Okay, we are on the record.

Good evening, everyone.

This is a special meeting of the Newport Zoning Board of Review.

Today's date is Monday, April 13th, 2026.

And uh I always say this and jinx myself.

It looks like we've got a schedule that we're going to be able to get through tonight.

Um let's get moving right away.

First order of businesses uh roll call of officers.

Uh Cole Chevry will be serving as a regular member.

Uh Dave Riley, our vice chairman, myself, Wick Rudd, the chairman.

Uh today, uh tonight, uh Bark Rhimes will be um serving as uh our secretary.

And um we will have serving as well for Russ Johnson, Melissa Padovina, and then Richard uh uh Berlinski is our um uh is our first alternate tonight.

And he will be listening in on all the cases as well.

Um so moving on.

Uh we don't really have much to before we get going here.

We don't have any minutes, um, communications.

There are no extension requests, there are no withdrawal requests, and there is no staff communications to us.

Um, and uh for the first time in my memory, we don't have a summary calendar tonight.

Um, which is always a little disappointing since they go a little bit quicker.

But we do have two abbreviated summaries uh this evening.

So I'm gonna ask our acting secretary, Mr.

Grimes, if you would read in the first abbreviated summary.

The first the first petition is that of Edward Boudil, applicant and owner of 6 KC Court, tax accessor plat 37, lot 025, and an R 10A zone for dimensional variances to construct the 40 40 square foot third floor deck where 30 square feet is permitted.

Not long not located, the requisite three feet from exterior walls of the floor below, and located eight feet from the west or left side of the property where 10 feet is required.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Acting Secretary.

Yes, Mr.

Lees.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, Matt Lees representing the applicant and owner, Edward Bidill of 6K Court.

Um the variances that are required was described there and uh by Mr.

Grimes and the need for the variance is driven by the fact that although this is a large lot, um, it is an L-shaped lot, and the house was built uh over a hundred years ago before zoning, uh very close to uh the boundary line, one of the boundary lines.

Um it's as close as actually two feet to the uh westerly boundary line toward the front there as can be seen on the site plan.

Um and so anything that is gonna need to be done on the west side of the house will will require some kind of some kind of variance.

And um the deck will be adjacent to an existing third floor bedroom.

Makes sense to have it there uh to take advantage of the breezes and the light and air coming uh off the Almy Pond.

This house uh sort of looks out over to the almy pond.

Uh the deck size four by 10, slightly um nonconforming to the requirement, but it's minimal.

Umriginally with an application had been filed seeking a four by thirteen deck, uh, but it was realized that that could be reduced uh and still be functional.

It's essentially set up so that you can have a couple of uh chairs and a side table and be able to have enough room to get around it, but it'd be by no means anything that you could have a party on or anything like that.

It would just be something that you would sit on and and enjoy a cup of coffee or a glass of wine or something of that nature.

Uh the requirement that it be set in three feet from the floor below is not achievable because the uh the second floor and the third floor line up with each other.

Uh the third floor is not set in, and there's already limited living space on the third floor, so you couldn't push it back into the into the bedroom.

It would it would impair the living space.

Um it will, however, be entirely over the first floor because the first floor comes out a bit uh from the second and third floors, so there won't be any increase in lot coverage as a result of this deck.

It's a common feature in this area, as some of you may know.

Uh the area from basically Coxhill Avenue down to the pond.

Many of the many of the houses have decks uh on the upper floors and and rooftops.

So we believe it really is minimal to to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use, particularly in that area.

My clients talk to uh many of the neighbors.

There's three uh letters of support in the file from the three nearest neighbors and the neighbor across the street on Casey Court.

Also uh told them good luck, didn't submit a letter, but uh that has a voice of support as well.

And uh there haven't been any objections.

We have the architect here tonight as well as the applicant himself.

If anybody has any questions, uh but I'd also be happy to try to answer any questions anyone has.

Board members, any questions, Mr.

Lee's or any of the other experts or the homeowners.

Looks like you did a pretty good job in the written material.

Um and also the letters of support were helpful.

Uh, I don't have any questions either.

So that being the case, I don't think we need to go through with uh any other testimony if there are any other questions.

If there were objections here on the board, I think they would they would be raised.

So uh with that being said, I think what I'd like to do is go forward with a motion.

Mr.

Vice Chair, if you would.

Yeah, okay, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh on the petition of Edward and Boudell.

Uh I move to adopt as the board finding of facts, the information staff report, applications, supporting plans and documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with representations made by council, together with comments spread on the record by the board members, and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met the burden approved under each element under chapter 17.108 of the newport zoning offense entitled Variances and Modifications.

The be granted on the condition that the project be started completed within 12 months of the decision while extension requested to the zoning office prior to expiration, and all extending invoices relating to the cost of public notice and be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chairman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Uh, I think what I'm going to do here is just do by uh voice acclaim on this.

Um, I don't think there's any need to declare, and we don't need discussion.

So all those in favor of the motion just uh read by uh Mr.

Riley, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, it passes unanimously.

Thank you, Mr.

Lees.

Can you write up the decision for us, please?

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

That was almost like a summary.

Let's go.

Um yes, if you would, Mr.

Grimes.

We have one more abbreviated summary to go through.

The next uh petition is that of Elijah Duckworth Schechter, applicant and owner of six Greeno Place, tax assessor plat 22, lot 027 in an R 10 zone with a historic overlay for dimensional variances to lift by six inches and reorient an existing non-conforming conforming accessory structure, placing at 1.73 feet from the northwest side uh property line, 1.58, but existing at closest at closest point and 5.75 feet from the northeast side uh property line, 4.93 feet existing at the closest point, and replacing an existing lean to addition with a new addition, 1.73 feet from the northwest property line where you have 1.73 feet existing.

Uh yes, great.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Grimes.

And uh last time I forgot to ask, but I will this time.

Is there anybody in the audience that objects to this petition?

No objectors to this petition.

I don't see any objectors.

Okay.

Yes, Mr.

Lee's again.

Yeah.

Uh Matt Lee's for the applicants.

Um this uh matter sounds more complicated than it really is, actually.

I think it's uh especially now that it's been pared down from the original application.

Uh at this point, uh what we're looking at doing is there the property consists of a uh it's a historic property with a carriage house and garage that's uh tucked into a corner, sort of at an awkward angle, doesn't line up exactly with the the driveway, and it's somewhat enclosed by uh a jog in the boundary line toward the back there.

And so the plan is to add remove a lean to addition that's on the the west side of the carriage house and add a two-story uh addition on the on that west side uh in furtherance of creating a dwelling unit in the carriage house.

The dwelling would be on the second floor uh of the area above the garage stalls and also uh in the addition.

Uh it'd be a two-bedroom, two bath dwelling unit.

And as indicated in the summary of the relief sought is part of this, they'd be raising the structure up by about six inches uh for some foundation work, and then essentially pivoting it on the southwest corner uh slightly away from that uh west, I guess that's west boundary line there.

Um the result would be the setback on that west side is presently one foot nine inch, and it would be that's really that's the pivot point.

It would be uh two feet if the application is granted, and but it would move and kind of open up that boundary as much as six feet.

Hey Matt, could I pause you for one second?

Yes, um Does anybody have a car with the license plate one pm eight four-seven or um you're blocking someone in that thanks for that?

Go ahead.

I think you still have a quorum anyway.

Um so the uh on the north side, uh it would it would come away from the boundary line a little bit, where right now it's four feet seven inches, it would be going to five feet nine inches.

So overall the project will uh make the property more conform to carriage house more conforming, but since uh you know the work is being done within the setback, it needs it needs zoning relief.

And so that's what we're here for tonight.

Um again, I have a uh representative from the design team here tonight, answer any questions that the board may have.

It did receive HDC approval um at the believe it was the last HDC meeting or the one before that.

Um my clients reached out to neighbors, they didn't didn't have any, nobody had expressed any objections to it.

I don't think we had any written objections either.

Questions from the board.

Uh yeah, Ms.

Chim.

If I could just uh to um uh reiterate uh basically rebuilding a you know a nicer more uh all updated building.

Basically on the same uh location.

Yeah, I would say that's correct.

It's refurbishing the carriage house.

There will be an addition on one one side, uh small addition, which can be seen in the in the drawings, and kind of slightly pivoting it.

Well yeah, so that the lot coverage increase is minimal.

I think it's going from like 16.3 to 16.7 or something like that.

Yeah, okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Any other questions of Mr.

Lee's or any other folks?

Well okay.

Hearing none, we'll uh proceed to a motion.

Okay, Mr.

Riley.

Yeah, thank Saman.

On the petition of Elijah Duckworth Shatner.

Um I move to adopt the board's finding of fact, the information staff report, applications, supporting plans and documents and testimony of the witnesses, along with representations of council, together with comments spread on the record by the board members, adopt as the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden approved under each element under chapter 17.108 of the Newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

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 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 Chairman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Uh once again, I think we'll just do uh a voice vote on this uh together.

Uh so all those uh in favor of this uh petition, see please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, it is unanimous decision.

And once again, if you would, Mr.

Lee's uh if you would write up the decision for us, that would be great greatly helpful.

Okay.

We're done with the abbreviated summaries.

Now we're gonna move to we have four full hearings tonight.

Uh three of which uh at least for the moment do not have any um objectors.

One of which does, and we've been asked uh by that petitioner, uh, that is the application petition of uh 20 to 22 Anthony Revocable Trust.

Uh we've been asked to move that from the second slot to the fourth slot this evening.

So uh we will have our first uh petition to start with, then we'll go with number three and number four, and then the second petition will go uh uh put that in at the number four spot.

Um with the thought that there might be some more discussion with uh the petitioner and the objectors on that to come up with a solution.

Is that what we're trying to do here?

Yeah, I think we probably have achieved a resolution.

Oh, you have clear.

I think we the yeah, the object the objectors and the applicants have reached an agreement, and the architect uh has brought some updated plans.

I haven't had a chance to share with Mr.

Lee's yet.

Okay.

And the architect's still fine-tuning the revised lot coverage number.

So my thought is since I'm on a couple of these next hearings, um, maybe the board would take a break before they take up Anthony Street for about 10 minutes, so I can review it with Mr.

Lee's.

Yeah, that's fine.

Um so I don't, you know, anything you never know, but I don't see a lot of contention in the other one.

So I I I'm feel confident we will get to that if we move you to the to the fourth place.

Yeah, so do I.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, you're welcome.

That's what we'll do then.

Very good.

So then um, if you would, Mr.

Secretary, we're gonna start with the first petition, which is uh uh the Washington Wassenar's okay.

Yep, um Clay Street.

It's the Clay Street.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh the first full petitions, the amended application, uh petition of uh Julian and Olivia Wassenar applicants and owners, 21 Clay Street, tax assessor plat 34, lot 054 in an R60 zone with a historic overlay for dimensional variances to construct a 672 square foot pool located 27.25 feet from the Stewart Court front line property line, 48.74 required, increasing the lot coverage from 14.24% to 15.4%, where 10.3% is allowed.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

And yes, uh, Mr.

Jackson, of course, uh, you'll be representing the uh petitioners, I assume.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Jay Russell Jackson.

Before you get started, if I could, are there any objectors here in the audience?

There weren't any written objections.

Is that there were no written ones?

Any objectors to this petition in the audience?

Okay, hearing none.

Thank you.

Please continue.

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

Um, I'll give a brief sort of summary.

I also have with me this evening uh the project architect Mohammed Farzon, as well as real estate expert, Mr.

James Wool.

Um, I did upload Mr.

Hoole's report prior to the weekend, but I we had missed the publication of the agenda, but it was uploaded in the portal.

So I wasn't sure.

I chatted with Nick.

I don't know whether or not um board members had the opportunity and saw it in the portal over the weekend.

If not, I have hard copies here.

If anybody would prefer to see any hard copies.

Please.

We could just have this identified as applicants exhibit one.

Got that part.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So um, so again, this application essentially is to accommodate the installation of an in-crown pool.

Um this property located at 21 Clay Street is is a unique property.

Uh it is a true estate, however, it is slightly non-conforming in terms of lot area containing only 58,491 square feet where 60,000 is required.

Uh, with that said, the history of the development of the property has uh not only the main residence, but it also has a carriage house and a separate detached cottage.

Because of those, um, because of the development history of this property over time, uh, which uh fundamentally or primarily took place prior to the adoption of the current zoning code, the lot coverage for this property currently is at 14.24 percent.

The proposal is the installation of an in-ground pool of 672 square feet in the southwest corner of the property.

Property is unique in that it has three uh frontages, if you will, along Clay Street, Narragansett Avenue, and then Stewart Court, which is a private right of way.

So there are three front setbacks which apply.

The uh proposal in terms of the location of the pool, um, is from the client's perspective, the applicant's perspective, the most appropriate location because it's adjacent to the guest cottage.

Uh it is along Stewart Court, which is a lightly used private right of way.

Uh, and there's plenty of fencing and vegetative screening along uh Narragansett Avenue, so that this will be essentially shielded from the public.

Um again, the net increase of lot coverage is just going from 14.24% to 15.4.

And even though this proposed pool, because of the 50-foot setback, does sit within the setback, it is still 27.25 feet away from Stewart Court private right-of-way.

So that's sort of a summary of of what's being proposed.

And again, um I'm happy to bring up the witnesses to testify.

If you think it'd be more efficient, I can just present them to be available to answer questions.

I'll sort of leave it to your discretion, Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, so um, as we did in the abbreviated summaries, uh, why don't we start with that?

Okay, and just see what questions there may be for what experts you have brought with you today.

Sure.

And go from there.

Okay.

Um so let me open it up to the board members uh for questions.

And you have obviously Mr.

Wool, who else do you have?

Has who's the architect?

The architect Mohammed Farzon.

Okay.

And those are your two experts.

Yes.

Okay.

So questions for the architect or uh Mr.

Wool, the real estate uh expert or for Mr.

Jackson, if you guys have um this application required uh review by the HDC, didn't correct.

Okay, that and I and I was looking, was uh was a COA uh was still an awaiting phase, or where are we with that?

So the original uh the original plan had the pool a little further away from Stewart Court, and after um some further consideration by the property owner and applicant, they requested that we move the pool a little further towards Stewart Court.

So as a result, when this was initially when this application was initially put together, both in terms of zoning and HDC, it received a COA for the pool to be 37 feet away from Stewart Court, not 27 feet.

So that original COA was issued, and then once the plan was modified, we submitted it to the preservation planner, and she is going to approve that minor change administratively.

So we're not going back to the historic district.

And I think there was a note to that effect that you're probably referring to in the staff report.

And Nick can correct me if I'm misstating anything.

That's correct.

The um preservation planner has the right to make minor adjustments to approved HDC applications.

Uh, if they're not objected to.

