Mr.

Chair, we're good whenever you want to go.

We are okay.

And we'll just talk it back and break it up.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Newport Zoning Board of Review.

Our regular monthly May meeting.

Today is May 18th, Monday, May 18th, 2026.

And the roll call of uh of voting members tonight.

We have our regular uh voting uh membership, our full voting board with Nicole Chevry starting from my left to uh our vice chairman Dave Riley, Secretary Russ Johnson, myself, Wick Rudd, and Bark Grimes.

Um there are going to be at least one case where one of our members is gonna have to recuse.

So Melissa Padovina will be sitting in on that one at least.

Uh okay.

So moving on, we've we've got a quorum, obviously, and we have two alternates as well.

Uh let's talk about the minutes.

Um we've got three minutes uh draft minutes.

Uh we've got the corrected version from March 23rd, 2026.

We have the draft minutes from our April 13th meeting of 2026 and the draft minutes of our April 20th, 2026 meeting.

Um, and I think we'll take these one at a time, Nick.

Is that what you want?

Okay, so I'll entertain a motion uh to accept as written the corrected draft minutes of the March 23rd, 2026 meeting.

I make a motion that uh we accept the minutes of the meeting of March 23rd, 2026.

Corrected draft minutes as written.

Do I have a second?

Second, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that is unanimous.

And I have a motion for April 13th, 2026, please.

Yes, I make a motion to accept the minutes of April 13th, 2026, as written.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that's unanimous as well.

And finally, April 20th, 2026.

Rap minutes.

Make a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting on April 20th, 2026 as written.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it on that as well.

And um they they were uh they looked okay to me, Dave.

They were pretty good, huh?

The minutes thumbs up on that.

Look good, very good.

Good catch on March 23rd.

That was excellent.

Okay, moving on to communications, uh, an extension request that are none.

Uh withdrawal requests that are none.

Uh and surprisingly, on the summary calendar, there are no uh no summary calendar uh items.

Uh so we will move directly on to the abbreviated summary calendar of which we have four items tonight.

And um, if you would, Mr.

Secretary, reading the first abbreviated summary tonight.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

This is the petition of John Gullison, applicant Bonnie Zimbel, owner, 22 Newport Avenue, tax assessors plat 14, lot five in an R10 zone for dimensional variants to allow for four stacked tandem parking spaces on a multifamily property.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Yes, Mr.

Lynch, you're representing Mr.

Gulison.

Petitioner, Mr.

Board, Jay Lynch on behalf of the owner and applicant.

Uh this is a pretty straightforward application.

We're looking for dimensional relief for parking spaces on the subject.

Excuse me for just one minute.

I gotta get back in the swing of things.

Um there are no letters of objection.

Is anybody here in person in objection to this petition?

On Newport Avenue.

Is anybody here in objection, objecting this petition?

Hearing none, please continue.

Um this is a multifamily uh property.

Uh there's a three-family dwelling.

Uh there is a one uh unit uh senior uh housing uh site, and we're proposing an accessory dwelling unit and existing garage.

Um in addition to that uh some months ago uh this board granted uh a special use permit for adjacent property at 17 Bayview Avenue, which required three spaces on the subject site being devoted to parking uh on the 17th Bavy property.

What we have tonight, we've presented a petition where we have 11 parking spaces, which satisfies uh the use uh on the subject site, and it also accounts for those three spaces that were part of the special use permit for the Jason 17 Baby property.

Uh, what we're doing is we're having four stack spaces, and we're going to delegate those to the first floor unit and second floor unit together, so there won't be any confusion.

Each unit is gonna have the stack park.

Right.

So that's what I read there.

So you'll have two sets of two, correct?

That is correct.

So one stack of two will be devoted to one apartment and the other stack of two will be devoted to the other.

Exactly.

Okay.

Gotcha.

I do have Mr.

Gullison here if you have any questions.

I personally do not uh board members.

Do we have any questions of uh Mr.

Lynch or Mr.

Gulison?

Uh yeah, um this the stack parking, I'm sorry, is up in the top of the frame of the correct tap type top right hand.

Yeah, okay.

So those are the the couple of stack pockets, and the uh ADU does not require any uh it's gonna require one space which has been factored into our calculations, yeah.

Okay, but does not require except for the parking space does not require any additional variances or anything else in the ADU.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Board members, other questions of Mr.

Lynch, Mr.

Golson?

Hearing none, I think we're all set, Mr.

Lynch, very much.

Uh I'd like to entertain a motion if I could, Mr.

Vice Chairman, on this petition.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

On the petition of uh John Gulison applicant Bonnie Zimbo owner, um I move to adopt as the board's finding of facts, the information of staff report, applications, supporting plans and documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with representations of counsel, together with comments spread on the record by the board members, and adopt the board's uh as the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

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 recording the decision.

Great.

Thank you, Dave.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Miss Chevry.

Um, does anybody have any discussion?

Hearing none, we'll just go straight to a vote.

Uh all those in favor of this petition of John Gulison, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that's five zip.

Um, in your favor.

If you could, Mr.

Lynch uh write up the uh decision, that would be great.

We would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Good luck to you guys.

Okay.

Moving on to abbreviated summary number two.

