and owner, 26 East Bowery Street, tax assessors plat 33, lot eight in an R10 zone for a dimensional variance to allow a home occupation guest rental of two bedrooms within the existing single family dwelling without providing required parking on the property, two additional spaces required.

Is the applicant here?

Oh.

That would be you.

Come on down.

You're the next contestant on the new port zoning board.

Mr.

Chairman, can I speak for my wife?

Yes, absolutely, please.

Uh, if you would, sir, raise your right hand.

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

I do, sir.

Please state your name for the record.

Full name, David Bourgeois.

Okay, very good.

How do I spell your last name, David?

B-O-U-R G E O I S.

Just like the dictionary.

Oh, okay.

Just like the French Revolution.

Okay.

Very good.

Um, yes, David, please, if you would.

So um give you a brief history.

Uh recently, within the last couple of years, purchased this property.

We um we did our due diligence, sir.

Um, looked it up, found that the building home was built in the 1880s as a resident occupied boarding house.

So essentially we have two bedrooms on the second floor with a common room in the middle and a shared bathroom at the end.

This property has never been modified, added to nothing has changed from the original design and concept.

I bought it because of that.

I felt that it was going to be the right thing for us as a family-owned property that we could short-term rent very effectively.

We could always occupy the space.

My wife occupies the home.

It's her residence here.

I'm still working traveling salesman.

Uh come into town, you know, weekly.

Um we did our due diligence, like I said, and unfortunately didn't see the parking requirements ahead of our decision.

So we purchased the property proudly.

We love the home.

Very happy there.

It's a great neighborhood.

Um all I can say is that the home never impacted the neighborhood and continues not to impact the neighborhood.

Many of our guests come in, they fly into Providence and take a car service into Providence.

Um we are renting essentially three seasons out of the year.

We don't get very many winter guests.

Um just again, location, uh time of year.

Uh we have found parking, privately owned parking facility at an individual, a guest can pay overnight parking there.

I think that that satisfies the requirement.

Where is it the parking?

So it's behind it's on Downing, which is behind uh Pasta Beach.

There's a parking lot there that your old office adjoined.

That's where my old my old office was back in the day.

Oh, okay.

So it's where Say or Regan, there's a law of the case.

The Social Security Administration is there.

Yep.

Correct.

And so that's where you found a parking.

That's where we found parking.

Okay.

Are you prepared to provide a lease?

And uh so um the what how would what would the lease look like?

This is what I don't this was not presented to us until just now.

Understood.

So how would how would that lease what what would satisfy the board?

So let me make a suggestion.

Um the first thing that has to happen is is Nick and his office has to go to the to the owners of the parking facility and make sure that they have enough spaces to be able, there's a formula that he uses for that I I've done that analysis on this property.

It has plenty of parking, and there's plenty of parking for that spaces.

So that's the case.

So that's good because that means that you know, you have the ability to do it.

You may remember in the last case they couldn't because Perry Mill was over overfilled, so they had to go somewhere else, and that's how that's why they got the the O'Neill Hayes um parking across the street.

So the next step for you, sir, would be to go there and um and get a lease, an actual written lease with that uh with that parking lot, and then um we would uh can we is it possible for us?

I'm just thinking hypothetically, could we approve this um based on him doing that, or do we want him to do it first?

Yeah, uh we're comfortable with it being a condition that they provide us the lease prior to the um uh the application for the home occupation.

Um they did provide us with this property as the proposal, that's why I had the chance to do an analysis.

I believe we've actually approved one other short-term rental at this to park at this location.

So I had already done the analysis and determined they have plenty of okay.

Um so as staff were comfortable if it's a condition for the lease to be provided at the time of the application.

Okay, and so um your wife Heidi, who's sitting right there, she's gonna be on site uh all the time.

All the time.

Okay.

Um, so that that's a reasonable request.

We do require the leases, though.

So that's something that we we need to see.

Um, and so you know, I'm gonna speak for myself personally.

Um, I'm comfortable making a motion and and uh and voting yes on the motion, provided that you do get the lease done.

So that would be a condition of uh of getting the approval from us.

Is that acceptable to you?