Okay.

Yeah.

Stewart Court.

Yes.

It it's not a main thoroughfare, that's for sure.

Um, are there any other homes on that street besides this uh this house?

So, you know, honestly, offhand, I don't know that the the across Stewart Court to the west is a large parcel, which I believe has its frontage on Bellevue Avenue.

I'm not 100% sure if there's access from Stewart Court on either of those.

If you look at what Nick and Zach just pulled up on the screen, I'm not sure that either of the sort of estates to the west, which have frontage on Bellevue Avenue access their property from Stewart Court.

I'm not 100% sure.

There appears to be at least one parcel further at the sort of terminus of the of the dead end of Stewart Court that relies on Stewart Court for access.

But again, it is it is uh a lightly used private right-of-way.

Okay.

The applicant doesn't really use it either.

Um, because their primary access is from Clay Street.

Okay, and and in the pool in question, they're gonna be uh butting Narragansett Avenue.

The pool is in the southwest corner, so it is it meets the setback for Narragansett Avenue, it just doesn't meet the setback for Stewart Court.

Okay, and this narrow and this is okay.

Okay, right this way.

Okay, so at the corner of Stewart and there are okay, got it, Ross.

Thank you.

Yep, and there's additional landscaping and drainage features that were that are part of the plan set that you received indicating that there is stormwater management taking place in that southwest corner to help deal with any additional runoff that might otherwise be produced by uh the installation of the pool.

All right, good.

Thanks.

Questions?

Anyone else, Melissa?

Nothing.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, I just uh it seems to be a lap pole.

Is that would that be a good way to characterize?

I think so.

I mean, I can uh I know that uh Mohammed Farzan was a little more um engaged with the client in terms of coming up with design and location.

I'm happy to have him answer that question.

Okay, yeah, I'd like to please raise your right hand.

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

You do please state your name for the record.

Mohammed Barzan, if ARZ.

Okay, very good.

As far as the pool goes, yes, the owner's um is an athletic swimmer.

So the goal is to make it long, but also military wide.

So it's a small pool, it's just longer than what I would.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for anybody?

Oh no?

No, I'm good.

Good Melissa.

No, yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Riley, if you would.

Uh okay, Mr.

Chairman.

On the um on the petition of uh Julian and Olivia Wathener.

Um I move to adopt as the board's finding of facts, the information in the staff report, applications, supporting documents and testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of counsel, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members and adopted the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden approved under each element under Chapter 17.108 of the newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications that the petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration, and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public notice and be paid in full um before and as a condition of according the decision.

Great.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Um I think we'll poll the members.

I mean, if we can have a little discussion if you want.

Who wants to go first?

Oh, okay.

Our leadoff man, Mr.

Grimes.

Okay.

Um I I'm gonna vote uh to approve this petition.

Um they're they're requesting a pool as we look at the uh uh of the uh schematic uh where that pool is.

Um it doesn't appear it's going to be bothering any neighbor.

Um they have plenty of space.

This is a good size lot, even though it's you know somewhat undersized.

Uh with R60, 58,000 square feet.

There's plenty of room.

And you know, it's interesting, being a lap pool, it's not a it's not a party pool.

Uh people uh who swim laps uh there for the exercise.

And um the lot coverage, even though they're allowed, I believe 10%.

They're they're all they're just minimalized, minimize uh I'm sorry, the a minimum increase in size, I think for about 14 to 15 percent.

Um the uh yeah, yeah, I was also pleased that they they address the stormwater matter in the southwest uh part of that uh property as well.

Um it had an HDC approval.

Um, and um so anyway, for all those reasons, I I'm I'm gonna vote to approve this petition.

Batavina.

Um, I am also going to vote to approve this petition for I had to cross them off as you went through them, Bart, and uh the same reasons that my fellow board member mentioned.

And I'll just add that I do think it's in keeping with the neighborhood.

A pool is not an uncommon feature.

Uh vegetation is provided on the busier um thoroughfare side, and um I think you know the proximity to the private way has been addressed, uh especially to the satisfaction of the HDC, and so do me too.

That's all great, thank you, Ms.

Sheber.

I will also be voting to approve this petition.

Uh there's a clear hardship here with there being it an undersized lot for the R60 and also having three uh front setbacks.

Um there's clearly um no this wasn't caused by the applicant due to uh the shaping of the lot um predating prior zoning laws.

Um and it just being a historic property with how it's laid out.

So for those reasons, I will be voting to approve the pool.

Great, thank you, Dave.

Yes, um, Ms.

Chairman.

I'll also be voting to support this petition.

There's a clear hard shift, I think, of the three uh front uh setbacks, especially the one on Stewart Court, which is a private right of way, a little bit more than just a private driveway, to be honest with you, which makes the placement of the pool uh, you know, sort of the perfect place for the pool and um would not interfere with any of the neighbors.

Um so I think that works out well.

I don't think it will alter the name uh the character of the neighborhood or infringe on the neighbors' privacy.

There's uh a minimal increase in lot coverage, and uh, but it's uh uh swimming pool used a couple months of the year.

Uh and and I I I think that that will that's fine.

Um the requested variance is minimal for reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use and will not impair the intent or the purpose of the zoning ordinance um uh of the city.

So uh I'll be supporting.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Um the lastly comes to me.

Yes, of course, I will be too supporting this petition.

Um, and I echo the comments made by my fellow board members.

Uh I will say that I go down Clay Street all the time.

It's a cut through to get back to Bellevue and uh and get back that way down to the down to the fifth ward.

And uh Stuart, I thought that was a driveway for years.

I mean, I don't it's it's it's really quiet.

Uh there's there's nobody coming in out of there.

So again, to echo uh other comments made, it's in the perfect spot for that.

Uh, because it's not going in.

There's going to be vegetation there anyway.

And a good point made by Mr.

Riley, it's really only going to be uh in use maybe three months a year, maybe you know, if if three, four.

And um, so uh for all the reasons uh for my fellow board members and uh uh what I just said, I will be supporting this as well.

Uh this petition.

So that's everybody.

Um uh so I will start with you, Ms.

Sherry.

How do you vote on this petition?

Ms.

Chevy, aye.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Mr.

Rudd is aye.

Mr.

Grimes, aye.

Miss Padavina, I.

That's five members.

So that's uh unanimous, Mr.

Jackson.

You could help us by writing up that decision, that'd be great.

Okay.

Um, so as we just said, moving on.

Uh, we're gonna move uh the um Anthony Street petition to four.

So we're now going to do there's another Anthony Street one.

This one is 16 Anthony Street.

Uh this is John uh Liberace.

Uh his apple application and petition.

Is there anybody representing?

I have Mr.

Regan, okay.

Uh yes, good evening, Mr.

Chair, Peter Regan representing the applicant, John Lippers.

Yeah, you do have the record up.

Excuse me.

Yeah, um, so yeah, I just wanted to ask um if there are any uh objectors here because there are no written objections.

So are there any objectors here tonight on 16 Anthony Street?

No objectors on 16 Anthony Street.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do you want to read into the record?

We're gonna read this into the record.

Yeah, that would be great.

Thank you.

So let's do that first.

Mr.

Regan, sit down.

No, you're fine.

I'm only gonna know.

I'm like okay.

This is the petition of uh John Liberacce, applicant and owner of 16 Anthony Street, tax assessor plat 32, lot 060 in an R10 zone for dimensional variances to demolish an existing rear deck and construct a new two-story edition and a second and third floor edition, reaching a height of 31 and a half feet where 30 feet is permitted, and construct a 30.63 square foot, excuse me, third floor balcony, where 24 square feet is permitted, reducing lot coverage from 54.4 to 51.9%, where 33.61% is permitted.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Grimes, our acting secretary.

Uh yes, Mr.

Q, please carry on.

Once again, Peter Regan representing the applicant, John Liberasi, who's here tonight along with uh his architect Spencer McComb.

Um, as noted, this is an application to allow construction of a two-story addition to the rear of the existing house and the third story balcony on a very small substantial lot of uh just over 3,000 square feet in the R10 zone, like most of the other homes in that area.

Uh it is non-conforming in terms of lot coverage.

Lot coverage is currently at 55, excuse me, 54.4% or 33.6% would be allowed.

Uh the application originally included a request for a height variance to 31 and a half feet as noted.

Uh the applicant subsequently filed for and received a 5% modification from the zoning officer.

So the height uh variance request is no longer part of this application.

We're down to simply lot coverage, even though lot coverage is coming down.

We're down to simply lot coverage, even though lot coverage is coming down, we're swapping a two-story edition for some decks.

And also uh the third uh story balcony.

Um but no longer a request for a lot variance height variance at this point.

Uh Mr.

LeBrass brought this uh house as a second home back in 2002.

Uh like a lot of folks uh in COVID began living up here full time, and uh he and his fiance have decided to make this property their primary residence, and as a result of that, uh wanted to address some shortcomings with the property that while okay for a summer house were not great for full-time residents, and primarily that had to do with uh the amount of living space because while this is a two-story house, the ceiling height of the second floor does not meet minimum code.

So the second floor living space is barely livable, and the amount of living space of this property that actually meets code uh is only about 768 square feet.

Uh so thanks to some very creative design work, Courtston Design, uh they've been able to create a plan that provides livable square footage on the second floor, a partial third floor uh bedroom suite uh within the same footprint, uh, and a larger, more functional kitchen and layout on the first floor.

So we've got a house that's appropriately sized and laid out uh full-time family home.

More importantly, that design is such that the building footprint is being increased by only 106 square feet.

Basically, they're squaring off the corner uh in the rear of the house where there's currently a deck.

So 106 square feet is the total increase of the building footprint, and uh with the removal of existing decks, the overall lock coverage for the property is actually coming down by two and a half percent um from 54.4 to 51.9.

As uh was noted, there are no objections to this application.

However, there are five letters of support from buddy neighbors.

Um as with the prior application, I do have the applicant and Mr.

McComb here available to answer any questions that you might have, but uh depending upon how the board wants to proceed, we can either them or see if you've got questions.

Yep.

So um I think we'll just continue to go the way we've been going, which is um I'm just gonna ask the board if they have questions and who they would like to address them to if they do.

So I'll just open it up to the board for questions or anybody that is available on the petitioner's end.

I just got a little confused.

I apologize.

Um the so the dimensional variance for the third floor balcony, that is still part of our decision.

That's still part.

And maybe I could have uh Mr.

McComb simply address that.

Uh I think the what's allowed is 24 square feet.

You're asking for an additional six square feet of the third.

Oh boy.

Yes, sir.

You swear to tell the truth of put your hand up, please.

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.

Yes, sir.

So we have a uh a small third floor uh deck porch that sits out on the uh front.

That's uh really the only view that they have kind of looking out uh toward the water, and uh to give them just a little spot where they can open up that door and sit out there.

Um the minimal size, as you know, is fairly small, and so we just have that just a little wider so we can capture the two windows on either side, so just architecturally, so it can kind of fit beyond the windows that are in the end of the game.

So it's just kind of architectural and just the usefulness of that size was slightly bigger than the uh minimums for that third floor.

Thank you.

Is that it?

Yes.

Yep.

Uh yep.

I was curious on that.

Did you set that?

Is that set in like the other piece of the that uh third floor deck question?

Is it set in a little bit?

Is that how they're supposed to be, Nick?

Yeah, they're uh supposed to be set in three feet from each side.

And if you look at the elevation, it's definitely set in three feet from each side and the front.

Okay.

And my other question was I thought it was 30 feet.

So the city council passed that decks are allowed at 30 feet and balconies are allowed at 24 feet.

I would say typically a deck is connected to the ground in some way or directly on top of the roof of the floor below.

It's just being a projection off of the third floor, renders it a balcony.

All right.

Thank you for explaining that.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

I did not know that.

Neither did I.

Yeah.

Um, thank you, Mr.

McComb.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Regan, anybody?

Yeah, hearing none.

Um, I will ask for a petition to be read.

Uh excuse me, a motion to be read.

Okay, Ms.

Chairman.

On the petition of John Labrassi.

Um I moved to uh I I move to adopt as the board's finding of facts, the information in the staff report, applications, supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of council, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members and adopted as the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden approved under each element under Chapter 17.108, the new board zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

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 office prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public notice and be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Sherry.

Who'd like to begin?

Okay, I'm in the leader spot again.

Um I would vote uh to to approve this petition.

Um just highlight a few a few uh issues here.

First of all, I was initially concerned about the uh the what I thought was a deck, but now it's a balcony.

Um it makes sense.

Um they need some they need uh some space uh to get outdoors.

It's a very small lot.

I think they said a three thousand square feet, and I think the um uh this property is uh is is very much in in character with the neighborhood.

Uh somewhere in the in the notes, I saw that the um the Mr.

LeBronchi.

Uh did I get that right?

LeBronchee.

Yeah.

Um you've been there 25 years.

Is that uh since 2002?

So close to that.

Yeah, okay.

So he's he's not going anywhere.

Um, or at least he hadn't been.

Um, and this is it's obviously his primary home.

And and and I and I like to see that.

Um, also happy to see that he had lots of support.

We had a like I say, a bunch of letters, and the and the letters were very compelling.

Uh it looks like it'll be a good neighbor.

Um, and it appears too, there's a hardship here.

He had, you know, the the quality of the space wasn't good.

Uh with the help of the architect, he's going to create some more headspace and more living space.

Um the the lot coverage actually was reduced, I think from 54 down to 51%.

Um, and uh and again, the and and I see the hardship here was you know, again, that's a very small lot, 3,000 square feet in an R 10 zone.

For so for all those reasons and others, I would vote to support this petition.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Bart.

Um, why don't we mix it up a little bit?

How about you, Mr.

Riley?

Would you like to go?

Sure.

Um I'll also be supporting uh this petition.

I agree with uh a lot of the uh information spread on the record by uh um Mr.

Grimes.

The hardship is definitely the lot size, three thousand one hundred and ninety-seven uh square feet in an R 10 zone, uh third of what is allowable.

The applicant has actually reduced the overall lot coverage by eliminating uh some of the existing features on the property.

The hardship for the balcony is less obvious, but the request of just six and a half square feet more than the twin 24 feet allowed is very reasonable to allow um for the seating of two people and uh maybe a little um uh table of some sort.

Um the applicant has uh demonstrated that the request requested relief will not alter the character of the neighborhood.

Um this is demonstrated by the overall design of the property.

I I I I was I thought the design of the property was uh was great.

Liked how they sort of uh didn't go and take three levels the whole way back in a property, it just made it look like a uh uh uh piece of property that's more in line with that particular neighborhood.

Um the applicant also demonstrated that in granting uh the requested variances will not impair the intent uh or purpose of the zoning ordinance and will allow the applicant reasonable enjoyment of uh a permitted use.