Yes, this is the petition of Samuel Hamilton the third applicant, top notch LLC owner, 58 Beacon Hill Road, Unit A, Tax Assessors Plat 43, lot 60 in an R160 zone historic overlay for dimensional variances to expand a second floor deck from 395 square feet to 631 square feet, where 100 square feet is allowed, increasing the lock coverage from 6.62% to 6.76%, where six percent is allowed.

Great.

Thank you.

Yes, who am I speaking with?

Good evening.

Babe Lackey from Paul Weber Architecture representing Sam Hamilton.

Okay.

So I don't have to swear you in then.

Very good.

Um, yes.

Uh so what what is it that you'd like to tell us about this?

So um on the plans in front of you, you'll see uh where I think we should uh swear him in.

He's um the architectural designer.

Oh, I thought you were a lawyer.

No, you're not a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

David Lackey.

Okay, very good.

Mr.

Lackey, yes, carry on.

And before you do, um, are there any objectors?

There were no written objectors to this petition.

Are there any objectors here tonight for this petition on uh Beacon Hill Road?

Hearing none, please carry on, sir.

So the the main goal for this uh deck edition is not necessarily to expand the deck, it's to create connectivity from the exterior to the first floor.

Basically, I think it says in the application it's a second floor deck, but it's a first floor deck, it's a very sloping site, and so the deck cantilever's out over you know, a clifffall basically.

The owners trying to gain access from where they park to the deck and into their mudroom.

Secondly, they'd love to have a second means of egress out.

They now have small kids, and so they felt that the one means of aggress that they had wasn't adequate, and so this provides that second means of egress.

Um it seems like uh a lot of square footage, but it's only that much because the addition, because of the drop off of the cliff, you have to sort of walk out and then come back to the door.

So it's sort of you know the stair component and then the connectivity back to the house.

Um the diagram shows it on um on the plans of as you can see there in the corner.

So it's just filling in in a corner to allow that access.

That's all we're asking.

Okay.

Great.

Is the petitioner here with you, or you're just representing them?

I'm sorry.

Is your petitioner here with you?

He's not here.

Okay.

So it's just you.

Okay.

Very good.

Um any questions from board members of Mr.

Lackey?

Uh yeah.

Um, this uh went through the HDC, right?

It did.

And and what do they have to say about this project?

Uh they approved it unanimously unanimously.

Um, and this was sort of the design that they uh settled on as being the appropriate design.

Okay, and they were aware that you were increasing the uh uh the deck square footers considerably.

Um, thank you.

Great, thanks for it.

I don't have a question, but I just uh would state that for the reason stated by uh Mr.

Lackey, uh this makes sense to me.

You've got a basically a deck that has no way off of it.

Um, and so this now allows them the egress that they're seeking.

And uh uh while it does exceed uh slightly the uh existing uh coverage, uh I I feel it's a reasonable request.

Okay, anybody else?

Yeah, I to your point.

I mean it it it it doesn't actually look that much bigger than you know, when you see it on the prints than the old deck.

Um, you know, it's been in the news lately.

Sort of I'm gonna call it a gerrymander deck because it's got this long slim thing, you know, coming out on the side.

So um we'll keep it topical.

But um, no, I think that's fine.

And then also the other thing is it doesn't uh it's not visible from the street, right?

That was made clear.

Um, I forgot to mention that it is not visible from any other problem.

Okay, very good.

And so hearing no more questions, um, I think we're ready to take this to a vote.

Mr.

Riley, okay, Mr.

Chairman.

Um the petition of Samuel Hamilton the third applic and applicant top notch LLC.

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

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

Great.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Anyone want to have discussion or should we go right to a vote?

No.

Okay.

Very well.

Um let's take a vote.

All those in favor of this petition on Beacon Hill Road, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it on unanimously.

Um thank you, sir, Mr.

Lackey.

If you can obviously communicate that to your client, um they're all set.

Um I wish you were, Laura, because then I would ask you to write up the decision.

But um, but you're not.

So it's okay.

Thank you.

All righty.

Okay.

And moving on to number three.

Yes, this is the petition of Ralph and Laura Witt, applicants and owners.

Seven Cottage street, tax assessors plat twenty-five, lot ninety-three, and an R 10 zone with historic overlay for a dimensional variance to construct pool equipment pad and related pool equipment two point one feet from the south side property line where four point nine point zero nine feet is required.

Great.

Thank you.

Yes, to whom am I speaking?

Uh Ralph Witt, homeowner.

Oh, you're the homeowner, okay.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Ms.

Proceding?

Yes.

Please say your name for the record.

Ralph Witt.

Okay, if you can put that microphone up a little bit so we can hear you.

There you go.

Great.

Okay.

Um you look familiar to me.

You've been in front of us before, have you not?

Yes, we've gotten approval for, you know, various things.

Uh we including uh a small pool.

Including the pool, right?

Yeah.

Including the pool.

Yeah, and we just uh neglected to add a pool pad.

So this is request for that.

Great.

So take us through um where is the pool pad?

Uh I think I saw it, but it's it's right behind the garage and sitting directly behind an eight foot fence.

That'll be installed.

Uh so it's exactly in line with the garage, not beyond it on the south property line.

Right.

And so it's not right next to the pool then, right?