Well, I'm I obviously want to say yes, um, but I'm I'm still confused as to what the lease would look like because this is a pay-to-park facility, open facility, yeah.

And an individual that wants to park there overnight would essentially scan a code and use their credit card and pay for the and pay for the spot.

Right.

Okay.

So what would my lease look like?

So that that's that's not what we we don't okay.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Typically, what we see, and I believe what we've seen on this property before is essentially you would come to an agreement with the property owner of this property for a one year at a time lease for two spaces, which is what you would need.

Right.

And you would essentially pay in advance, and probably your clients, your your guests would get a pass or something from you or from the property owner.

That would mean they don't have to do a scan and a daily payment because you've effectively prepaid for the year for them to have a couple spaces at that location.

So they would not be under the same, you know, normal pay by license plate requirement.

Right.

And as importantly, there's a space reserved for them versus they could go up and try to pay and the block could be full.

So the idea is that that space is reserved for you for you for those two guests that you're going to have, the two spaces that you're going to need.

That's really the behind it.

That's what's behind it.

So as you know, in the summer, which is when you'll have people, you know, staying at your home.

Um that's when most cars are in here, and that's when traffic and parking is the most difficult.

So we wanna make sure those spaces are available for your guests, reserved and available for your guests.

I would make one other suggestion, which is what we did on the last application uh for Mr.

Monte was that we we do a little bit of a broader condition that parking be found and provided through a lease within a half mile of this property.

Um, I think we have a good opportunity at this site for right now, but that might change in the future.

Um, so I like it so it's not specific to this property, but right now I think this is a good location.

No, that makes sense, and that benefits you, obviously.

So if you don't have the space there at that lot, you can go somewhere else and and and provide that as well.

But um, so yeah, that's what we're looking at.

So I know what you're thinking.

So you're gonna have to incorporate the cost of the parking into the into the rental fee that you charge, but that's what everybody's doing.

So understood.

That that's this is this we've if we've done one of these over the last couple of years, we've done 50.

Okay.

So this is what we require for everybody else.

So I think that's probably the consensus of the board.

Um, and we can vote on it tonight, um, with that condition if that's acceptable to you.

Very acceptable to me.

Okay, great.

Um questions for Mr.

Bourgeois.

Um, uh, let me start with Nick.

Um, so in a sense, uh we we don't allow um by right uh guest houses in an R10 zone.

So this is not considered a guest house use.

This is a home occupation.

So under the code, home occupations are wide ranging, I will say it.

It can include having a home office that you run your business out of.

Um, but one of the allowable home occupations is the rental of up to two bedrooms of your home in an owner-occupied dwelling while the owner is present.

You can rent two bedrooms to anybody on a short-term basis.

But the code also does have a requirement that each guest bedroom come with an additional parking space on the property, which is what triggered this variance.

It's the first time we've actually brought a variance for a home occupation here.

So it's not a guest house.

The use of the property remains a single family dwelling, and then they're allowed to short term rent two bedrooms out of that house.

So was this applicant in compliance?

Um, did they been renting uh without this home occupation license?

So I was unaware of that.

Um, I mean, that's what it says here, right?

Right.

So they're they're asking that effectively to come into compliance if they weren't already.

Um I believe that my predecessor was not always requiring the two parking space or the parking space per bedroom of a home occupation.

It's something we recognized a few years ago and started requiring it at that point.

So when they uh they submitted an application to our short-term rental officer um recently, we determined there is not sufficient parking on the property, you need to have two spaces and get okay.

So they can get into compliance now with with uh okay.

Well, I think that's what you're trying to do here.

Correct.

Yes, okay.

As I said, we did our due diligence and was totally unaware of the two parking spots.

And it it is quite frankly on the zoning board these days, the issue.

I mean, this is what we're dealing with, you know.

You saw the the calendar.

Right, I did see.

So you're seeing what we're doing.

So thank you.

All you good?

I'm good.

I think so.

Okay, thank you, sir.

We're gonna put this in the form of a motion and um based on the conversation we just had, and hopefully it'll work out for everybody.

Okay.

Let's see.

Um petition on the petition of Heidi Wollart.

Um I move to adopt as a board's finding of facts, the information, the staff report, application, supporting document, testimony of the witnesses, together with the comments spread on the board, uh spread on the record by the board members.