So happy to support this petition.

Great.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Riley, Ms.

Sherry.

I will also be uh voting to approve this petition.

Uh wanna echo the sentiments, sorry, shared by Mr.

Riley or Mr.

Grimes.

Uh there on Anthony Street, those lots are really squeezed in tight next to each other.

This is clearly an undersize R10 lot, um, being approximately one third of the size of um what is expected in the R10.

Uh also I think the architect has got a done a nice job with the layout of the property, appreciate um the effort to reduce lot coverage, and really see um as lists in the staff report that this balcony is really the only way for the applicant to enjoy uh outdoor living area for for the property because of the the tightness of the lot and um the size of lot coverage here.

Um so for those reasons I will be voting to approve this petition.

Great.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry, Miss Padavina.

Um I share all the sentiments expressed by my fellow board members.

Um I think an additional hardship was that the in interior of the building didn't meet code.

So to try and move in there and have that be your year-round family living space um would be I mean you wouldn't be in the code.

Um I think the architect did a really nice job balancing creating space with not a crazy amount of um increase in square footage and uh the fact that the lot coverage reduced at all.

Um I think it shows a nice balance between trying to achieve uh livable space and working with the significantly substandard lot.

Um I think it's in keeping with the neighborhood with the amount of support that it received, and um for the sheer fact that this is a place that you're trying to make a year-round full-time residence in Newport.

Right.

Thank you, Ms.

Padavina.

I too will be supporting this petition again.

I echo uh the comments uh and the votes of my colleagues.

Uh would like to reiterate a couple of points.

First of all, it meets all the findings of facts, in my opinion.

There is clearly a hardship, uh, which is no headroom for, you know, uh, it was built for a different era.

And then again, to echo Ms.

Padovina, um, a very um clever uh design by the by the architect, really well done to be able to give all that extra living space.

And in fact, uh with the uh with the percentage lot coverage going down.

So well done on that.

Um, so for all those reasons, uh, particularly that it meets all my findings of fact.

I will be voting to approve this petition.

So I'm gonna start by polling you, Ms.

Padavine.

Let's go this way.

I'm an aye.

Mr.

Grimes.

Mr.

Grimes, aye.

Mr.

Rudd is aye.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Ms.

Chevry, aye.

It's five-nothing, Mr.

Regan.

If you could uh write up the uh the um petition, that would be great.

Happy to do that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good luck to you.

Yep.

Okay, we're moving right along.

Yeah, let's Mr.

Grimes, please.

If you could read the next one in, that would be okay.

The next uh uh um petition is that of the uh Newport Bay Club and Hotel applicant and owner, 337 uh Thame Street, tax assessor plat 27 lot 266 in a waterfront business zone for special use permit and dimensional variances to add two additional guest uh bedrooms to an existing legal non-conformant transient guest facility, increasing from 48 to 50 guest bedrooms for 21 are permitted, creating two additional parking spaces, which require maneuvering onto the Perry Mill Wharf right of way and not providing the required manager of parking space.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Grimes.

Mr.

Jackson.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Oh, and let me ask once again, I'm sorry, are there any is anybody here objecting to this petition?

Nobody objecting?

Seeing no objectors, please carry on.

Good evening, Mr.

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

Um I'll give uh uh an overview similar to the uh to the first presentation I had earlier this evening.

I'm happy to give an overview.

And then with me this evening, I have uh Mr.

Jeff Marlowe, who's the president of the owners association at the Bay Club.

He's available to testify.

The project architect Spencer McComb is here, and our land use and planning expert, Paige Bronk is here as well.

Um before I get started with a quick summary, um, we have essentially what amounts to an amendment to the application.

So one of the one of the elements of relief indicated was that uh we needed a variance for failure to provide a dedicated manager's parking space.

Uh the original submission had identified a space along uh Perry Mill uh wharf, uh, as you can see in that site plan.

And after we submitted that, Nick had had touch base with me to let me know that um although not sort of specified in the zoning code, it did not meet uh other provisions of the city ordinance, and he was uh informed of that and and went through that with the engineering department.

So they indicated because it was a parallel parking space, it needed to be at least 24 feet in length.

So once we gathered that information uh at the end of last week, um Spencer McComb put together a plan to modify um the length of the space.

Uh they moved some proposed, I think lighting and bullards that were originally planned at the bottom of the staircase, which would have kept the parking space short.

Um, but at the end of the day, we have enough space to meet the engineering standards for a parallel parking space, and we have enough space at the bottom of those steps you see in that plan to provide um the required uh area at the bottom of the landing uh consistent with building code.

So we no longer, and Nick, if I'm wrong, let me know.

But I we I don't think we need that variance for the manager's space anymore.

Now, based on these plans, I would say that they are meeting the manager space requirement.

Um, again, as Russ mentioned, uh engineering standard for what they refer to as an interior parallel parking space requires extra length in order to maneuver in and out of a space like that.

So the original plan, which was only providing the minimum 18 feet of length, there wouldn't have been a way to get a car in there.

Um, but this revised plan is nine feet wide by 27 feet long and has plenty of room uh to maneuver uh the man proposed manager space in that.

So I would say that the uh variance for the manager on-site manager parking space is not required anymore.

Okay, so that's off the table.

So what are we looking at?

Just the additional guest bedrooms?

Is that it?

As far as parking goes, yeah.

The petition still includes uh the addition of two bedrooms, which needs uh essentially dimensional variance for the density going over the allowable number of rooms, and then the two parking spaces that they're adding for the guests are required to uh back out directly on the Perry Mill Wharf, which doesn't meet the typical standard required for a aisle with they don't have an aisle, not uh maneuvering on the onto the right-of-way.

Okay, yep.

And I'll go through that, Mr.

Chairman.

I just wanted to make sure it was clear that we no longer needed this variance, and this uh plan that's up on the monitors right now was submitted earlier today.

So it was not uploaded in the portal.

So again, if I could I'll just submit this as an exhibit.

Please.

All right, so in terms of the remaining relief.

So again, this is a relatively in the in the sort of grand scheme of things, this is a relatively minor modification to the use that's taking place.

As you all know, the Bay Club timeshare and hotel has been there for I believe approximately 40 years.

And um currently it has what they refer to as 36 suites with a total of 48 bedrooms.

And on the second and third floor, um, and and there are floor plans that were attached with the application.

Um the second and third floor, each floor has a conference room.

And over time, these conference rooms have essentially not been utilized.

So these conference rooms are essentially at this point dead space.

They're not used by the guests really.

There's no business meetings that are taking place there.

The staff doesn't use them.

So the owners association uh wanted to convert these to uh guest rooms.

So again, all the modifications are taking place interior.

There's no exterior modifications required to the building at all.

Uh but just the you know, sort of modification and alteration of those two rooms does trigger a number of different uh zoning requirements.

So again, because a transient guest facility is allowed by special use permit in the waterfront business zone, modification of the existing use uh requires a special use permit.

Because this particular development far exceeds the density requirements in terms of land area versus the number of guest rooms you're allowed to have.

This exceeds the density already.

So adding two rooms requires a variance in relation to room density.

And then, of course, what we discussed was if you're adding two guest rooms or bedrooms, you have to have each one of those rooms accompanied by a parking space on site.

So we're carving out an area on the site to provide two additional parking spaces beyond the 36, which already exist on site.

And as you can see from that plan, a number of the parking spaces, I think a total of seven already um are adjacent to uh the Perry Mill Wharf, and they already back out into the wharf.

Um so that's that's the and and again, backing into the wharf by itself, the public right away is a separate and distinct form of relief that's required for the project.

So uh again, all in all, even though it's a relatively minor modification that you wouldn't otherwise know uh even happened, it triggers a number of different elements uh requiring zoning relief.

If you're all familiar with that property, again, the the timeshare and hotel has been there for 40 years.

The first level was originally created as essentially retail, and that's primarily what it's used for.

Excuse me.

There are a number of small retail shops uh along, you know, the frontage facing um the area where the outside terraces, as well as facing Thame Street, uh and then the back portions of the first floor.

There are some stalls that are used, uh maybe one or two as an office and others storage, and then there's a large coffee shop.

In the lower level is a restaurant use, and that restaurant use a few years ago expanded, and they expanded your service area out onto the outdoor area adjacent and behind the infamous wave statue.

So there are a number of uses taking place there, and because of all the uses that take place uh throughout the property, the parking requirement for this is significant.

However, none of the uh uses on the first level or ground level historically have have ever had any parking on site.

It's always been the hotel that has had uh use of the on-site parking spaces.

And traditionally, those on-site parking spaces have correlated to the number of suites.

So, for instance, historically, again, there's been 36 suites, even though the bedroom count is 48, there's been 36 suites.

And what the hotel has done is for each suite, they provide one parking space.

So that sort of management is going to continue here because the proposal is to add two new suites, and there will be two additional parking spaces.

Um I again, that is that is sort of uh the total of what's being requested.

Um I'm happy to bring up uh the applicant uh to testify, or if you just have any questions for Mr.

Marlowe, who's the president of the association.

Um I think Spencer can walk through quickly um the changes made to make sure that there was sufficient space for the manager's spot on site.

And then uh if you'd like to hear from Mr.

Bronk, he's here as our land use expert as well.

Yeah, I and my personal opinion, I think you've explained it pretty well, particularly the changes on the manager's parking spot.

I get that.

Um you took some stuff out so that you could make the length you could lengthen it to make it to make it uh fit in.

So I think what I'd like to do is just um once again open it up for any of those experts that you have and the uh the uh association uh head, uh just any questions that board members may have for anybody.

Let's just let's just um so this right-of-way issue.

Um is this a problem?

Will this be a problem?

I um you see there's uh the issue we have parking, but you have the uh a right-of-way matter.

Correct.

Expound on that a little bit more and worrying.

That's not a problem.

Yep.

So if you if you if you're familiar with the Perry Mill Wharf, there is uh this particular property itself has again seven spaces, which for the last 40 years have already backed out into the Perry Mill right of way.

Across the street from this property are uh other buildings which have been over time, offices, restaurants, different things, that particular building, again, that that bricked area technically are parking spaces, and they're used a little further um to the west, and those vehicles have to back out into the right of way.

Perry Perry Mill itself is the only there, there is a parking lot right now at the end of the wharf.

Um soon to be more of a um I think sale club and function space.

That being said, it is not a through way.

The only traffic going down Perry Mill is going to be traffic that is either going to park there or is associated with the Bay Club.

Um, you know, the parking, the excuse me, the traffic volume is very low.

So backing out into the right of way again has been going on for the last 40 years with the Bay Club, and it's never been an issue.

Right.

Thanks for that explanation.

And to be sure, I mean, at the at the junction of Thame Street, across the street is the midtown, correct?

Midtown is at the at the top at the corner.

Top at the corner.

Right, and directly across the street is the red parrot.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Jackson, we go back to that uh that picture up there, and you back up to the end of the building where the other two parking spots are gonna be.

I I filmed down there today.

And it looks as though there's it's uh to the right, it's where that little building is.

Is that with the two new spaces?

Uh one of them is occupied by that white vehicle.

The two new spaces are right next to that um, you know, that sort of shed uh entrance.

That that is an exit from the lower level restaurant.

Okay.

So there's one space with the other space right next to it.

They're to their side by side.

So it's not blocking up the uh the uh place management.

Um not completely, but this is I think this is an older, you know.

I can have um I also have Kevin Bento here, who's the who's the manager of the Bay Club.

The the storage area 2019.

This picture's from 2019.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

It's the most recent Google Street View we have.

Yep, got it.

Okay.

You know, but that being said, there is some space left, and that that is a the timing of when uh the the refuse company comes is managed by the bay club.

So and the manager's uh space is up further to the front of the building, correct.

It's the one and they were jackhammering up that something or other to make space for that.

The currently the um that is the general location of the manager space right there.

Yeah.

Got it.

The stairs are being modified right now and a different awning over the over the entryway.

Yeah um, but again, it as you saw from the plan, the landing area for the stairs is being modified slightly to make the length of the parking space sufficient to meet the engineering requirements.

Okay, thank thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Chevery, Miss Patterview.

No.

Okay.

Hearing none.

Okay.

I think we're gonna proceed.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Okay.

Mr.

Riley, if you would.

Uh Ms.

Tim on the uh on the petition of Newport Bay Club and Hotel.

I move to adopt the board's finding of fact, the information, the staff report, applications, supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of council, together with comments spread on the record by the board members and adopted as the board's conclusion of law.

The petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 in Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

And the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.109 of the newport zoning ordinance entitled special use permits, specifically category three.

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

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Miss Chevry.

Miss Chevry, would you like to begin?

Sure.

Um, I will be voting to approve this petition.

Um, there's a clear hardship with the size of the property, pretty much taking up the entire lot.

Um, very familiar with this hotel.

My family prefer staying here um when they're visiting Newport.

Um, so very familiar with having uh load and unload in those spots when you're checking in and then navigating to the the larger parking lot in the back.

And I would say that this property is more conforming than most because it does have so much parking compared to its counterparts nearby.

For those reasons, I will be uh voting to approve this petition.

Great.

Thank you, Ms.

Sherry.

Mr.

Rowley.

Um yes.

Um I'll also be uh voting to support this petition.

Um clear hot chip of not having enough uh parking that conforms to the two conditions uh of parking and design standards of the zoning ordinance, and that's the backing out into the uh into the right-of-way.

Uh and granting the relief to those two parking standards, uh the applicant can get the additional parking spaces they they need uh to accommodate the two new guest rooms.

Um you know it is a dead end uh war it's at the end of a wharf, it's not a busy street, they're not coming in multiple directions.

So I think uh accommodating the parking standards is uh uh a reasonable accommodation.

Uh the facility's been there in existence for many years.

Not a it's not gonna alter the character of the neighborhood by granting uh these variances to go from 48 to 50 rooms.

The two additional parking spaces will not change the character of the neighborhood either.

Um the um uh you don't need the manager's space because you've accommodated for that.

Um I was glad to see the two new the two rooms are going to be replaced or on the second and third floor.

Um, and not eliminating any of the retail space.

Um which I would have been reluctant to um grant relief for granting the variants of the application as has uh um demonstrated that the relief they're asking for is truly minimal for reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use.

And I also find that all the conditions stated in the cat category three special use uh uh permit standards have been met.

So I'll support the petition.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Ms.

Padavina.

Um I again echo everything that's been said by my fellow board members.

Um I think uh uh hardship that I would also mention is that you have these conference spaces that weren't getting any use currently.

Um and I think by converting them into a useful space, adding these additional um uh rooms in a way brings it more in keeping with the neighborhood because it responds to a more current need.

Um I think the parking issues are well addressed.

I think Perry Mill um I agree with what's in our staff report that you know there's uh or maybe it was Ms.