There's it's behind the pool, yes.

It is okay.

It's the most logical location.

Otherwise it'd be okay, yeah.

It's right at the bottom of that drawing, right behind the garage, okay, behind the pool.

Yeah.

It's really a logical location because otherwise it'd be, you know, basically where our patio would be.

I'm just curious why we didn't approve that when we approve the pool.

Oh, it was because I neglected to add it.

Oh, okay.

All right.

That makes sense.

And we do have uh HTC approval as well.

Right, okay, yes, we noticed that.

Questions, board members?

Uh yeah.

Um, I first saw this application, I saw a pool pad.

I'm not what is a pool pad, and why wasn't it included in the original application?

Again, I as a homeowner neglected to add that.

It's effectively, you know, not even concrete, it's effectively um composite flabs where you're putting your pool equipment on.

So that would be like the filter, the heater, etc.

So people don't put that in as part of a pool application, isn't it implied?

Well, he just said he forgot.

They do normally I said it neglected to add it as part of that.

You put it in.

Okay.

House renovation.

It was, you know, a front porch, it was a garage.

So it was a small tiny little piece that of the bigger project, and uh, you know, how long ago did you put the pool in?

I'm sorry.

When did you put the pool in?

It's it's not in at the same time.

Oh, it's not even in yet.

All right, so now you just want to add this once we get this will proceed.

Oh okay.

Okay.

Yeah, Ms.

Chairman.

Uh Mr.

Witt, the um, um I I don't know what the noise level of the operation of the pool, the pool filter, heater and so forth.

Can you speak to that?

I can't speak to the actual decibels.

I would say it's in a location that's in the backyard right against, you know, behind the garage effectively.

Right.

Uh sort of adjacent to the uh next door neighbor's property, that's why I'm asking it is uh their front porch was far on the side of the house.

I uh frankly more noise probably coming in the other direction uh based on the multifamily size of that unit.

I think there's six apartments in there.

You have any idea how many hours a day you have to run it or planning to run it.

Just filters would be the main thing running it, and then you know, obviously in the summer we would have a heater that would you know run, which is very quiet.

So I don't think pool equipment is out.

I mean, other people's houses, probably you know, to me, I wouldn't be a noise considered, but they're making these things fire these days.

They are.

We know that.

It's very high efficiency.

Yes.

Yeah.

It's common we we put on a uh uh a time of operation on uh generators, and I don't know what the thoughts of the uh board would be.

That's why.

Yeah, if you're filtering a pool and chlorinating it, and you can't just cut that off.

To be clear.

Mr.

Riley, we usually put uh condition on generators because they have to be tested once a month because they they operate for like a significant period of time while they're testing them.

The pool equipment, we've never set a time limit or a condition of approval on that.

I would say that generally the standard noise ordinance would apply to this.

So if a neighbor were to think that it was violating the noise ordinance, we could get a decibel reader out there and check it.

Um, but I would say it's probably unlikely for a pool.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nick, generally is usually picked once a month a week.

Not a month, right?

Oh, I thought it I thought it was once a month, but once a week.

I don't have one, so I don't know.

So once a week.

Once a week.

Okay.

Okay.

Other questions?

Mr.

Witt.

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

Okay.

Um a petition of uh Ralph and Laura Whip.

Um I move to adopt is the board's finding of fact, the information in the staff report, application, supporting plans, and documents, testimony of the witnesses, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, adopt as the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under Chapter 17.108 of the new pod zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

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

Great, thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Any discussion at all on this petition.

Hearing none, we'll go to a vote.

All those uh in favor of this petition, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, uh, you're all set, sir.

That's a unanimous decision.

Good luck to you.

I hope we don't see you too soon.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving onward and upward, we have one more abbreviated summary, and then we'll move on to the full hearings.

Yes, this is the petition of Bruce and Jenine Broussad, applicants and owners, 719 Bellevue Avenue, tax assessors plat 38, lot 20, and an R60 zone historic overlay for dimensional variances to enclose an existing three level deck structure and construct an attached first floor deck located 27.16 feet from the west side property line where 40 feet is required, increasing the lock coverage from 17.72% to 18%, where 10% is allowed, and modifications of the roof structure over this portion of the building, increasing the overall building height of the addition to 37 feet one quarter inch.

Great, thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Jackson.

You didn't need Mr.

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

Excuse me for one minute.

Um so again, uh there were no letters of objection that we've received, but is anybody here in objection to this petition tonight?

Nobody's here in objection, okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Jackson.

Uh so I'll just give a brief um description of what's being proposed.

And I also have with me this evening uh Helen Johnson and Bill Murphy, both from Kirby Perkins to answer any technical questions if you have any.

Um this is a historic structure located at 719 W Avenue.

Um the contributing structure is on the south side of the lot, if you will, and on the north side of the structure is this large rear edition, uh, which also connects, you see that connector to the carriage house.

The large rear edition in itself is about a hundred years old.

However, it's been modified and changed over the years to the point where it doesn't have any really historic fabric.

And uh as evidenced by the fact that it's a sort of an 80s looking shingled um addition that currently has in the northwest corner a three-level open deck structure.

Um I think uh Nick and Zach, those are probably found in some of the original application materials.

There's a photo of the existing decks.