Uh and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 and newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

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

And um the following additional condition that the petitioner provide a signed executed lease for two off-street parking spaces within one half mile of 26 East Bowery Street.

Each year the applicant will provide an updated lease um for renewal of their home office license with the city of Newport.

Okay, very good.

Um do we want to have discussion?

Do you want a second?

Do you want a second?

Oh, I'm yeah, how about that?

That'd be nice.

Second.

Thank you.

You're my official designated secondary.

I appreciate that.

Second.

I'll go first on this if you'd like.

Do we want to have discussion?

I mean, we can or it briefly.

Sure.

Okay, why don't you start, Russ?

No, Dave wants to go.

Dave wants to go.

Go ahead, David.

Oh, Dave, if you want to go, go ahead.

You ready?

I'll go.

I'll be voting in favor of this petition as conditioned.

Um, the hardship is a lot size 282 square feet, approximately 25% of what would be expected in an R10 zone.

Um this resulted in no area on the premises to provide any on street uh on-site parking.

Um granting the relief with the condition addressing the parking will not alter the character of this mixed residential neighborhood.

There were in fact a couple of objections here, and it is a very congested uh area.

East by familiar with it, east by street.

You just parked on one side of the street.

There's a couple of big big uh apartment buildings right down the street on the corner there.

So um it is a tough place to find parking.

Um the the relief sought uh to allow a home occupation appears to be minimal relief for the reasonable enjoyment of this permitted use.

And so I'll be in favor of this petition.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Russ.

Thank you.

I I wanted Dave to go first because he always covers things so well that uh I can just agree with him and move on.

Um boy.

But but um in this case, I'll be uh I'll be voting to approve uh this petition as well.

Uh this is uh 208 square uh two thousand eight hundred and two feet square foot uh by.

I mean, this this is uh incredible uh how tight it is and how tidy Sparry Street is.

So the parking really was uh uh a big issue here.

Uh so I think that uh that's been resolved as as Dave said.

The hardship certainly is that there is no just no room for anything on that property other than the house.

So um uh I think that uh they've uh addressed that and uh we'll provide that, and I think that makes it a lot uh uh palatable for this for this application.

I'll also uh say that I uh appreciated the information about the property and going back in the history and the fact that the property's already teed up, it sounds like to just do that without really disturbing uh your your flow in the first floor.

I always wonder how you do that in like a regular house to not get up in the morning and find someone in your kitchen making a cup of coffee.

That would just be would not be ideal to me anyway.

So uh the fact that you're already uh sort of teed up with that um is good.

And um uh so for those reasons uh I'll be approving your application.

Great.

Thank you, uh Russ.

Uh Nicole.

Sure.

I will also be voting to approve this application.

There is a clear hardship uh with the size of the lot being undersized for an R 10.

So uh the fact that you're already uh sort of teed up with that um is good and um uh so for those reasons uh I'll be approving your application great thank you uh Russ uh Nicole sure I will also be voting to approve this application there is a clear hardship uh with the size of the lot being undersized for an R10 uh combined with uh the other criteria for the dimensional variance um there's a clear hardship here it's not gonna alter uh the general characteristics of the surrounding area uh the hardship is not a result of anything that uh you have done yourself um this lot has existed for many years um since the house has been built um and so finding parking on this lot would be challenging it if not impossible um it is the minimal relief uh to enjoy to reasonably enjoy the property for its permitted use uh and for those reasons I will be voting to approve this application great thank you um Mr.

Grimes you would I too uh will be voting to uh to approve this petition I found the applicant to be to be very credible um um I and and they're being consistent with the history of the building you know been around a long time and looks like it they've used it uh like that hundred you know a hundred years ago um this is a home occupation uh use um they met all the criteria that'd be required uh here my my concern as other members of the board uh of course has to do with parking and and you have a uh uh it appears to be a creative way to to manage this and it'll be a moving target for you I'm sure um but but you that was the that was the big issue for me um I I think you're you it what you're gonna do is is in character with the with the neighborhood you're not I haven't heard any concerns or any legitimate concerns from the neighbors about um noise or or or concerns um that would make your application not uh worthy so anyway for those reasons I would too support this petition yep um thank you Mr.