Chevry that mentioned it.

Um there is people go down Perry Mill with the intention of going somewhere there so it's not a big um traffic generator.

Um so I think maneuvering the way the parking is suggested is uh safe plan.

I'll be supporting this.

Great.

Thank you.

Right.

Mr.

Grimes will also be uh voting to approve this application uh for both the special use permanent and dimensional uh variants.

Um the applicant uh is is uh looking to add two guest beds and uh I I appreciate the fact that they're converting um uh un underutilized conference rooms rather than you know uh uh business and restaurants and and uh and the like on the second and third floor.

I also appreciate the fact there are there will be no uh external modifications required.

I was concerned initially about parking, but this is one of the few applications uh that I that come before me where they actually have on-site parking.

Um and and that's uh that's very pleasing to me.

Um uh the the by adding two more guest uh rooms in this facility will absolutely not change the character and it'll be very much in character with the rest of the building and the neighborhood.

I was a little bit concerned about the right-of-way uh issue, but after seeing the uh the view of the uh uh of the roadway back there, I don't see any right-of-way uh problems backing into that that area.

It looks very safe and and very wide and and reasonable uh request.

Um I did Paige Bronck didn't respond, but he brought out some important points that that were uh uh that were referenced, and I just want to make sure that's uh in the record as well.

Um so anyway, uh for all those reasons, I I too are going to support this petition.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Grimes.

So um lastly, I will too be supporting this petition.

I'll be voting in favor of it.

Um I agree with all the comments made by my my colleagues, uh meets all the finding of facts again.

Uh and as well, um again, you know, you've got these two conference rooms that aren't being used, and we need more space for people to stay in in Newport, particularly in the summer season when everybody wants to be here.

So I'm very much in support of that, particularly as it doesn't really affect any it's all interior space.

And so two more rooms to me.

I'm I'm I'm all for that uh in in particularly in this context.

So for all those reasons uh and the fact that it meets all my findings of fact, I'll be voting to support this petition.

So why don't we start with you, Miss Bonavina?

How do you vote?

I am an aye.

Mr.

Grimes, aye.

Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Ms.

Chevri.

Sounds like five eyes to me.

Uh unanimously approved.

Good luck to you folks.

Thank you.

Absolutely regular.

Oh, yes, thank you.

Yeah, and uh Mr.

Jackson, if you would write that one up as well.

Thank you, sir.

Otherwise, you'd have to do it.

No, I'm not.

I'm not doing it.

But thank you.

He's gotta do it.

So, Mr.

Chairman, if if you could indulge us, and maybe if the board may take a break for 10 minutes or so, uh got some revisions that I think will satisfy uh Mr.

Lees's client, the objector on the next upcoming petition.

Yes.

And once we iron those out, just take a few minutes.

Uh, I think we still need to make a presentation, but it'll make it a lot more, I think, streamlined than uh a contentious presentation.

Yep, of course, it would certainly do that.

So thank you.

We'll take a break for 10 minutes.

Thank you.

We will uh reconvene at are we already proceed?

Yes.

Okay.

Please read in the petition if you would, Mr.

Grimes.

I need an amended petition or am I going to read this?

Uh I think we're going to read as is, and then uh because the the uh ask is now uh being uh lessened.

So uh re read the petition as advertised.

Yeah.

Okay.

So let me uh all right.

I'm gonna read the uh petition as it exists right now.

Uh this is the petition of 20-22.

Uh Anthony Revocable Trust applicant and owner, 20-22 Anthony Street, tax suppluss, tax assessor plat 32, lot 317 in an R10 zone for dimensional variances to demolish an existing two-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling located one foot from the north or left side of the property where one one foot one 11 inches required, reaching a height of 33.3 where third uh feet were 30 feet is allowed, with the lot coverage of 60.95%, where 36.13% is allowed, and construction of a hundred and twenty-nine square foot third floor roof deck where 30 square feet uh are allowed.

Okay, great.

Thanks, Mr.

Grimes.

Um so to be sure we understood that you folks had initially objected.

Are there any other objectors here tonight with us?

No objectors.

I see no objectors, so let's let's carry on.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott Holbrick and Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

Matt Lees on behalf of LAH management LLC, the owner of 24 Anthony Street.

So Mr.

Chairman, um throughout much of the day, myself and Mr.

Lees had discussions about modifications to this plan to satisfy the concerns of Mr.

Lees's client.

Um those discussions finally culminated later in the afternoon today to an agreement.

And we needed the few minutes here, and thank you for your indulgence because uh Mr.

Can as the project architect had to whip together revised plans uh at the very end of the day to bring something so you could see what the changes are.

Just to summarize the the changes that the applicant and the objectors have agreed to have to do with the easternmost portion of this um proposed structure.

And the uh easternmost portion is being reduced in length by eight feet.

And so the result is the uh ground level, if the the first level uh deck uh which is covered by living space above, that section is basically coming off the back of the building.

There's no longer going to be a deck, there's no longer going to be living space above it.

Uh and as a result, the the massing uh which Mr.

Lee's clients were concerned about has been reduced in the area which is uh in the most close proximity to their property.

Um by doing that, and especially eliminating the first level deck, um, that also reduces the proposed lot coverage for this.

So the application is essentially amended now.

And as it relates to lot coverage, the proposed footprint will be 1,056.62 square feet, which represents a lot coverage request of 54.5.

Uh again, Mr.

Khan ran those numbers just now.

And so that's a reduction from not only existing lot coverage with the structure as it exists now at 61.7, but also a reduction of what was previously proposed, uh, which was 60.95%.

Also, it reduces the um encroachment into the north side setback.

So I think relief is still required, but now the north side setback, um, the building will be 1.2 feet away from the north property line instead of one foot from the north property line.

So those are the dimensional changes that have resulted from this modification.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'd also point out the other the east side setback would also be increased as a result of pulling essentially the building eight feet away from my client's right boundary line.

And yeah, that is the Mr.

Jackson accurately summarized the concerns of my client were that there was a lot of massing being added to this building right near their property.

Right.

And so by eliminating both the first and second floor of that rear portion um by eight or pulling it, reducing it in length by eight feet, uh it it addresses their concern in that right.

And so that's good because that was one of my issues uh was the massing as well.

So I appreciate that.

Um so how do we want to proceed?

Uh I I how do you guys want to proceed?

Do you want to just start asking questions or how do we I do and I I don't I don't want to take longer than the board wants to take, but it's but based on um again the objectors which now have resolved, but also the staff report, we have you know, sort of a list of witnesses that are prepared to testify and provide evidence in the record to enable you to have information to render your decision.

That's fine.

Yeah, proceed.

Okay, thank you.

Um so again, after going through those changes, um, I'll just give a quick summary, then I'll bring up the applicant, Mr.

Jay Pallas.

Um, we also have with us this evening, Mr.

Kevin Bean, who was the engineer who took a look at the existing building.

Because again, although technically the demolition itself isn't in front of you, the concept of the need to take down what's there and rebuild is important for you to understand uh for a couple of reasons.

One, uh, because efforts were made to figure out a way to salvage this building and repurpose it.

Um, but the client has determined that that's just not practical.

So Mr.

Mr.

Bean will speak to that to an extent.

Uh, but I think it's also important for you to you know contextualize the project in the sense that I think there needs to be an understanding of what's there and why it needs to come down and why we're asking for the relief we're asking for.

Um, I understand that from a zoning perspective, Mr.

Armor has to look at this once the demolition occurs.

It's a it's from a zoning perspective, a clean slate, if you will.

It's an empty lot.

But from the practical point of view, my clients trying to replicate what's there now and where possible, reduce the nonconformities.

So I think I think that's an important um distinction because we don't automatically get credit for the existing nonconformities once the building comes down.

Right, we understand.

Okay.

All right.

So again, Mike, as I as I indicated, my client did expl explore options for the redevelopment of this property, including salvaging what's there.

Repurposing the existing structure is really not practical.

And uh between Mr.

Bean and Ross Can, the architect will go through that.

Um the lot itself is very substandard.

It's only 1,937 square feet.

It is a tiny lot.

Um again, with the redevelopment of this and the redesign, the client was making efforts to certainly not increase any non-conformity over what currently exists with the current structure and where possible, reduce those nonconformities.

Um and part of, I think what you'll see is through this presentation, part of the relief requested also enables this applicant to develop a plan which accommodates parking.

Currently, there's no parking on site, and the proposed um redevelopment of this property will have two parking spaces, essentially at ground level in the basement where currently none exist.

Um Mr.

Palace will speak to the use in the sense that they're doing this project because they're going to be moving into this as their primary residence.

The city tax assessor currently has this property as a two-family, but uh from what Mr.

Palace could gather, it doesn't look like it's been utilized uh and rented out as two separate dwelling units for some time.

Um and then lastly, also I just wanted to mention we also have uh Doug McClain, who is our um zoning planning uh expert.

Uh, and he'll testify in support of the project as well.

So, unless you have any questions from me, we can get started with the applicant.

Please thanks.

And I guess it Nick, do you need a hard copy of the updated plans as an exhibit?

That would be helpful to have.

We we do have a scan of uh I think it's eight sheets that were part of it.

I'm gonna have to go back and forth between the sheets that haven't changed effectively.

Yeah, if I could swear you in, please 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.

James J.

Palace.

And please speak into the microphone if you would.

That's good.

Thank you.

Sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm just I want to get I don't want to give you an exhibit that's got handwritten notes from Mr.

Can to me.

Yeah, this I think this looks like a good I've got this uh one is the updated plan set.

Thank you.

Mr.

Grimes, we can um we could go make some copies of that if you guys would like hard copies as well.

Okay, this is uh Anthony.

What number no, this is 2022.

Okay, thanks, uh Mrs.

Pallas.

What is your uh current address?

Currently, my home address is in Nashville, New Hampshire, 192 Kinsley Street.

Um, I have lived in Newport part-time uh for the last 15 years on um at 11 Ann Street.

Okay, and you are one of the principals of 20 to 22 Anthony Street LLC, is that correct?

That's correct.

All right, you're the member that's authorized to be here and testify in front of the board in relation to this application.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And uh 20 to 22 Anthony Street LLC is the current owner of this property, right?

That's correct.

When did you become the owner of this property?

I purchased it on April 25th of 2025.

Why don't we keep just keep the board brief description of the property itself?

Uh discuss the parcel structure as well.

The structure is a three-story uh early Victorian home.

Um it is on a very small lot.

There is what I believe the lot was split up a number of years ago, and this is what remains of it.

That's why the lot is so small.

Um the home is like right on the street.

There is a common path that goes between the houses for access.

Uh the house has not really been maintained by the person who lived there who was uh recently passed away in 2023, uh for probably the last 25 years.

Um it's pretty much new everything.

There is uh considerable amount of water that flows through the basement, and um it's in pretty rough shape.

If you could also um why don't you describe the neighborhood it's in in the street state?

It's a very small side street right off of the uh area where the library is, like the Edward King house in that neighborhood.

Um there is multi-families and single families on the street.

Um so you heard me during the intro in my introductory remarks discuss the fact that there is uh an indication from the tax assessor that this is a two-fan, right?

Correct.

And so when you took ownership of this property, was there any evidence that this is actually being rented out to family?

Uh there they were not renting the house out.

As I said, the uh previous owner had passed away two years prior, and her son was living in the house by himself.

So um there were indications that it likely hadn't been rented out of the family for some time, is that there is a that's fair to say.

The reason why I bring this up is because uh your proposal is to convert this to a single family, right?

Correct.

So um, even though at least as far as how the properties categorized with the city, from a practical point of view, the housing stock in the import's not really being reduced by a line unit because this wasn't really being legal access to 30 fair.

That's fair to say.

Um is there currently is there any on-site parking?

There is not.

This is a parking lake on Anthem Street.

It's pretty limited.

Um it's sometimes you can take a while to find a spot.

So you heard you you heard me indicate that it's your intention to occupy this as your primary residence, is that right?

My plan is to retire from working in the next year, and I'm gonna be moving down here full time.

So when you acquired the property, fair to say the initial plan was to rehabilitate what's there to accommodate your needs and redesign and redevelop it as your primary residence.

Yes, we um bought the property, and our initial was that we were just gonna rehab it and um live in it that way.

Okay.

Why don't you if you could just describe in a little further detail what those what that exploration entailed, what conversations you had with your architect, Mr.

Pan as you went down that path of trying to work on rehabilitation of the property?

Well, um the property that is pretty broaded on the outside, and after looking through the support down to the basement, there really isn't any.

There's all sorts of jacks down there holding the house up.

Um the windows are fairly original, the roof needs to be replaced on the on the whole house, and uh when the back part of the house, the uh the wall is actually caving in.

Okay, so suffice it to say that this once you started sort of peeling back to the onion, it was evident this was going to be a lot more of a challenge than originally anticipated.

A much larger trick challenge.

So at some point you determined that it was really no longer practical to try to salvage what was there and it made more sense to take down what was there and build something new.

We were gonna have to start from the from the foundation and work our way up to pretty much replace everything.

And ultimately you arrived at the plan that was submitted as part of your zoning application, right?

That's correct.

Um discuss if you could what the program requirements were.

In other words, once it was determined that you were going to have to rebuild the new structure, what were the elements that were important to you that you discussed with Mr.

Cannon?

Well, one of our first concerns was that there is absolutely no parking on the street, and if we thought we could get parking underneath the house, that would be a huge uh plus.

Um we also wanted to be able to use the house.

It's just like the ceilings on the house are varying heights on each floor from like six and a half feet to 12 feet on the first floor, second floor.

There's a there is a door that's about two and a half feet to walk through to like a scroll space over the kitchen area that they may have been using for a bedroom at some point.

It looks like you know, it's uh storage for us right at the moment.

Um it's just it's it's pretty tough space to live in modern lifestyle.

And so once you decide to build a new structure, what were the elements of the new structure that were going to be important to you that you discussed in this?

We were gonna have a you know better kitchen, we're gonna have a you know for you know formal like living room, a couple bedrooms.

Right now, there's really only one real bedroom in the house, um, and have a space on the third floor where you can um have a view of the uh harbor.

Okay, and so part of the plan was to maintain the streetscape, correct?

Correct.

And by in doing that, your vision was to essentially try to replicate architecturally what is there now, correct?

That's correct.

We came up with a with a plan that the house looks very similar to what it looks like right now, and um it wouldn't be changing the you know scope of the neighborhood that that much.

You know, right now you can look up Fountain Street and um you can view this uh structure.

And so um again, by by trying to or by intending to replicate architecturally what currently exists, you end up with a with a structure which matches the building height as it exists now, right?

Correct.

Uh originally you were essentially matching the existing footprint um with some minor modifications on the east side, correct?

That's correct.