Um so what's being proposed, um, what started as a project to propose to enclose that deck also evolved into a request to elevate the roof two feet.

And the reason being um part of the reason that the that Kirby Perkins started the construction project was that the flat roof over that large rear edition failed, and uh there was water penetration in that northwest corner, which caused fair amount of damage inside the structure.

So as the project evolved, um, and it was after we initially filed the application to enclose the decks, um, it was determined that the best way to remedy the roof structure was to change the nature of the roof so it's not a straight flat roof, so that there's some pitch to it.

Still gonna be a membrane roof, but there's gonna be some pitch so that there's no longer uh uh a drain in the center of the roof, which could be compromised and cause water damage again.

So the petition that's before you this evening um relates first to the modification of that deck structure to enclose it with the small addition of an associated deck uh at the new exit right next to that canopy.

Um the petition that was submitted um calls for a total uh increase of lot coverage of 165 square feet, which is in context of the size of the lot, approximately one-third of one percent of lot coverage.

That corner of the structure, uh, because there's an odd boundary line on the west, that corner of the structure actually already encroaches into a setback.

So any modification of that results in the need for the setback variant, so that's why you have that.

And again, um the roof uh needs to be elevated two feet so that the roof structure can be modified slightly to uh avoid future problems with water penetration.

Um, the project was in front of the HDC for a couple meetings.

They came out, there were site visits, the plans, the design plans changed quite a bit as that project evolved to the point where it's now what you see before you this evening, which was approved at the last HDC meeting.

Um the changes all relate to design and architecture, and none of them impact uh or increase any of the um variance requests that are part of this application.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

And again, we've got uh Bill and Helen here from Curry Perkins also to answer questions if you have any.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Do we have questions of anybody?

Any questions?

Dave?

Yeah, um uh Mr.

Jackson, there was a note in the staff report regarding the change of architects, and to just get on the record that uh this those are the plans submitted from the old architect.

It the plans had the same square footage, correct?

So the amounts and so forth at the uh, the site plan um that's that's part of the application package, and um the amended application itself in terms of the matrix of information, which indicates what's being requested in terms of dimensional variances and things like that.

That has not been impacted by virtue of a change in terms of bringing in a new architect to come up with a design.

That was done strictly because we seem to be reaching um, you know, uh we're at a point where it was clear based on the previous designs, the HDC was not going to approve it for aesthetic reasons, and so we've brought in a fresh look and and they were pleased with the changes, but the dimensional components of this have not changed.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Other questions?

Yeah, what is the current use of this building?

Uh, it is a multifamily development, so it's a condominium complex.

There are seven dwelling units, and the applicants, the Bruce Ards own six of the seven dwelling units.

I see.

Okay.

I was wondering how you split all these uh seven owners and made it as a desert.

Okay.

One owner has six units.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

And what about the other owner?

Uh how does that come into play here in terms of the request uh before us?

You need a uh I mean from a from a from a operation of the condominium association, it doesn't.

I mean that the the Broussards own the controlling interest, so from that respect.

I think um the remaining owner is clearly, you know, all these pro this overall project is still a component of the association.

Okay.

So she understands what's going on.

She's on board.

I don't think this directly impacts her unit.

I think her unit is from correct bill further in the historic house.

So it doesn't impact this rear addition, which is you know, this shingled rear edition, which is suffering from the water penetration.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh Mr.

Jackson, um, the stairs that uh that are coming off of in the photo that's up on the screen right now.

Uh that's access for everybody throughout the building, or is that just for those units, or that's a good question.

Okay, okay.

Sorry.

Yeah, that's so that's that's for the whole that's a yeah.

Yeah, I couldn't I couldn't figure I couldn't see it on the plans.

What's going on?

So that brown, uh is that an overhang or uh some sort of that's that's like a canopy which connects to the cottage uh the carriage house, excuse me.

Okay.

There's a multi-screen.

That's across it, right?

Yeah, the back of the property, a multi-stall carriage house with a dwelling on the second floor and multiple garage stalls on the first floor.

Um Nick, can you go back to that photo again, please?

So the uh existing decks that were there, they're enclosed, and that's that three story enclosure that we're looking at.

Correct.

And then there's a bump out.

Is there a second floor deck there or is that just a roof?

Yeah, this is the roof, okay.

Bill, do you want to come up?

No, I okay.

Yeah, well, instead of us getting it from the penis gallery, why don't we get to answer the question?

Come on up, Bill.

Come on, I want to swear you in.

Come on up.

Let's go.

Please raise your right hand and 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.

Bill Murphy.

Thank you.

So there's no access to that roof.

This I guess what I'm getting at is this any intention of that being a deck, or that anyone on the upper floors would also add up anything to that to uh put another deck on.

Okay.

Okay, that was the question I that I had.

Thank you.

Other questions of anybody?

Hearing none, I think we'll put this to a vote.

Thank you.

You would, Mr.

Riley.

Yes, uh, Chairman.

On the um petition of uh Bruce and Janine Bussard.

Um I move to adopt as the board's finding of facts, the information and staff report, applications, supporting plans and documents, testimony of the witnesses along with the representations of council, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, and the doctors of board conclusion of law that the petition is meant their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of 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 notice and be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision.