Grimes so yes of course uh I will be supporting this petition as well um clearly you guys are thoughtful um owners of the building and the property and uh done your homework and uh we needed to um sort of move you along in a couple of different areas but we've I think you understand what we're looking for.

Um and so I know you'll be uh you'll be good stewards of that property and I don't think there'll be any issues there at all with uh uh you living in there heidi um you know an on-site manager so for all those reasons and the reasons um uh espoused by my fellow board members um I will echo that echo their uh their reasoning and be voting to uh approve this petition so um we'll now uh poll everybody um on this petition Ms.

Chevry how do you vote Ms.

Chevry aye Mr.

Riley aye Mr.

Johnson aye Mr.

Rudd is an aye Mr.

Grimes is an aye and uh that's all five members so that's unanimous and uh good luck to you all you know works out well okay um and then there was one right you've uh you've been nice enough I assume this next petition is gonna be yours so uh um we're uh we're gonna read it in and then we'll get busy okay this last is the petition of Michelle McCormick applicant and owner 9K Street tax assessors plat 25 lot 18 and an R10 zone with historic overlay for a dimensional variance to construct a 364 square foot pool increasing lot coverage from 22 percent to 25% where 20% is allowed.

Is that you sir please step on down so um obviously there are no objectors in the audience I think we can dispense with that for once sometimes you do get people up there.

You never know um that scares me a little bit but anyway 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 please state your name Mike McCormick.

Ah okay Thus and McCormick that was my next question.

So you must be Michelle must be your wife is that's correct.

Okay great.

So you want to put a pool in um did I I don't think do we have any written objections to this I don't think so okay.

So there are no written objections it's just because you want to put a pool in so um I guess I don't know I mean what was the reasoning usually we would do this on an abbreviated right uh our reasoning was that the uh the property is compliant in size and so staff was struggling with what the hardship would be um to allow for 25% lot coverage but I will I think we took a kind of a neutral stance in our staff report that we believe it did you you neither confirm nor a deny we we kick the can down the road to you guys all right like the zoning board of the CIA you can't confirm anything.

That's fair enough okay so uh we get a little goofy towards the end here that's all right but we will we're Monday and it's like but we are paying attention I trust me okay um so please tell us what you're doing and you know why you want the pool and why we should vote yes.

Sure.

So uh we've we own we bought the home in uh December of 2024 previously we were on 204 Spring Street um so we just expanded the footprint of our of the property by moving to 9K Street it's it's a bigger home uh with with some with a grassy area property et cetera uh contrary to our in town more in town home uh on spring street so uh we just thought uh a pool uh future grandchildren etc that would be a nice uh enhancement to the property um it's 12 by 24 it'll occupy a portion of the backyard still have green space there was a bocce court um to the side which we actually removed and put in topsoil and growing grass there so we really give up any green space um uh by taking that bocce core out so um yeah those are the reasons why okay you'll uh can I ask quickly uh Mr.

Chairman neck did the bocce court and the uh paved uh area did those count towards the lot coverage no we would not consider um a bocce court or driveway to be um lot coverage okay isn't there a a paved uh I thought I read there was a more pay patio patio the the city council recently well a couple years ago at this point changed the rule that even raised patios up to a certain height wouldn't count as lot coverage okay we do we've been consistent with applying um lot coverage to pools though um it it clearly meets the definition in the code of a uh above or below ground structure that must be counted towards lot coverage so the boty court being on grade permeable and the on grade uh terrace would not count as lot coverage so it's really just the house there's an uh accessory structure in the back corner um another small one off to the the left side of the property and then the pool that they're proposing.

Okay thank you I just want to make sure that 25% what what was inclusive of that so thank you.

No patios uh used to be uh uh had grade at grade they weren't considered right at grade but if you went a couple inches above grade we counted the whole patio as lot covered we've had a couple issues with that before they changed it I I do remember a couple things it was uh it was uh pretty contentious but anyway um so um uh my question is is just in terms of uh you know drainage and all that stuff because you're taking grass out there although you are putting it back on the boty court um do you have that all covered uh in terms of how you're gonna how that's gonna work with well we've hired a professional to do obviously the pool and the and then the uh repair and all the drainage that's necessary per the city right so um all that has to be permitted and et cetera right so I assume that's all going to be taken care of okay that's what I want to know anybody else yeah it's Jimmy just go ahead all right okay uh you'll your pool is what 12 by 24?