The lot coverage was consistent, it was a little less than what was previously there, right?

Right.

Even though this lot is less than 2,000 square feet, you worked with Mr.

Tan to try to develop something which didn't need additional uh dimensional variance beyond the non-conformity that existed property, correct?

That's correct.

And so one of those elements also had to do with the existing uh deck on the upper level, correct?

That's correct.

Right.

So that reason why you're asking preparing that deck essentially matches what currently exists, is that right?

That's right.

So just to briefly go through, you know, today was a little bit of a frenzy of activity, correct?

Yes, it was.

And if there were changes physical to planning up, um contacted meeting with typically reflecting the planning one throughout there.

That's correct.

So why don't you you heard me summarize them a little bit before you just walk through what that means in terms of the changes to your whole so we're trying to be a cognitive to all the neighbors, and we spoke with everyone that's been around.

Um currently we're looking at eliminating um some square footage to the first floor, which would have a deck, and uh losing a bedroom on the second floor for this um limitation.

Okay, so again, this is um eight feet that's being taken off the eastern side with a rear of the structure, right?

That's correct.

The first level, that area is being converted to an IOA grade, which is slightly above grade, right?

So it's been down to a clock quarter.

That's correct, right?

And then uh what was important to your neighbors was the massing on the second floor now reduced by eliminating eight feet on that second level, correct?

That's correct.

So you do lose a bedroom, but you've been able to keep um a bathroom in that sort of uh eastern wing that still remains, correct?

Up on the second level.

That's correct.

And that's that would be important because that's the only bathroom that services the second floor, other than the master or primary suite, correct?

That is correct.

And so also as a result, uh you lose a bedroom, and but you've been able to sell the few square need to have some type of office up there, right?

That's right.

So at the end of the day, in terms of changes to the programming for your property, it's gone from a four-bedroom to three bedrooms.

That's correct.

Um we've discussed a lot of the dimensional non-conformities that existed in this property and your efforts to come up with the design of meadows.

So just to be clear, um these many of these large degree from these non-conformates would go on in the event you were to find a way to actually restore what's there, right?

And modify what's there.

If we modified what's there, we'd still have all these variances.

Yeah.

So just to be clear, on this proposal, I mean, none of the existing conditions were created by you, right?

No, I have not changed anything since we purchased the property.

And based on your testimonies in your belief that this weight of the development will be consistent with the neighborhood and streets.

Yes, it'll look pretty much like it is right now, and I'll keep the neighborhood the same.

And you're essentially recreating again our technical what is there currently street safe, right?

That's correct.

And providing parking and reducing the intensity of use by family converting it to single candle, it's also taking place, right?

That's correct.

Do you believe this by being being allowed to proceed in this project?

Do you think this proposed development will alter the character of the neighborhood?

No, I think it'll be a little bit better.

So one of the other elements that you have to satisfy to get incidental variances has to be with whether or not ticket would be denied getting rid of the mere inconvenience.

So let's just discuss that for a minute.

Um these variances were not granted, you basically be faced with a few choice.

One, try to rebuild the existing structure or the basic considered to be any type of full demolition of the project, and hopefully if you could find a way that the building would structure sound and in compliance with market modern building code, is that right?

That's correct.

And as you testify, taking this path presents challenges and it's expense, correct?

That's correct.

Um is it your testimony that such an approach would be more than needed?

It would be the other approach would be to go forward with a demolition, but then meet the proportional requirements of the zoning code for this 1900 square clock, correct?

That's correct.

All right, and that would result in losing almost half of the square footage in your footprint and all the living space that it filled along with that.

Is that right?

That's correct.

You took that approach, that would be more than there means 12 minutes.

It would be uh pretty big hardship.

So is your testimony that this plan represents this amended plan that's before the board now?

The minimum relief needed for the reasonable enjoyment of this property as a single family of primary residence.

That's correct.

Another question was Chairman.

Questions from the board.

I have um one question, because we're also out asking for a height variance.

Could you speak to that and the need for the height variance?

Sure.

So I I can just summarize if you want to hear from Alice, you can testify as well.

The I did ask Mr.

Palace the question, so the height of the proposed structure is matching what is there now, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And part of the reason you're doing that is you need a little uh flexibility to elevate the house slightly to get some parking underneath.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Right.

So I guess that at least the way we would look at it is the trade-off is we match the existing height, even though that requires a height variance, but the trade-off is for getting two vehicles on site in terms of parking right now.

So if you're matching the existing height right now, but you're adding the parking underneath, would it be the foundations tall enough to accommodate the parking right now, or are we trading off because of the inconsistent floor heights on each level?

I think it's the this inconsistent floor heights that we're gonna um push down to be able to get the parking.

So you're making all the floors uh more consistent?

Yes.

Okay.

You certainly can ask that of Mr.

Kant and I have a couple questions.

I might it might be better geared toward Mr.

Ken, but I'll try this anyway.

Uh did you say uh Mr.

Jackson that the current deck size is is 129 square feet?

The current one?

The deck size is not changing, it's being it's being replicated.

Okay, the plan is to put put in 129 square feet versus allowable authority, and that's the existing condition right now.

You say um okay, I think I'll uh reserve my next question to Mr.

Cam.

It's an architectural question.

Dave.

Good.

No, I think that's big different.

Actually, you know what?

Let me try this.

Uh so if what do we know is the uh living space in the proposed plan uh of the building?

And I'd like to know what would be the uh the living space in the place if it was if it met the proportionality rule.

So I just want to get a sense of living.

I think Mr.

Kant could probably answer.

That's what I thought.

Okay.

So I'll say that for Mr.

Ken.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we're good here.

Okay.

Um if I could, I'd like to call um Kevin Bean.

So Mr.

Grimes, just to respond to that, my I think in looking at some of the numbers, um, and I can have Mr.

Khan verify if it met the proportional lot coverage, the footprint would be somewhere between seven and eight hundred square feet.

How much living space did that equal?

So then if you have to go up, you so there is a living space, but that is a pretty small footprint to be working with.

Yeah, I'd like to know that number if I could.

Okay, thank you.

So the lot size, uh oh, right.

Doug McLean will speak to that a little later in the presentation.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Please raise your right hand and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and is proceeding.

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

Kevin Beam.

And I am here representing Narragansett Engineering as well as myself, and I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of Rhode Island.

Okay.

So um, Mr.

Bean, you were engaged by the property owner uh to take a look at uh and evaluate the existing structure on site, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So why don't you just um walk through what that process entailed and explain it to the board, and then you can discuss the findings that are reflected in your report.

So it was a visual inspection.

There were no um uh material tests or destructive tests performed.

Um and the inspection started in the basement.

I I can see some photographs on one of the monitors.

Um where I was able to look at uh the foundation from the interior as well as see the framing that's supporting the first floor, and from the images, you can see that there are a number of uh temporary posts that um that are yeah, they're visible right now that would be considered inadequate and inappropriate for long-term use.

Uh there they should be just used for temporary purposes.

Uh there's uh a number of sort of ad hoc um beams and and framing members being supported by these temporary posts.

Uh there were also there was water evident on the day that I uh performed the inspection, which was in late um November.

Um it wasn't running water, but it was damp down there.

Um that was like the the main visible structure for me is down there in the basement.

I did uh inspect the um other portions of the house, the other floors of the house.

Uh I went out onto the uh rooftop deck, although I I wasn't gonna go very far out onto it.

Um that that rooftop deck right now definitely needs to be replaced.

Um what else?

Um if we could why don't we just let's go back to the foundation?

Let's let's discuss that in a little more detail in the way.

Okay.

So one if you could with a little more detail, you talked about temporary um lolli columns that are in the basement, right?

But describe the foundation.

What's the nature of the foundation?

What kind of condition is it in?

And then if you could explain to what extent would be appropriate for uh renovation and expanded structure of the So the foundation is a a stone foundation, there is mortar between the the stones, uh as you can see from some of the images.

There you can see where there has been pointing or repointing over the years, and there are some areas where there are there's no uh mortar between the stones, at least not evident.

Uh the the condition on the outside of the foundation in the limited bit that I could see was similar.

Um that there are some areas that are are pointed and and seem to be reasonably maintained, and there are other areas that are that are not well maintained.

Uh there is there was one uh section of the foundation that I I noted in my report that was um missing four or five feet along the sill line um that that would need to be replaced.

Uh in terms of long-term serviceability and and the the use of that foundation if the the rest of the house were to be renovated, uh I think is a challenge um because it is a stone foundation, uh there are areas where we're not really sure that there is mortar between the stones.

Uh the the there are two things that the foundation does.

uh in terms of long-term serviceability and and the the use of that foundation if the the the rest of the house were to be renovated uh i think is a challenge um because it is a a stone foundation uh there are areas where we're not really sure that there is mortar between the stones uh the the the there are two things that the foundation does it it provides the vertical support the gravity loading support uh but it also resists the wind loads or lateral loads that that act on the building and um it during a renovation to to retrofit um like a new construction uh foundation would have anchor anchorage requirements to the wood framing uh an old foundation like this doesn't have anchorage uh to be to retrofit anchorage on a stone foundation that doesn't necessarily have mortar um it could be done but it doesn't guarantee that you have the strength that you need in the foundation itself um so it it it it may never provide the the load resistance that you need so to paraphrase that you wouldn't recommend repurposing this foundation for renovation or modernization of the structure above I I think about it in terms if it were my own house I would say no.

So let's talk about um there are you've got sort of the main house which is right uh on the street on the sidewalk facing Anthony Street and you have what are clearly additions that were added on the back of the structure all the time correct that's correct.

Um did you get a chance to take a look at those rear additions I did yes all right what kind of what kind of observations and findings did you make relative to those so we when I was there on site um there was a a gentleman there I believe a contractor um who was able to cut a a two or three holes in the um in the plaster board uh so we could see the framing I did note in the rear part of the building that the the framing I don't even think was uh full two by four it was it was not even that much um and I did note from the outside I could see in the in the rearmost addition you can see sort of a visible sag in the roof line um and and just it it just seemed like the the general construction of it although I couldn't see all of the framing it it just seemed like it it wasn't a very well constructed couple of additions.

And and in addition the a lot of the the lally columns that you see in the basement are supporting that rear part of the house.

And then you've already mentioned the various condition of the existing deck correct that's correct yeah and then any other observations regarding structural elements of the sort of main portion of Disney DOS.

So I I think the the last thing that at least comes to my mind right now is that um while we were there and and I mentioned that the there was a a small hole uh cut in the the uh the plaster in the front part of the house um and we could see or I could see that the the framing was a full sawn two by three um framing um but it just so happened that where he cut the hole um there was missing there must have been missing clapboard on the outside of the house and we could see through uh the the planking the boards on the exterior uh that would be nailed to the exterior framing or to the the two by four two by three framing um there were there were visible gaps I could see uh into the neighbor's yard next door and it just so happened to be the one hole that he cut in that part of the house so if it it that's an indication of the condition elsewhere in the house it again that the the the gaps in the boards it it just leads me as an engineer to be concerned with the the lateral wind load capability of this uh existing structure so clearly um it would be more practical if you want to uh residence that's gonna meet modern building codes it would be more practical to take this building down and build something new as opposed to go through the expense trying to rehabilitate what is there based on condition correct and in order to have a house that it it would be serviceable for a long time to come I I would agree with that.

Okay.

No other questions questions Mr Besan sorry um I don't know if you asked to speak to this but in the pictures in your report it showed water in the basement um there's discussion here about having having uh parking area below on that on that basement um uh floor it is that of any concern to you that they're gonna be stacking up two cars in there to get some off street parking does that look like a reasonable uh expectation if they did a new build so so I think your question is uh if if they did a new build would we expect a similar kind of water intrusion and and I think the short answer I would give you is no that the the intention would be that there would be some perimeter drain or appropriate drainage put in during during construction uh to to alleviate

Is that of any concern to you that they're gonna be stacking up two cars in there to get some off street parking?

Does that look like a reasonable uh expectation if they did a new build?

So so I think your question is uh if if they did a new build, would we expect a similar kind of water intrusion?

And and I think the short answer I would give you is no, that the intention would be that there would be some perimeter drain or appropriate drainage put in during during construction uh to to alleviate the water that we see right now, which right now I I would imagine, and we could all imagine given when the house was built, that wasn't a consideration to try drainage to keep the water out of the space.

Um and and likewise we could you could plan for a sump pump if that were necessary, but I think the first thing would be to try to provide appropriate drainage for the foundation.

But you would say it would be an added in it uh it would be able to be designed to accommodate parking underneath.

Oh, yes, yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

So follow-up question to that is there a drainage plan or a water management storm water management plan there.

I think I submitted a request to waive that requirement with the zoning application simply because the net result of this project is going to reduce lot coverage, it's not going to increase any impervious surface.

Okay.

So there was not a stormwater management plan submitted with um the original plan.

Um I don't think if if that was important and you thought it should be a condition of approval if you saw it fit to approve the application.

I'm sure the applicant would be fine with including that uh if you had that as a condition.

Well, it would it would be I mean, it would make sense that they were gonna do something along those lines anyway, if they're gonna rebuild it.

Right.

Ultimately, I mean they they're gonna need to demonstrate to the building official that there's not going to be an additional discharge of stormwater onto off the off the parcel onto someone else's property or the street.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

Two thoughts.

So we're gonna have the project architect Ross can testify now.

Sure.

Please, Ross, 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 say your name, sir.

Ross can.

Yes.

Ross, I'm going to just sort of prompt you here.

Why don't you, if you could explain um the process that was undertaken when you first engage and the efforts that were made to try to come up with a plan that salvage was there, and then you can discuss the decision to go ahead and take this existing structure down and build something in the efforts that were made to replicate the building as best you could while also not increasing any non-conformities.

Sure.

Uh so the owners came to us um having purchased this site with the goal of making a permanent home here in Newport.

Uh like many people coming to Newport, they like the historic character of both the community and of the site.

And uh this was uh a sick patient that we were taking on.

Um, and as we got further and further into it, we discovered the extent of the sickness greater and greater over time in terms of structural issues.

We found many, many non-conformities in terms of uh code compliance.

And obviously, um, like doctors, we said the first thing is to do no harm, which is to in no way make the building that we're proposing uh go further into the setbacks um or uh go higher than the existing building, or in any way uh be larger in coverage than what was there previously.

So uh our goal was to make a modern residence code compliant.

Um the door that you're seeing there is actually uh 18 inches.

So um it you can basically only go through it sideways.

Things were added on later.

The structure that was built in the 1860s was actually the one that was built of the highest quality, but even then it was built as a very kind of uh working pedestrian uh type structure, and the two additions, although newer on the back were built as has been noted out of substandard um studs, the joists uh had been notched and cut to the point where they were really no longer structurally sound.