Great.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Anybody feel like discussing this, or should we just go right to a vote?

I just had a uh quick comment I'd like to make for the record that uh I just say that I pre I appreciate the uh constant maintenance that these historic structures require, um, and that they're being preserved and and in this case this edition certainly is addressing a major problem, which is water infiltration in any in any buildings, particularly a historic building like this.

Uh so I appreciate that uh that that work is being done.

I'd say it's an attractive addition.

And also it's and I think the northwestern part of the structure in the back really this will be uh pretty much invisible.

You won't really even notice the uh uh this this addition other than when the work's going on for it so um I I would just say that uh I would heartily approve this petition great yeah I I would agree with that I think it's a good looking um plan in addition uh it's really it's it looks better than what was there I think so I obviously I'll be supporting it okay um that all being said uh all those in favor of this petition uh on uh Bellevue Avenue please signify by saying aye aye any opposed okay hearing none that's unanimous and uh if you would Mr.

Jackson if you could write that up for us that'd be great thank you sir and thank you good luck to you all okay we're moving right along here folks I think we're gonna you know we'll see what happens I'm not gonna say anything because then I'm gonna be wrong you know we're gonna try uh but we don't have any appeals tonight so we're gonna go direct from the uh abbreviated summary calendar to the full hearing calendar and um I'm ready to hear the the number one if we were we would or it looks like Roman numeral eight okay no number Roman numeral number eight uh number one thank you go ahead there you go didn't confuse me yeah this is the petition of Sean Maloney and Margaret Chai Maloney applicants and owners 275 Harrison Avenue tax assessors plat 44 lot 121 and an R 160 zone historic overlay for a special use permit and dimensional variance to construct a detached carriage house 16 feet from the front property line where 100 feet is required this is remanded back to the zoning board from the Rhode Island Superior Court.

Okay so this is a remand from the uh Rhode Island superior court back to us is I when was the last one we had one dick this is it's been a while has it not since I've been here yeah I understand no I we I don't remember one at all so um chartered waters for this is uncharted waters for us but we're gonna we're gonna plow through um so yes uh yes Mr.

Parks are you representing the uh the homeowners I am Mr.

Chairman uh for your record Josh Parks on behalf of owners and applicants okay and uh Mr.

Lynch you're representing the uh the objectors is that newport country club okay very good so this has been remanded and uh I know that you folks uh have have read the um uh the material that was sent along with that um the decision if you will from the uh from the court I forget the uh the gentleman's name um but he did say that it was it was at our discretion as a board how we were going to proceed and I know Mr.

Lynch I've heard that you want to open this up um and have a full hearing again that's not gonna happen okay and we're not gonna do that so um what we are gonna do and we've discussed it beforehand amongst the board and also with Nick is um we're going to open it up um only for testimony that's related to why the the case was remanded back to us the petition was remanded back to us and that is did or are is is the uh is the petitioner doing the least amount in terms of what they can do um uh to to you know in terms of the zoning um that they're asking for for the variances that they're asked for are they doing the least amount so I will allow a little bit of testimony related to that um you all I think are also aware um that uh you you all I think are also aware that uh um the five members that will be voting on this remand were the five members that were voted voted on the original petition so there is some continuity there and um uh we I'm sure I know I have and I know that uh all the members here have voting members here have um reviewed that case and it was in the file anyway all the uh different things so um we're ready to to uh to to incorporate that into our thinking um but um I'm trying to understand so since this is a remand do I want to ha hear from Mr.

Lynch first is he because is he now the petitioner or how do we work that Mr.

Gavin?

It doesn't matter who goes first.

Okay.

So you're up here Mr.

Parks why don't we let you argue that that bit of the case sure and again we will not be reopening for full testimony and witnesses we're just going to do this part on the remand.

Sure and and and thank you for the least amount you know that they could do yep and thank you for the opportunity to be here um I know you received in your packet as well a memo from your solicitor uh which is tailored to both some instructions about how to handle the remand and also some um citations to the record regarding that least relief necessary and superior court to be clear superior court gave us you know a instructions as well in terms of what we're correct so I just would like to uh expressly incorporate the um the points raised in the solicitor's memorandum to you uh and to the extent you're looking for uh evidentiary citations as instructed by the court I would refer you to the citations contained in that memorandum sure in terms of additional testimony I do have Mr.

Who with me and he can briefly address that least relief necessary standard if the board would would uh would like to solicit more factual testimony or if the board is content to rest on the record before it well I I mean we're we're happy to listen to suit to some brief testimony as long as it's related to the reason for the remand that's really what we want to understand.

I think we heard on that Mr.

Chairman yes of course uh we were instructed by the zoning officer that there would this board would not have any additional new testimony that the it would be solely limited to argument by the attorneys of record.

I object to new evidence being introduced at this hearing you can't open up a new hearing by a little bit once you open it it's open uh so I was told we were told well that's not no we can because that's what the superior court told us that's not correct.

Well I th that's how I that's how I did it and that's also how Mr.

Gavin said.

Wick I would agree with that as well um I think if the petitioners are able to give additional testimony the opposing side should be giving additional testimony if have their own expert witnesses.

Well yes as it relates to this specific issue um you know that's why it got remanded so um you know and as far as and we discuss this if you if I want to get a sense of the board as well I mean this is not my decision.