Yes I believe it's 364 square feet so it's basically uh like a waiting pool kind of thing or how would you qualify that pool I don't know I've never I I've only put one other modest pool okay it's a modest pool like you know we we were we were restrained by the lot size yeah you know and uh you know you still want a green space so it wasn't like we were putting you know I I've seen other houses in town where they've used the entire space uh in their backyard so to speak to drop a pool in but then they had the front that you know it wasn't over the 25% or the 30% whatever the max okay I know the max is 20 but whatever you guys would allow so well as you know pool from the board it was a four letter word you know uh you bring up the pool and that's you know everybody's uh uh get to gets excited so tell me about your neighbors uh your butters who would maybe and and the view scope of the of the pool like do they can would you be invisible to your neighbors or um to the to the neighbors on the left from their second story so our the back of our property buts to uh the overflow parking lot for the Viking hotel yeah okay okay yeah so so whoever this is previous to us I assume the Viking hotel put up a very large that fence it has to be 10 to 12 feet high right it carries down the if I'm looking out my back door carries down the left side to the our neighbors to the left the Bowers um that carries through the back the entire backyard uh that same height on on their side then it drops down to a normal fence size but then there's all bushes 12 feet high that that run down their side on the other side

Right.

It carries down the if I'm looking out my back door, carries down the left side to the our neighbors to the left, the bowers.

Um that carries through the back the entire backyard, uh that same height on their side, then it drops down to a normal fence size, but then there's all bushes 12 feet high that that run down their side.

On the other side, there's only just a small fence to our neighbors to the right.

Um so they from their deck, which is an elevated deck, they would have views into the pool.

Is our intention to put up just some trees to sort of okay?

Yeah, you do plan some landscaping.

Yes, oh yes.

Well, we're gonna re-landscape everything.

Okay.

All right.

I got a I got a picture.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you.

Sure.

Dave, well said, thank you.

Well, I'm all set.

So um, this is probably more for the discussion part of things, but um to Nick's point, you are asking, you're already over your lock covers, you're asking for more.

Um, but I'm inclined to think that uh you either did a good job in contacting your neighbors, um, or they just you know they don't they they don't have any objections to that.

So I think I would be less in favor of something like this if you had a lot of objecting neighbors, but but you don't so um just to try to be fair on this.

So just a comment.

So um I do have anything wrong?

Well, no, I just to follow up on what you're saying.

I mean, you've purchased the property, you haven't done anything.

This is all existing conditions.

You've actually taken out um one thing, uh, the bochi court.

Um, even though it wasn't counting in coverage, it was you know, something that was on the property that you've grassed over.

Bachi.

Okay, call it you can hibachi at the boxy club, but uh we go um we can think where a lot of Japanese chefs come.

I you know, it's funny.

I I asked, I I did ask it regarding to coverage.

I I asked the we had a survey done.

Um not knowing that we technically didn't need one or something like that.

I I don't know.

But anyway, we were advised to have a survey done.

So then I asked the pool people, you know, does the bocce court count as coverage?

I never heard back from a minute.

So I that's why I threw it out there, but I didn't know if it applied or not.

It doesn't, so fine.

Do you have uh do you have a pool company um selected and yes along with the contracted with put it led us this way?

Uh Premier Gunnite out of uh Portsmouth.

Yeah, they they were actually the people that applied Jonathan because sale.

Um I forget what company is out of.

Okay.

They get, you know, they get permission to put the pool in, but they don't have a pool company.

So they're back in a year saying we didn't have a company, we didn't get the pool in, we need an extension.

So that's why I was asking if you had whether that were down.

We've contracted with Premier Gunada Portsmouth.

Okay.

And uh they're helping us through this journey.

Okay, great.

That's that's it for me.

That's all the questions I have.

All set sounds like it.

Not hearing anything, Dave, if you would.

Yeah.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman.

On the petition of Michelle McCormick, I move to adopt as a board, finding a fact, the information staff report application, supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden approved under each element under chapter 17.108 of the newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and modifications.

But extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public notice and be paid in full before and as a condition of recording the decision.

Great.

Do I have a second?

The second.

Very good.

Um, why don't you give us a start on this?

Sure.

Um, I will uh be supporting this application.

And where I really think this hones in on the dimensional variance uh criteria is that fourth last one, uh, where the evidence of the record um clearly shows that there would be a hardship suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted amounts because it amounts to more than an air in mere inconvenience, meaning that the relief sought is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use to which the property is proposed to be devoted.

Um and I think you did a really nice job of outlining that and how you intend to use a property and how the pool fits into that long-term plan.

And so for that reason, I'll be supporting this petition.

Okay, very good.

Dave.

Yes, I'll also be voting to support this petition.

Uh the hardship, uh the existing structure already there exceeded the 20% lot coverage allowed in the odd odd 10 zone.

Uh there was uh Mr.

Wool mentioned maybe five years ago that uh the square footage of uh a pool is significantly different than the square footage of a three-story addition to the side of your house.

Uh it's used for a couple months of the year and is way less impactful.

Uh a pool of 288 square feet with with the apron around it, the additional square footage is a very, very modest pool.

Um so it's uh uh very reasonable request.

The record shows that the relief sought will not alter the character of the neighborhood.

And um is minimal to reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use.

So I'll be supporting thank you, Russ.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I'll be supporting this petition as well.

Uh we've had some unique um applications tonight.

We don't get too many people that come in with uh lots that actually meet the uh the size requirements of the zoning, but uh uh which was the which was the issue here, right?

You're you have what was deemed sufficient space to do what you should be able to do in an R10 lot.

But clearly the hardship is this is what you purchased.

You didn't put these structures or get to this uh lot coverage as my fellow board members have stated.

So uh that is the hardship.

And um I I like Mr.

Riley's analogy about pool versus something else.

So um for those reasons uh we uh supporting your uh your petition.

Great, thank you.

Or um I too will will uh vote to uh approve the pool.

Again, I want to uh echo uh Mr.

Riley's thought uh that the pool is not uh an intense use of the building uh of the of the property, rather.

And and the pool is modest size.

Um I um the uh I'm I'm thickly pleased that uh that there wasn't any problems with neighbors.

We usually run into problems with neighbors, and there's a lot of noise with that.

And and uh and I and uh I'm very pleased with that.

And and I think this is very much in character with that northern, I'm not sure what direction it is, but on the on the uh upper side of K Street, that these kind of things are very much in character with those big homes over there.

So I too would vote to approve it.

Great.

Thank you.

Um so yeah, I I too will be uh voting to approve this petition.

Um Mr.

Riley made an interesting comment, which which um uh which I agree with, which is that I I don't think a pool is is really that intense a use.

I mean, now I get it's not a three-story that makes sense to me, of course, but I mean, really, when you think about a swimming pool, you're using it what maybe three, maybe four months a year, number one.

Number two, it's not like you're gonna be having raging parties out there every weekend.

It just doesn't happen that way.

You know, I mean, uh people you know can't and aren't gonna do that, and you don't look like the type who's gonna be doing that type of stuff.

So with well, I'm I'm saying that in a nice way.

You know, I you know, I um so I don't think that's the case.

Um that being said, if there were a uh hue and cry from a lot of your neighbors, I would have to take account of that because to Nick and Zach's point, um, this property doesn't have the hardship of a of an undersized lot, right?

So um that was something that was a sticking point for them, and it is a little bit to me, but it's mitigated by the fact that you don't have any objectors uh to what you're doing, and it's not that much.

You're only asking for an extra three percent.

Yes, it's five percent atop the 20% you get you're given, but it's just only three percent above what so um for all those reasons I'm gonna be voting uh in favor of this petition.

Um that being said, let's uh start with polling with uh you uh if you would, Mr.

Grimes.

Mr.

Grimes is an aye.

Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Johnson, aye.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Ms.

Chevry, aye.

So uh we don't have to uh ask for the nays.

That's five-nothing in your favor that's unanimous.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming and thanks for waiting.

Um good luck to you.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Ayes have it.

We are done for the year.