Um there was no insulation in the house.

Uh I I have a litany of things that would for you all to uh talk about with regard to the lack of code compliance.

So with that goal, um, our original plan was to somehow restore or renovate the front structure and tear off the two buildings in the back that were of really poor quality in construction.

But as we got further into it and we started to looking at the actual practicality of retrofitting the um foundation such that it would actually be able to carry uh the building for the next let this building's 150 years old, we're really thinking about the next hundred or 150 years old in terms of this.

We want a structure that will last the test of time, not just for these clients, but for the community as a whole.

Um, we came to the conclusion that replicating what was there, putting in new plumbing, new wiring, new insulation, new structure, tying the roof down to the building with hurricane clips as is now required, all of those things would be much more easily done if we were to replicate rather than uh renovate the existing structure.

So with that in mind, uh you'd asked about the spacing of the floors.

Um we knew that we couldn't go any higher than what existed.

We used that as a kind of a ceiling for for it.

We knew that we wanted to maintain the existing mansard loop roof.

We took some of the space out of the ground floor and raised it up in order to create enough room to park a car behind what looks like lattice.

So you've all seen carriage doors that are overhead type doors.

They look like they'll operate this way, but in fact, they operate this way.

This is just a variation of that same concept.

So that 99 people out of 100 will walk by and it will look just like the lattice that existed under you know all the porches along um Spring Street and Anthony Street.

Um a lot of small details to try and uh fit this modern house into what is a very, very small footprint.

Uh, we're decreasing the coverage as uh um both the owner and the lawyer pointed out, especially with the new changes uh bringing it down rather considerably.

Um are there any special questions that any of you would like to ask me?

Yeah, uh, if I may, uh I'd like to revisit the question I asked earlier, and that was if we were code compliant with I think was like 36% lot coverage, what it might.

How much actual living space would your client have?

Uh you would lose 30% of the living space that we've proposed.

So we've we really honestly only have um two bedrooms right now.

The third level is sort of a pseudo-bedroom, it's not enclosed, it doesn't have a separation from the rest of the house, so it doesn't qualify as a bedroom per se.

Um, so you would essentially be going back to a one or two-bedroom house from what it is.

So the current footprint is just over a thousand.

Uh the um zoning um uh consultant has said that it's uh I believe 699.

So that's a 40% decrease, and that would decrease all of the levels if that requirement were the case.

So I guess as we're looking at it now, there are really two major hardships.

One is the very, very small site.

This is less than 2,000 square feet in a R10.

Uh you talked about earlier tonight, 3,000 square feet being a hardship.

This is considerably more than that.

And the second is the kind of derelict condition of this house that has occurred through no fault of the owners over the last hundred years.

And Mr.

Cannon, what I'm what I'm getting at is if we were being code compliant with coverage, and I think the uh so many notes are about 30 percent would be allowed by proportionality.

36, I believe.

36%.

So how much space would that provide total square footage for uh for living?

Uh you only never did that exact calculation.

Give me an idea, give me an idea.

Okay.

Um I would say it's going to be that number, the ground level is can only be for basement or parking.

Right.

So you really would have three levels, and we can't even go to the third level because that's above the height allowance.

So it's really two floors.

So two times 700 is 1400 square.

1400 square feet.

And how much how much total square footage would you have in this new plan on a proposed plan?

I've never measured that.

Uh I to an exact number, it's been such a dynamic situation, uh, even today, with you know, a bedroom being locked off the the scheme, but I would say we're we're probably at, you know, um 2100, 2400.

Which is like that pretty standard.

Yeah, and it's not by any means palatial.

Uh we're we're basically just squeezing in what we could.

Let me ask you one more question.

Um on the uh deck coverage.

Um, I think the uh the ordinance says we're we can have 30, and you have a 129 or so.

Right.

Uh did did you address that matter at all?

Or is there any way you thought about reproducing it because that was a relatively new thing that happened?

So we began the design process under uh the previous code where maintaining the existing deck was uh a fairly standard thing, and we were actually sliding that deck further from the street.

Um and so uh we thought that that was a reasonable accommodation, that in no way had we increased the amount of deck or or terrace, but only maintained what was there.

Just to clarify that you're saying the design process started in 2025, correct.

And it started before around the same time, I suppose, as uh city council modified the ordinance relative to second third levels or allowable square footage for decks, right?

That's correct.

I recall that the new ordinance kind of hitting us uh as we were undertaking the design, but our thought was that we were not increasing the size, and therefore we would we were replicating the existing deck.

That's correct.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to follow up if I could.

So on that same vein, you brought up the word hardship, and I'm glad you brought that up because I'm still uh after reading all the material, um Mr.

McLean's report.

Um the uh the current zoning is 30 square feet on that deck.

Correct.

Um at some point, I I understand the whole uh process that went through, you're gonna renovate it and fix it, then you could keep the deck at the 129 because that was already there, but now it did start with it, it is new construction, and so in order uh for us a variance in front of us is to grant a variance that went from 30 feet square feet up to 129 square feet.

That's what we're asked to look at.

By the letter of the law as it currently is written.

Right, that's right, right.

Gotcha.

Um so, but we have to see where um there's a hardship for that.

Uh and I'm not quite clear on that yet.

And that deck that you've proposed is going to be the minimum variance needed for reasonable use of the property.

Sure.

And so that's the other one.

I just want to finish on one thing.

Thank you.

Um the other thing is the height.

Uh, new slate, 30 feet is the height.

I I am understanding that the trade-off on that particular street, Anthony Street, which is about as wide as that dais, I think, uh, needs off-street parking.

And so uh there was discussion, I like you as the architect to say to me that that it is accommodating parking underneath, you know, causing that that to be higher than the 30 feet without if you built that at 30 feet, you have no parking.

Correct.

That's exactly right.

uh needs off street parking and so uh there was discussion i like you as the architect to say to me that that it it it it is accommodating parking underneath you know causing that that to be higher than the 30 feet without if you built that at 30 feet you have no parking correct that's exactly right so that the the desire to accommodate two parking spots without taking away any parking that's there currently pushed that ground level up and that pushed all of the other levels up such that in order to have the requisite space we needed to maintain the existing building height as it existed and although I'm not a real estate representative from an architectural standpoint I think when you buy a house you have certain understanding of what is included in that house uh both the positives and the negatives the negative here being a very small site but the positive being a small outdoor deck where you know more than two people could gather three or four 30 feet is that five and a half by five and a half you wouldn't be able to actually lie down a six foot person would not be able to lie down on a five and a half by do understand that's a very small small uh yeah but um we still have to reconcile the Hodge and is what is being asked for is the minimum uh we still yes that's all I'm saying maybe Mr.

McLean can explain further what his thoughts are this my sense is that part of the reason they bought that house uh and what they thought they were getting in the purchase was a very small but not so small as 30 feet deck that they could use and enjoy outside there's literally hundreds and hundreds of upper level decks around Newport because it's one of the features that's typical of this community and and one that people enjoy but this is the the scare people are afraid of you know salvay students throwing kegers you know in residential communities that's not what this is about by any means it's tucked away it's no bigger than it is then the party they could throw tonight if they wanted to uh Mr.

Currently the modified or amended elevations are on the monitor is correct correct why don't you discuss the changes to the plans that were adopted today um with discussions uh with the least plans sure uh so there was an eight foot extension um if nick can show what was there previously uh that projected out and because the site was so small uh in order to have any outdoor space uh at adjacent to the the backyard such as it is um that extra bedroom had to project over top of that area but that even though we had removed the incursion into the rear setback with our previous design so we were decreasing the number of uh dimensional variances associated with the project this continues that and moves it even further from the side from the rear setback so imagine in that scheme that you're looking there taking a knife and cutting off the uh uh overhanging space of the second level which is eight feet uh which as we said removes one of the bedrooms but it also creates less of a um articulated mass uh it's a little cleaner and it certainly decreases the coverage rather uh dramatically from 60 to basically 55 um so it's uh more than a 10 percent decrease in the in the coverage if you could too um I didn't ask you this before but I just want I want your testimony on this why don't you describe the immediately you need it surrounding the neighborhood and then discuss how this whole structure fits sure uh it is a very dense area with lots of substandard lots these lots existed a hundred years before the overlay of the zoning you can see in the the plat map how dense it is uh in this entire neighborhood particularly to the west of the site um what's known as yachting village and then up the hill obviously you start to get into larger sites and that changes the character so it's really right on the edge between the the extremely dense um lots along fountain street um spring street and Anthony Street um most of the houses were built uh as we noted earlier in the Victorian period you know the 1860 to probably 1920 period this house the front was built in the earlier part of that era and the latter parts were sort of cobbled on later with the the deck landing on top of the building and being held up by still

So it's really right on the edge between the extremely dense um lots along Fountain Street, Spring Street, and Anthony Street.

Most of the houses were built as we noted earlier in the Victorian period, you know, the 1860 to probably 1920 period.

This house, the front was built in the earlier part of that era, and the latter parts were sort of cobbled on later with the deck landing on top of the building and being held up by stilts off of it.

We were trying to get rid of all of those structural aspects as well as the architectural discordancy of all these things that had collided into each other.

So what's being proposed in your opinion, is it fit with the surrounding area?

Yes, I think it does.

Both the one in the past and also the one in the future, and that this is becoming, like all the neighborhoods in Newport, a place where people can live full time, have up-to-date uh standards in terms of plumbing, electric insulation, uh the height of steps conforming to you know the the IRC.

And uh so the shape of it feels very much in accordance with the neighborhood.

Um I think we've resolved a lot of the the incongruent elements that occurred over time and knitted it back together again, and at the same time updated it so that it will serve um not just these owners, but many more owners over the next hundred years.

So based on your testimony, uh in your belief that this will not alter the era of the surrounding neighborhood.

No, I think it is very much in the character of the neighborhood.

Including all the existing features and the wounding deck that's supposed to be replicated, certainly that uh is duplicated in many neighboring houses, and this is one that's probably had that for 50 or 70 years.

So it's certainly of the character of that neighborhood.

Questions?

I just have one last one about the um in the new drawing where the backyard and the walkway to the garden is shown.

Green space exists there for probably six or eight feet uh existed, but we did at least because of the speed, we can probably make that uh at grade um or slightly above grade patio smaller.

We didn't even have a chance to work with the owners to work on that exact size, but we're already planting along the eastern edge so that the property of the neighborhood uh of the neighbors to the east is already divided by um some relatively small uh arborvitae, and I know it's the intention of the owners to to create some green space back there and some gardens.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Yes, Richard.

So I have uh I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask, or maybe Mr.

Jackson, but I have more of a logistical question.

Um I've done a number of construction projects in the area, and parking is is always an issue.

So this is a six-month project, realistically.

Uh I would say probably a little more.

Okay.

So yes, you got they would obviously the owners would like it done as quickly as possible.

Right.

And just due to the restraints of the area, my concern is you're gonna have concrete trucks, you know, framing crews, finished crews.

Have you given any consideration for parking the construction vehicles?

You can't do it off site, so they're not gonna be carrying lumber down the street.

So how's that all going to work?

So there's not a big inconvenience to the neighbors.

Sure.

Um there is fortunately a kind of a adjacent lot immediately next to the um existing uh property to the to the north uh that the owners have currently rented temporarily, and that could easily be a great place for loading, uh dumpsters, all of that, so that it's actually off the street.

And this is actually a better situation than we faced in many other properties, including Ann Street, which is where they live previously, and all of the the kind of yachting village uh projects that we've done over the last 20 years.

So if that's currently rented, is that lease going to become available or how's well it's being rented, I think.

I and I you'd have to ask the owner literally on a month to month basis.

It's just a side yard to somebody else's property that they haven't used.

So I think that they would uh would like to extend that temporary uh I won't even call it a lease.

So I think that they would uh would like to extend that temporary uh I won't even call it a lease, it's a kind of a rental or an informal agreement, but there is a place immediately adjacent to the property that you can see between uh uh I mean it by by the standards is probably as large as this area, yeah.

I mean the days and the and the table.

So large enough for a half dumpster.

Um and loading immediately next to the site.

So um, and the owners have engaged uh um project manager, construction manager to to look at exactly these types of issues.

They're thinking is as far in advance as they can as to how to transform this house into you know something that won't need any dumpsters for another hundred years.

Thank you.

But that's a great thank you for that.

Uh as you can see that that isn't their property, but it it's uh been available on a temporary basis and might well be available for this purpose.

Has um this project been reviewed by the historic, or is it required to be reviewed by the it is not required?

Not required.

We're not in the HDC here, but but it was built in the 1860s or so you say exactly.

We take all of our projects here in Newport and try and design them as if they were in the historic district, just because we think that's the right thing to do for the community, and it's the right thing to do for so many owners.

People are are mostly coming to Newport because they like that character, and we urge them to whatever degree we can.

If you may see in the next report, or there's another report where since we've submitted, we did three before and after views of this property from the uh northwest, the west, and the southwest.

And in each instance, you can see that the old construction and the new construction look nearly identical.

And so uh that is the exact sort of thing that we would try and do in if this were in the historic district, even though it's not.

Thank you.

Yep, those are the the images.

That's to the west, that's to the northwest, and that's to the southwest.

So you can literally see side by side what exists and what we're proposing.

And these were done not as artistic things, but as uh outputs from our building information model.

So we've created a 3D model of the building to all of its exact specifications, and then we can then look at that model from the same perspective as the photograph was taken in the first version, so that we have a very good understanding of what exists now and what's going to be there after we're done.

So follow-up question to that.

I know you said it's not in the historic district, and you're trying to replicate the historic nature.

Is it by any chance on the national registry at all?

Do you know that?

Uh it is.

Yeah.

This this whole neighborhood basically, Newport has seven historic districts.

So almost everything falls into one of those categories.

But as far as the Newport zoning goes, you know, if we uh it it it's it doesn't comply with those requirements.

But it I mean, there is some contributing attributes to and have treated as as such, I think.

Okay, you know, it would be so much easier to just put up a modern box in this location as opposed to replicating a mansard roof and dormers and all of those features, but we really felt that was the right thing to do, uh, both because it was the intention of the owners, but also because it was what was appropriate to the neighborhood and to what people remember as they drive up and down Anthony Street.

We'd like at the end of this for them to drive by this building and not even realize that something had been transformed.

And I appreciate you providing that context, because what I'm really struggling with here, there's even though it's new construction, there's a big ass.

But I think with you providing that context that it's on the national registry, you're trying to replicate what they're.

I think that's that's value to the scenario.

Yep.

And I appreciate Mr.

Riley's question about the height, because to get those uh two parking spaces tandem underneath this to be hidden, we really needed every inch that that the existing structure provided.

So we were asking for what they already had.

We weren't asking for more in any way, shape, or form.