I mean this is a you know this is a majority decision of the board in terms of how we want to proceed um I thought that that's what we were going to do.

So um I what I what I think and correct me if I'm wrong and if you want to do something else is that if you have a witness or two and I want to keep this brief okay and I do want to give you guys a uh I do want to give you guys a chance to have a closing argument as well a brief closing argument.

Okay?

Again related to this specific issue but who did you want to call up to have it as a witness.

So I I very much understand the instruction my intent would be if if the board is opening up for evidence and I understand that the the very last line of the superior court decision instructed that the board may but need not conduct additional hearings or gather additional evidence.

So I think it's it's wholly at your discretion as directed by the superior court to decide what what scope you want.

That's how I understand it.

And if you if you do want some more factual testimony I'm happy to have Mr Wool speak briefly solely to that least relief necessary uh component because I think that's the only um that's the only reason that the superior court sent this decision back.

Yes I think that's what I said yes.

Okay.

It has to be related specifically to this issue.

Yep.

So with that I'll just ask Mr Hole to speak that's fine.

Briefly on this issue.

One minute please um Mr.

Chairman uh Mr Gavin, turning Gavin I could you weigh in on this because what I'd like to do is proceed with this and not get into a situation where um now we're back in a court situation or whatever.

Uh if there's a court situation.

If Mr uh uh Mr.

Lynch um feels that perhaps he's unprepared or doesn't have uh um an opportunity um with another witness or to have brought witnesses to this.

I I'm I'm soliciting your opinion because I'd like to proceed in a way that we can resolve uh and and finish this.

Well, as has been indicated, I think it's uh entirely within the board's discretion, whether or not or and to what extent to uh hear additional testimony, um, you know, whether to prevent an objecting party from trying to go back to the court and and and appeal further is you know, that's something that you know not necessarily can be prevented if the party wants to do that, but I think the board is acting within its discretion on how it has outlined how it wishes to proceed.

I think my concern is that Mr.

Lynch may not have the opportunity to provide a subject matter expert that can abut Mr.

Hole's testimony.

I think perhaps you let Mr.

Lynch be heard, but uh I I am not aware of any he suggested opening up the entire hearing to all over again, and uh, but I'm not aware of any uh any evidentiary manners that Mr.

Lynch uh would intend to go into that's outside the parameters of what the board has indicated it wishes to do this evening.

Can I can I speak briefly to your your last question?

So I would just you know remind the board, and as as good as it is to see you all again, we were last here on this petition two and a half years ago.

Uh this application was certified finished almost three years ago.

Uh it's it's taken an incredibly long time.

My clients prevailed before this board by a by a uh unanimous vote, and through through no fault of their own, it's taken an absolutely incredible amount of time uh to get this petition fully heard and and to a final decision.

This is uh this is a duly noticed meeting of the zoning board.

Um you know, any anybody could have could have brought anybody uh to to testify, and to the extent the board wants to hear testimony and there's somebody able uh that and there's somebody available to give it, then great, and we're happy to provide that.

If the board doesn't want any testimony from anybody, that's that's fine too.

But I'm just you know cognizant of the fact that it's it's been a long time.

My my clients are are once again here like they've been for every one of these, and uh it's it's just it's just time to move this forward to resolution.

Well, yes, and and and to to the point here, um we all read the same material.

And um it did say that there could be three different outcomes.

We could open it all up, we could partially open up, or we could not open it up at all.

So I would assume that Mr.

Lynch would have been prepared for any one of those eventualities.

So I don't have a lot of sympathy in terms of we need to give him a chance to prepare.

I I think you're probably prepared.

And I think you stated that you wanted to open the whole thing up again.

That if you know that's not accurate.

Okay, well then explain to us what what you what it is that you've got.

But uh what I was instructed uh by the zoning officer that the posture of this hearing would be that the matter would be remanded, you would then consider the evidence that was uh introduced at the prior hearing using the appropriate standard and answering the three questions that Judge Lamphier had in his decision.

I was told that the matter would not be opened up for new testimony.

There was one additional piece of evidence that was included in the packet that was given to you that was not part of the record during the uh last appeal.

You're talking about the age of that.

That is correct.

So I objected to that uh provision because that was not part of the initial record.

So if if you're gonna consider that.

Well, it's testimony that we heard all five of us at at the at the petition.

Well, the document itself was not part of the record.

I understand that, but we did hear the testimony, so it's not you know, we can't unhear the testimony.

So I mean, you can rely upon your testimony.

Could I interject one please?

I mean uh the zoning officer may have given an indication of what was expected and what might happen.

Uh, but certainly uh nothing was binding binding in any way, and no one would know exactly what the board was gonna decide to do until we were here tonight.

Correct.

I was just gonna say that's our decision.

And your decision, and and if you look at the last line, it's a very one sentence.

The board may but need not conduct additional hearings or gather additional evidence.

So if you're gonna open it up for additional evidence, fairness dictates that we be allowed to present evidence here.

Now we were told not to present any additional testimony, that it was gonna be limited to the record.

Not by me or the board.

Not by you or the board, but well, you you know that that decision is made by the board, correct?

If you want to open it up, that's fine.