We're not incurring uh greater coverage.

Uh we were removing right now, there's four parking spaces required, zero provided, and we're we're going to go to two with two provided.

So we're going to fully meet the parking requirement of the site.

Right.

Nicole, just to um clarify.

So the property is located in the Southern Thames Historic District, which is a nationally registered district, not recognized by the city of Newport City Council.

Um, it's not an independently registered building, um, but it is a contributing structure within the Southern Thames.

Okay, right.

Meaning it's it's not a clearly a non-contributing structure.

They it's more everything's contributing until it's non-contributing, and that's because it's a very modern structure or it's falling down, or it really is negative in some way.

I'm tracking.

At least that's my opinion as to how that list was compiled.

Yeah.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Right.

Thank you, Mr.

Kent.

Sure, sorry.

Yep.

Thank you.

Um, I'd like to call Doug McLean.

Sure.

Come on down.

Uh yes, sir.

Please raise your right hand.

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

Yes, I do.

Please state your name for the record.

Doug McLean.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

McLean, if you could, why don't you describe to the board uh steps you undertook after being engaged by the applicants?

Uh what your analysis is and what your findings are relative to the four dimensional variances that are being requested by the applicant.

Sure.

Uh reviewed all of the application materials.

I conducted a site visit of the property, the surrounding area.

I also did uh mapping analysis through the town's GIS resources and other mapping resources uh to understand the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood uh and used that to uh draft the report that is in front of you.

I also did look closely at, for example, uh the existing conditions of the property, uh the existing conditions of the structure that's there, uh, and also the design of the um architect in this case uh to draw conclusions on um the consistency of what they're proposing versus what exists on the property today.

Um so with your permission, I'll just give a very high-level summary of what's in my report.

Um, I'd like to make two main points.

One will be focused around neighborhood compatibility, and I have a section of my report dedicated to that, and the other is comprehensive plan consistency.

So to begin, um uh I think it's it's been discussed, it's well understood this concept that the the demo uh it does basically removes the the credit, so to speak, of the existing nonconformities.

We understand that, and I think you've already heard testimony about the conditions of the building, um, why it becomes impracticable, impractical to work within the conditions of the existing building.

Um, so you know, we understand that from uh from a uh code compliance and from a uh regulatory perspective, you have to look at it as a clean slate.

I do think you have the ability to understand what's on the site and have some barometer of what's reasonable.

Yeah, I think I think we understand what you're saying there.

Um I made my compatibility analysis.

You'll see it's kind of derived two directions.

One is let's look at what was there, make a few observations and findings and conclusions based on comparisons, and then I did a clean slate analysis.

Uh, if I looked at the neighborhood, I looked at the characteristics.

What does the neighborhood tell us?

What is compatible, what meets the characteristics of the neighborhood.

So I wanted to look at both options and and give you guys analysis that that looked at it those two different ways.

Um first, I think, in terms of uh an excellent point that's been raised and questioned.

Uh the lot size is 1,937 feet.

This is a very small lot, even for Newport, even for a neighborhood that has several small lots.

Uh, for example, the average lot size in the area, and the the average is skewed by a couple of larger lots, but the average is 7,428.

So this lot is roughly a little about a quarter of the size of the average lot size within 250 feet.

So we're talking about uh a uniquely small lot, that creates a lot of challenges.

And uh some of what the applicant is doing is trying to address those challenges.

And there was discussion on what would that look like if you tried to build a compliant building.

The idea is you'd probably only still get two stories.

So you're looking at just under 1,400 square feet.

And I do think that this applicant is seeking to do something that meets a more of a modern living need and provides the housing amenity that more closely relates to what's on the site today.

So I did do a quantitative analysis.

I'm gonna just give you some uh some numbers uh that are in the report.

There's tables, there's uh mapping analysis that goes behind this.

Uh I looked at all the properties within 250 uh feet of a radius, 48 surrounding properties that were evaluated for this uh for setbacks.

Um 87.8%, so almost about 90% of properties in this area happen to have a structure within one foot of a property line.

So it is the vast majority of properties here tend to have at least one side of their structure right on top of a property line.

Um let's look at lot coverage.

Um almost 40% of the surrounding properties have a lot coverage of 50% or more.

Um, and keep in mind for this lot, it is an extremely small lot.

There are much larger lots where it's easier to have a normal sized house and still meet lot coverage.

But this lot, even what they're seeing, ultimately about 55% lot coverage is the revised number.

So that's the amended ask.

Um there's still not uh they're still right around what 40% of the surrounding properties have.

So I think that's uh an indication that it is not uncommon to see higher levels of lot coverage, even with larger lots in this neighborhood.

For height, um, I did do an analysis that about 50% of the surrounding structures have a three-story structure or more.

Um, so I did look at that.

Um the roof deck, there's been some questions on that, and maybe I'll take a moment now just to address what my findings are on the roof deck.

Uh, I did look at surrounding properties.

There are roof decks in the area.

Um, I didn't do a straight uh uh quantitative analysis.

I didn't count them and then did uh did the math.

If I had to guess, I think we're maybe about 25%, so not the majority of properties, but a good number, maybe 20 to 25 percent have roof decks.

Um here's my thoughts on the roof deck if we just want to take an aside because I believe there were some questions.

I think the hardships for the roof deck are one tied to this concept of the existing house is providing a range of amenities, and the applicant is seeking to try to continue amenities that resemble the existing house.

Um, so they are trying to take advantage of a house that had a roof deck, they're not expanding it.

Um, they're trying to bring a project to you that is less conforming, but they are trying to keep the roof deck that size.

I think to shrink to 30 feet, it it doesn't become a usable space, 30 square feet.

So where they're at, they're trying to make it a usable amenity.

So that's one point.

The other point is this roof deck has been on that structure for quite a while.

Um, speaking to the applicant, we don't have a straight date on that because it was a an addition that was probably built onto that about 50 years ago, but that has been on that structure for quite a while, and the applicant's goal is to redevelop the structure with some architectural continuity to the historic elements of the structure.

So uh that deck has been on there for quite a while.

It's not something that was just put up, and it has now built into the the fabric of that property, and there is a historic element of it.

The last point in terms of the hardship is goes back to the property size and the fact that there's not much space on this lot to have a ground level deck or patio that isn't encumbered or basically so tight within the property boundaries on the exterior of this building.

Um, it is also you would note from this picture you're seeing right now, the circumstances of this property are that it's also the neighboring structures are tight up against it.

It's difficult to find a space on this property where you could have 30 square feet of an enjoyable space that isn't in the middle of a walkway, it isn't in the middle of a necessary building entrance or exit or stairway from the subject property or from the neighbor's properties.

So the roof deck is addressing a bit of a hardship that there's not much space on this property to have an enjoyable outdoor space to relax.

So I think just getting to some of those questions, that's that's what I would articulate.

And then let's uh um let's go into a few other pieces.

Uh I'll go through this quickly.

I did do an analysis in my report of the properties within 75 feet of the uh surrounding area.

That was meant to do more of a instead of a big wide net, what's right around this property.

And if you look what's right around this property, the surrounding properties become even more uh this property and this proposal becomes even more conforming in terms of height in terms of the lock coverage percentage in terms of the features and amenities that are on it.

So I looked at a 250 square foot radius, it was conforming from my analysis.

If you get close and you look at those properties that are directly abutting or nearby, it becomes more conforming.

So comprehensive plan.

I don't want to belabor or read complain citations.

You are all very familiar with your the content of your comprehensive plan.

I'll just make high-level points.

Um a lot of the content in the plan seeks to support housing, the maintaining housing stock.

I do think that part of that is maintaining a housing unit that meets that that modern living need.

You know, make the square footage of this unit, I think is important to maintaining a housing unit that can uh host uh you know a certain degree of family unit.

You you shrink the house, you are shrinking to some degree the housing opportunity that's available to this community.

So I think allowing for the house to be right in and around the same square footage is addressing this need to maintain housing and provide that need.

I do think that the plan calls for uh making an attempt to align housing with the architectural character of Newport.

I think this plan does a great job of that.

You can see the care it was taken to, uh, especially from the the front of the property to basically mimic the uh streetscape appearance that had historically been there of this of this house.

Um you see a lot of policy framework in the plan around protecting the character of surrounding areas, specifically surrounding residential neighborhoods.

I think this plan is doing that.

They're taking a lot of great care to try to develop a house that I think will result in an aesthetic enhancement of the property.

It's maintaining the character and the scale of what's historically been there.

And we have an applicant that's working with the neighbors around them to try to address their concerns.

Where there was a concern around the rear portion of the property, they're pulling that in.

And in fact, when they're pulling that in, they're losing a ground floor deck that was part of the original proposal, and they're they're losing that deck that was uh on the initial proposal as a as a means to accommodate concerns for massing and proximity to the rear property line.

So uh to wrap up, there are three the findings I've just made are about neighborhood compatibility and comprehensive plan, uh, unique character.

Uh, I do believe this property that currently hosts a non-conforming build building that is impracticable to repair is a unique characteristic of this property.

The lot size, as we've discussed, is a particularly unique characteristic of this property when you look at the average of the surrounding area.

I think that does those hardships of the property uh do support this application, not the prior action.

Uh, the existing conditions were not the action of this applicant.

When they purchased the property, these existing conditions that I just described, these unique characteristics were not a result of their actions.

So they're just doing what they can to improve the property from this point forward.

And then minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use.

I believe this applicant's making every effort to improve upon the existing conditions.

Um, and that it is unreasonable to put the applicant in a position to either repair the structure in a way that wouldn't require a demolition and the level of variance they're seeking.

Um, that would be impractical to building.

Um, and I do think it's unreasonable to seek a house on this lot that would meet the lot coverage, leading to a house that would be 699 square feet footprint.

I think those are um conditions that uh would not be aligned with um seeking uh the the applicant uh putting the applicant in a position who is just seeking to make reasonable enjoyment of the property, which is a continuation of essentially the same building, and the applicant is uh reducing nonconformities, they're reducing a rear setback.

The building was proposed as being outside the rear setback where it currently is.

They're addressing it further by pulling it back in to address neighborhood concerns.

Um they're adding parking, which is a critical concern.

So I think those go along with this applicant making an effort to make this minimal to a reasonable enjoyment.

Uh so that concludes my presentation.

I do believe this application has met the required findings for dimensional variance.

Thanks.

And it's just to be clear, since we're talking about four different variances, and you could just reiterate finding the report relative to each of the variances.

I don't need you to go through a detail you covered it, but I just want to make sure for the record you adopt everything in your report and your testimony is that each of the requested variances, the elements have been satisfied.

Yep.

Uh the side setback, the lock coverage, the building height, and the upper level deck.

I do make findings so that all of those four require requested dimensional uh variances.

There is evidence to conclude uh that they have met the required findings for dimensional variance.

Um so uh with that being said, I'm happy to take any questions.

Or questions for Mr.

McLean.

Just one quick one, Mr.

McLean.

Um, in your chart on about page seven of your report.

It's and I apologize if you said this earlier when you were um giving the general statistics.

Is it about 50% of houses in that 250 foot range are um three stories tall?

That's that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Anyway, more I think works at great, thank you very much.

Thanks.

So, Mr.

Chairman, we don't have any other uh witnesses, although my client does tell me that there may be at least one neighborhood like to say something.

Um then so do you want to entertain that before I wrap up?

Yeah, did you have anything, Mr.

Lees?

Um no, there was one more.

There was just one more condition that I spoke with Mr.

Jackson about as we were sitting here that I understand he agrees to, so I'd like to uh state what that is at whenever the appropriate time.

Sure.

Mr.

Riley is eagerly awaiting it.

So I let me just speak to my I mean so my client by gas.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, go ahead.

All right, in the meantime, if someone wants to come and briefly speak in favor, is there a neighbor here that wants to speak?

Sure, come on up.

While he's doing that, you can you can uh give your testimony.

Please raise your right hand, sir.

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

Please state your name.

Michael Firello.

Okay.

So I just wanted to say that um, you know, I understand you know all the variances and all these different things that have occurred over the years.

Um, you know, as a matter of like, you know, just legal precedents or whatever.

And you know, I've heard all this.

I also want to say that I I live on the property next door on the south side.

Um, you know, family, anybody that's come down that street from approaching it, any end of Anthony Street or you know, um any uh any any angle actually, they just comment on this house.

It's such an anchor, it's got such historic prominence, and it's to me it's almost like an elf an oak tree has been there many, many years, right?

And and what I'm hearing is you know, we want to take that down and put you know a poplar tree, you know.

And I I love the the oak tree that I've moved in next to, and I think the communities love that tree.

It's just an anchor point in the community.

Everybody talks about this house, and everybody wants to see it improved.

I don't think anybody in there has ever said that I want to see this house diminished in any way.

Um, we've all felt honored that we've got people that came into the community and quite frankly want to improve it, keep it in its historical context, and also, and I have to tell you, right?

I I go out for a ride every day, and I'm not even trying to be funny, but half the time I sit there and I go three o'clock, four o'clock in the afternoon, I gotta get back because I'm not gonna have a parking space.

Like I'm on the street, and and it drives me crazy.

So just that in itself would be I'm I'm self-serving here, but you know, it would really help me with maybe another 10 years instead of like two, because that drives me nuts.

So the fact that they want to put a garage under the house, not only for myself, but I think the community would be shared in the gracefulness and gratitude in this.

And I'm not trying to like over-embellish, but the house is a beautiful house.

We love working at the house as it is.

Um to take that away, I I can't imagine that.

So I've heard a lot about what's in the books and what people think that we're far away.

We live right next door, and we don't want to see it changed other than to be changed in the same way.

And that's just my heartfelt response to this whole hearing.

Um, the rendering that we've seen or any variants.

I mean, we we just love everything we've seen and the way they want to uh maintain this historic footprint and anchor in the community.

That's that's my two cents.

I I really hope that you you allow this to happen and just maintain that.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Mr.

Jackson.

What do you got for us?

Um I think uh Mr.

Lees had another condition.

I spoke with my clients, and the condition, the additional proposed condition is acceptable.

So the condition, well, in addition to the fact that the plans be if they are approved, that they be the plans that were submitted tonight at the hearing.

Um the modification of uh, you know, reducing the length of the building by eight feet in the back, as shown.

Um, also that the um roof pitches as shown on the plans be maintained.

Um my clients' concern would be that they don't want to see it the back portion become a flat roof, and then that's more impactful on that something that has a pitch as shown.

So it's more aesthetically is what you're talking about.

Um, yeah, but also like I say, uh a flat roof is kind of more massive to it than a pitched roof and shading and all that stuff.

Okay, Mr.

Lee, I are these uh are these roofs depicted in the new plans that were uh yes, right?

Yeah, so so would accepting the new plans as submitted well, it would, although you could theoretically change a roof pitch without coming back to the zoning board.

So that's why it would be a condition of maintain the roof pitches as shown on the did you sign an exhibit number to this?

I just except one.

Thank you.

I just treat this as a singular yeah, perfect.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, just quickly, I think um, I know you're probably uh satisfied with all the information you have and you're ready to deliberate.

I don't need to um spend too much time on this.

I think what you have before you is a very reasonable plan to achieve a couple of objectives.

One is to have a residence which meets modern building codes, which is structurally sound and can be structurally sound going forward.

Uh, I think we've provided ample evidence through testimony and exhibits that making an effort to rehabilitate what's there doesn't achieve that objective.

Um architecturally, what's proposed replicates what is existing, and um I think although you know I understand the requirements under the code and the you know the challenge that's presented by um proposing the lot coverage numbers that we're proposing and and all the elements when if you look at proportionality of a vacant lot, you know, it seems like it's a big ask.

I would suggest that really what we're asking is just a continuance of uh I think it was phrased by either Mr.

McClain or or uh Mr.

Can continuity of what's there, and I think that's a reasonable ask in light of the fact that the lot is less than 2,000 square feet.

Uh it's a it's a existing structure which has an identity on that streetscape that we're going to be maintaining by essentially rebuilding architecturally and visually what's there.

Uh, we're improving some of the non-conformities.

We're certainly not making any more intense.

We're providing parking.

Um, and we worked with Mr.

Lee's clients today to make significant changes.

Um, you know, most of the time you think about removing eight feet or something.

It doesn't sound like much, but this has a significant impact to the interior program for my clients because they've just lost a bedroom, which would be a spare bedroom in this uh in this.

So I think they've made significant concessions to reduce the massing in the back to address the concerns of their neighbors.

The other neighbors they've spoken to have been supportive of the project.

Um I think it's appropriate for the street.

I think you've heard from uh Mr.

McLean on how all the variances uh the evidence presented has satisfied the requirements for the variances, and um you've heard no evidence contrary to that from any witnesses.

So um I would respectfully request that as you deliberate you make findings and grant the variances that are requested.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lees, did you want to say anything?

Uh okay.

Okay, everybody.

Okay, everybody, we're going to now close the testimony portion of this petition.

And I'm going to ask my vice chairman, Mr.

Riley to fashion a uh motion on this.

We will uh open discussion and have a vote.

Okay, Ms.

Chairman.

Um let's see.

There were two different names on the uh ones on the staff report and one's on the uh agenda.

I'll read the name as outlined on the agenda.

Um the petition of 20 to 22 Anthony remoteable trust.

I move to adopt the board's binding effect.

Um we did clarify in the staff report the the ownership that was listed on the original application was the previous owner.

Um, if we could use the new ownership, we can get it right in the decision letter.

Okay, yeah, no, I'll start again.

Um the petition of 20 to 22 Anthony Street LLC.

I move to adopt the board's finding of fact, the information staff report, applications and supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, representations of both council uh together along with the comments spread on the record by the board members and adopted the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the new port zoning ordinance entitled uh variances and modifications that the petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of according the decision, the additional conditions that uh uh water management uh be addressed as the building is constructed.

And number two, uh the plans submitted as exhibit number one reflect the building that to be approved tonight, and the pitch on the roof as shown um in this exhibit uh not to be changed.

Very good.

That was a mouthful.

You don't like that, Mr.

Lees?

I've pitches of the roof are not to be changed.

Okay.

Uh very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Appreciate that.

Do you want a second?

I do, actually.

That would be great.

Thinking about other things, but yes, please.

Second.

Second.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that, Nicole.

Anyone want to tackle this first?

Or how do we want to?

Okay, very good.

Thank you, Ms.

Sherry.

So coming into this petition for the hearing, there were a lot of elements going on.

It a big ask.

Um, requesting a lot of variances.

And so typically, in my mind, when we're looking at this, there's a distinction between a renovation and new construction.

And we always give a higher level of scrutiny on these requests to new construction because you're starting off with a clean slate.

Uh, and the world is really your oyster on whatever you can do.

I think Mr.

Behan did a really nice job of explaining why uh this building had to be demolished um and become new construction.

I personally did a very similar remodel and can appreciate all the challenges uh that are going on here.

Um it's an undersized lot.

There's a lot of logistical challenges that we talked about and with construction and how to manage that.

Um as we were hearing the testimony today, uh, without necessarily going down the path of like a design review.

How do we fit into the standards that we have here with the zoning ordinance?

Um could we pull back on a side setback?

Could we remove the height variance?

Could we do something with law coverage?

I appreciate that law coverage was reduced because that was a big concern for mine going in.

You you started off at the beginning of this hearing before the modifications were made of being at top uh law coverage for the area, and now you have lot coverage uh that is more consistent and harmonious with the neighborhood.

McLean talked about in his report about the building height being consistent um and so we were starting to to build um that this is a building that even though it's new construction would be consistent with the neighborhood I think the tipping point for me um and what ultimately made my decision one way or the other um was when we were having that conversation about the the national registry and even though it's not in the historic district there's really no obligation uh or review process for you to replicate what's there it is on the national registry it's on the Rhode Island National Registry and so the regulatory intent there is that this is something that needs to be preserved something that needs to be held for future generations.

So I think combined with the neighborhood testimony of how this is a core anchoring house uh really pushed me in the decision to say yes this is something that should be approved um based on what we have in front of us and so for those reasons that's why I'll be approving this petition.

Great thank you Ms.

Chevry wanna go Dave John you know I I um this there were a lot of variances included in this in this uh in this request a lot of them to me were sort of slam dunks um it it is a very unique neighborhood in a city that has lots of lots of unique neighborhoods uh very very very small lot uh 1937 square feet um so without question a hardship a building at uh at 54% lot coverage um is a reasonable request um and uh through the testimony from Mr.

McClain uh the lot coverage um of the new structure will be right in line with what's happening in that particular neighborhood um so uh that's a that was an easy one of the variances to look at and say that granting that variants provide reasonable enjoyment uh of a permitted use um and the set back I say the same exact thing on the setback application uh that there's there's not much room to move sideways or front or back on this and it's less than a foot and um I I think that that was a very um simple um variance to um uh uh see uh has been reasonably requested I I uh I believe that the neighbors uh input on having this building uh the rear of the building um um brought down in size and massing uh made made a big deal to me as far as uh looking at this building now and it doesn't look as though it has taken some decks off of it and added on a huge massing of additional uh space uh um and um it does mean something that that the uh that there's been a loss of a a bedroom as well as uh a rear deck uh in in that process um the height relief um um uh again I struggle with but uh that that property and the neighbor mentioned that also uh I don't know how anyone uh has a house up there because there's there's probably 20% parking spaces for cars that are needed so by picking up those two additional parking spaces I think that was a reasonable um uh expectation for me to say well maybe we can exceed even though it is new construction the 30 foot um the 30 foot um uh um limit so um um uh accommodating the parking would have been the hardship and and the uh minimal relief there was uh what they were getting at the 33 feet which was the existing relief and finally on the uh exterior deck um it is it is situated in a way that we don't see uh and we and wish we saw way less of them decks perched on top of houses uh this one is sort of even though it is on the third floor it is it is it is in the middle of the property um it it will be seen by one or two neighbors on each side of them uh it is still relatively small uh although far exceeds what would be acceptable today on on on rooftop decks but I think when you take you have to take uh

Uh this one is sort of even though it is on the third floor, it is it is it is in the middle of the property.

Um it it will be seen by one or two neighbors on each side of them.

Uh it is still relatively small, uh, although far exceeds what would be acceptable today on on rooftop decks, but I think when you take you have to take uh uh the application as a whole, and as a whole, I think I would be inclined to approve this petition.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Who wants to go next over here?

Oh I'd be happy to go I'll share plan.

Um so I would say my um my hang up is the deck.

Um it's the only area where I can't really find a proper hardship for it.

Um because I'm adamantly convinced that the property, the lot is severely substandard.

Um, because I even believe that the parking is a hardship, and um the good responses from this project are to increase the lot coverage, build upwards because you don't really have any other way to go, and um you know, provide some ease in the setbacks.

I think sorry, I just I sort of lost my thought pattern there.

I think the fact that you don't have to build up so much to accommodate some parking underneath.

And if you talk to anybody from Newport, including Mr.

Fiorello, Fiorelli.

I apologize if I got that wrong.

Um, you know, I think that's kind of like a golden ticket to get a little extra height.

Um back to the issue of the deck, though.

Um some green space exists in the back yard, uh, as small as it is.

I don't know that asking for 99 feet um over what's allowed now.

Um is really a good accommodation, even to allow a six foot tall person to recline.

Um but I I do think I'm willing to bend on that a little bit because the project overall fits the neighborhood because it improves some of the non-conformities.

Um the neighborhood does have the same characteristics that this project results in um with the excess lot coverage.

40 percent of the surrounding properties are 50 percent or in excess of that lot coverage, almost 50 percent um are three stories tall, and 90 percent have lower setbacks on at least one side.

Um the upgrades to the building improve the neighborhood, they improve housing conditions in Newport, and uh and again that benefit of adding parking uh in a highly constrained area.

So I'll um I don't think the full cases there for the size of that deck, but I think the other issues um outweigh that.

So I'm gonna approve the application.

Very good.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Grimes, uh will also vote to approve this application.

Let me just think when I first jumped into this case, um I I said which some of the other board members are saying it was a big ask.

And um as I as I began to listen to testimony tonight, I began to understand uh what the key issues were.

My initial concern was uh this would create too much density uh on the property, but this was pretty much a uh a uh renovation versus um uh I mean I'm sorry, it's a replication versus a renovation.

So pretty much this already existed.

So in terms of the setbacks, I was satisfied the height is pretty much where we are now, and and we are making some accommodation for for uh for parking.

Now with that said um I do believe that one of the reasons they need a larger deck is because you know because of the hardship.

This is a 1900 square foot lot.

Um and one of the questions I I I kept uh uh asking the architect about was you know living space um how much you know what are you doing here I I was afraid you're gonna create a place with three thousand square feet of living space and you're creating that Taj Mahal on uh uh on uh Anthony Street um and I and I learned after after interrogating them that you you want a place which has modern living standards.

You're not asking anything beyond that.

One of the key things that comes up in almost all our board meetings is parking.

Now I'll be honest with you I went to see this with this property for the first time I'd rode around the neighborhood twice and I wasn't happy because I couldn't find any place to park.

So um so so I parked illegally at the library.

Fortunately I didn't get tags so in order to check on this place.

So I I knew where we were I thought I knew what we were dealing with here.

Um so I think the fact that you were able to create two cars was uh it was it was almost a you know space for was as was uh uh a a miracle if you will and and I think uh any architect that can do that with God bless you um the uh so certainly um I I was you know the uh I think you had to have modern living and there's no other way to do this um than to create a this this this column or building you have there but it was done uh beautifully I mean they the the they had a demolition because uh the technical review committee approved it yeah this needs to be replaced and I heard this uh uh nauseum tonight but they also went through the efforts of uh hiring uh uh a uh a really uh a fine architect to go into great detail to meet the standards and and I think this this property will fit in this neighborhood beautifully once it's parking of course um and um so anyway so be so because of that I I I too will vote to approve this this petition great thank you mr grimes so um I too am gonna vote to approve this petition uh I again I echo uh uh all my fellow board members' comments on this and and and by the way for you folks who've been sitting here I don't always go last so um just just sometimes uh tonight that's been the case but um uh uh the the way that this has gone and the testimony that we've had and the comments that we've had in our discussion uh I fully agree with I want to take a little bit of a different viewpoint to this I want to look at the whole process that this this uh petition has engendered and I think it's the way the Newport zoning board should work and that is is that we had neighbors that uh had some objections um to the we had neighbors that were supportive of it as well as neighbors that had objections and they got together and they work things out so you know nobody's getting a hundred percent of what they want but um it allows people to get along and so to me that's really important.

So I hope that as a result of this that um with the neighbors and working this out that you folks you know will have a cordial relationship at least um going forward on this and uh that would be my hope and that's what we want to see here that's what I want to see on the zoning board is uh is people getting along and so I've seen that that being said when I looked at this I did uh agree actually with the abutters um that there was a lot of mashing on this and so I thought it was a legitimate um uh concern and to see the difference in the plans from the what was originally there and what is now there I think it's a big difference and it makes it makes a difference for me.

Um the other thing is is uh again to reiterate the parking uh it's a huge issue here in Newport that's what we deal with uh all the time and to be able to fit in two places down there kudos to Mr.

Can I think it's a brilliant plan.

Um and uh I think that uh you know I think that that that aspect of it I don't know what how you're doing it but I get it but you're not raising the the height of the building and you're able to put two parking spots in there that as you said are unobtrusive because of the uh the screening that's there.

Can I think it's a brilliant plan um and uh I think that uh uh you know I think that that that aspect of it I don't know what you how you're doing it but I get it but you're not raising the the height of the building and you're able to put two parking spots in there that as you said are unobtrusive because of the uh the screening that's there um so that part of it I I agree with the last thing is is thank you for your testimony sir because it made a great deal of sense we like to hear things like that what the neighbors think and and to you to say that that's the oak tree and you want to see it continue to be that way it has a lot of meaning to us we do pay attention to these things uh as well and so that speaks to me to replication in terms of what it was and doing as much as you can to make sure that it looks the same as it did when before it before it came down clearly it had to come down that part of the testimony was a no-brainer to me looking at uh what was going on with that so I agree with all those things lastly the deck I'm gonna go with Mr.

Grimes on this one I think there's a hardship there's not a lot of green space out in the back uh to be able to do anything and have any outdoor living so I'm okay with that and it's it's what was there anyway I get the whole idea of a clean slate but to your point you know you want the building to look the same because that's the beauty of the building it is historic even though it's not uh to Miss Chevry's point it isn't an historic district so I think that those aspects all worked out together as well so my point is is that overall I think that this is a well conceived project there would have been some back and forth with the neighbors and I think everybody's gonna be ultimately happy with the results of this and that's really ultimately for me what I want to see.

So for all those reasons I'm gonna be supportive of that and by the way your all your testimony was good by the way it was very very helpful.

So I want to thank you guys for that and we listen to you.

So I'm gonna be supportive of this uh as well clearly um so that closes the discussion we're now gonna take a vote um let's start with you Ms.

Padovina how do you vote I am an aye mr grimes mr grimes aye mr rudd is an aye mr riley aye miss chevry aye that looks like five to zip to me um if you could for that mr jackson please write that up that would be great thank you all very much appreciated and I have a motion to close the meeting please so make a motion to close the meeting second second all in favor aye the meeting is now closed thank you all very much good job