You can start the hearing, but I'm gonna make a request that the matter be continued, that we be allowed to rebut new testimony that's been introduced this evening, and if you deny it, it's an appealable issue.

But I'm prepared to proceed tonight on the record that was submitted at the last hearing, and it's up to this board to make certain findings of fact pursuant to the judge's decision, not consider new testimony, partial new testimony.

You're gonna open it up one, you have to open it up to all.

So, that's what that's what you think.

Okay, I'm gonna note that's I'm gonna note my objection for the record on that issue, and the board can do whatever it wants, no question about it, but I'm just gonna note my objection to that uh that issue.

And I'm not gonna belabor it anymore.

Okay, thank you.

Wick, are we able to vote on whether or not to hear a new testimony?

Yeah, that's what I was asking you guys at the beginning of the meeting, how we wanted to proceed.

I was trying to get a sense of the board.

Mr.

Um Rudd, may I throw my two cents in?

Um, we we heard this in great detail, and I was just reminded that Mr.

Who was going to come up and give him presentation.

We heard all this.

We heard it all.

We spent countless hours doing it.

Uh the the uh uh Superior Court basically said you didn't uh note the standard on uh on the lease relief standard.

You know, I don't see any reason why we need to open this up again.

I think we need to just speak to that standard and why we made that decision.

Now we've already wasted almost three years of time before your applicant could could take any action.

So I'm I I personally don't want to see us reopen this whole case, and I and I'm just afraid we we're gonna be spending countless hours re-stepping what we did before.

So I honestly, uh Mr.

Grimes, I agree with you.

I don't want to reopen the case either.

I was trying to be fair actually to the two to the objectors uh in terms of this, so that um but that's not what you want.

So then I'm actually in favor of not reopening this uh and just uh and just making a decision.

I would state that I prepared for this tonight with the understanding or the the preparedness to not hear any additional just based on exactly what we were what we were given.

So I'm okay.

I'm prepared to proceed um without any new testimony.

I echo that sentiment as well.

I'm I'm ready to proceed without any additional testimony.

So that's what we're gonna do.

Um, and I I misinterpreted what we had the discussion we had beforehand.

Um and for me, as the chairman, I was just trying to be fair to everybody and give them a chance to, you know, because this was remanded for that reason.

Um I don't know what the advice was we got at the time, or I you know, but it was because it was it was not in the law, you know, it wasn't we we can we didn't consider it, but it was still part of the law, it hadn't been done, it was as of January first of the upcoming year.

Um as I remember that.

So that's the reason.

Um otherwise we would have considered it, and so um, in view of that, obviously the board members understand why it was remanded, and so we'll take that into into consideration in our decision.

So that's what we're gonna do.

Okay.

Um there will be no testimony.

Um we're just gonna go directly to discussion and to uh a vote on this uh on this appeal uh on this remand, excuse me.

Um so that's that's that's the decision of the board.

That is the sense of the board, that's what we're gonna do.

Okay.

So thank you, Mr.

Morris.

That's great, we're just prepared for any eventuality.

Yep, very good.

So uh we're ready to go.

Um and thank you for uh stating to us, you know, this has been a long time, and I think we feel that we don't wanna, you know, I mean, we don't want to have these things linger on forever.

Um, you know, people have to live their lives too.

So um, with that being said, um, how would we do this, Nick?

Are we gonna vote on this in terms of we are we voting on the petition again, or we were voting on the remand?

How how do you want us to well fashion a motion?

First point I wanted to make.

If if you wanted to give the two attorneys a few minutes of time just to state the case and how they feel it met or did not meet the old standard that the uh uh sorry, Judge Lanfear has said needs to be resolved.

Okay, you want to give them a few minutes to say that.

I think I did say that opening back up additional evidence.

Yeah, it's a closing argument.

Yes.

Yes, I I did say that.

Yes, thank you.

And then after that, it would be a the way we see it is it's a motion that's made using the standards that were in place in 2023 prior to the change in law in 2024, and you would essentially apply the variant standards from 23 on this project instead of the changed uh standards that were um put in place in 2014.

And if I could just add uh it's not necessary, in my view, to uh to restate the entire original opinion.

I think it if you do a supplemental opinion, which you could start by incorporating the prior decision and then supplement that to uh address the court's uh instructions on remand.

Okay.

Great.

That's that's great advice.

Thank you.

Um appreciate it, Mr.

Gavin.

Okay, so um what we're gonna do now then um is we're gonna give each of you about you know five minutes, let's say, right?

Um to give us a closing argument, okay, in terms of uh how we should vote and what we should do.

So you're up there, Mr.

Parks.

I'll begin with you.

Great, thank you.

Excuse me, Mr.

Box, just one second.

I'm sorry.

Excuse me, it's salmon.

Um we will when we um uh uh discuss the case, talk about the three items that were listed by uh uh Judge Lamp here um and give our opinions as to as to what we feel about those three items that that he addressed there as part of our deliberation.

Just wanted to get that on the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I will be brief.

Like I said, this petition has been hanging around for a long time.

And I'm hopeful that we can maybe finally bring this to conclusion here tonight in the same fashion that this board ruled back in, I believe it was January of 2024.

Now, this was sent back to you on that least relief necessary piece, and so that implicates two components of this project the kitchen and the garage.

If you recall, the pre-existing uh space in the house of served as the garage was turned into what now serves as the kitchen at 275 Harrison.

Why did that happen?

So 275 Harrison is is curavore, and this is all testimony that you have in the somewhat luminous record before you.

It's located in a historic district, it's it's it's a historically significant structure, which means it's very difficult, if not impossible, to modify.

Back in 1930, when this home was created, living standards were different.

The family lived in grand rooms, and things such as kitchens were tucked away for staff.

That is not how homes are built now, that is not how people live now.

The pre-existing kitchen at Perivore was built in accordance with its times.

It was small, it was narrow, it had a separate pantry.

Now this couldn't be modified if you recall the testimony of the architect because of the structure of the building.

That space was that space.

So what do you do?

You look for something where you can live in a in a more modern normal fashion for 2026, and the available space right nearby was the old garage.

So that's why the kitchen was moved.

That's why the kitchen turned uh took over the pre-existing garage space.

So that leads us to, well, did you just get rid of the garage and create and self-create a hardship?

And the answer to that has to be no.

Now the unrebutted expert testimony that you have in the record before you was from Mr.

Hool regarding the garage and the fact that it could not be used to service cars of this day and age.

And I forget the number right before me, but it was something about a seven and a half foot to a nine-foot opening.

It's a pretty significant swing in terms of size of garage and size of modern vehicles.

So this hardship is not created because the space wasn't able to be used for its intended purpose in any event.

So the Maloneys are looking to build a three uh a three-car garage, which is very much in keeping with the type of estate and grounds that we find in this neighborhood in Newport.

The court preferred specifically to questions regarding whether other locations were considered and rejected by the historic district commission.

And you'll find citations in the solicitor's memo that show that this um this sighting concern was uh was addressed significantly, and it was determined that there were no other locations on the property that could that could suit.

I would also point the board actually to the transcript from the January 2024 proceedings, um, my cross-examination of objector's expert engineer, where we went through in detail all the cardinal directions around the house, and uh, and he admitted that each other location on the property had been considered was rejected.

To the north, which is the historic entrance of the house, the HDC that placing anything there was off limits because that was a contributing historic feature, was how how the drive winds into the house.

So you couldn't put a garage in front of it.

You couldn't put a garage to the west of it, which was way in the back, because that's completely the other side of the house near some wetlands, and uh that's where the that's where the bedrooms are.

There's no driveway there, just isn't sensible.

Uh same to the east where there are historic gardens.

The only location, the only logical place, was putting the garage right where pre-existing service entrance was, just off Harrison Avenue, right just to the east of the house.

So that's the only place that this could be put, which makes it the least relief necessary.

I'd like to just point out briefly the um that the scale of the requested relief is not as large as it seems at first.

And that's because the next door neighbors have structures of their own well within the setback.

They have a shed, a tennis court, and a septic system.

This triggers a provision in your zoning ordinance, and I'll give you the site here 17 TAC 04 TAC-050 C6, which allows for a decreased front setback to match what your neighbors have.

So that shrinks the quest down from like a 74-foot variance down to something more like 20 feet, and in keeping with what you find with the directly neighboring property, who I who I would note objected, and additionally the country club who objected, but has a dirt parking lot directly on Harrison Avenue.

So I think it's well established that this has been considered uh by the historic district commission, and that the standards, be it the standards that exist now or the standards that existed back in this application were initially filed, have been satisfied.

And just purely as a practical matter, I would note for the board that if if this application was filed tomorrow, you would be considering it under the same standards that you already approved it under.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions from the board.

Otherwise, I will I will rest.

Testimony, but I have a testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Lynch, please.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Uh I'll try to be succinct and brief in the presentation here tonight.

Uh the Superior Court judge asked this board to make certain findings of fact.

Specifically, one was whether or not the Historic District Commission formally voted to reject any other designs for the carriage house project, or whether it was merely apparent that the present proposal would be unsuccessful.

On that issue, there is nothing in the record with any historic district commission vote where they uh rejected other applications.

You heard testimony from the applicants and the architect that they didn't prefer it, but there is no formal vote uh rejecting any other location for this garage.

There's nothing in the record.

The the Superior Court judge also asked you to address the issue of whether or not the Maloney's created the their own harm by modifying the existing garage into a kitchen.

We've gone over that uh and uh I'm not gonna belabor the point, but that was addressed at the last hearing, uh, that this was a self-imposed hardship.

And a matter of fact, some of the board members during or at least one or two during the uh uh discussions and deliberations indicated, yeah, they may have created their own hardship, but it wasn't a big deal.

Um but you acknowledge that there was some self-created hardship uh by converting the existing garage into a kitchen.

The third criteria is whether or not the applicants demonstrated that this project uh was seeking the least relief necessary.

I know in reading the transcript again, several of uh board had concerns about that and were troubled by the application, but when we were told that that relief is no longer, that that standard is not part of the uh the relief that was going to be requested.

They were able to shrug that off and say, okay, we don't have to deal with the least relief necessary.

But several of you were troubled whether or not the applicant had demonstrated that this was the least relief necessary.

There was discussion about the size of the garage.

Do you knew that did you need the seven-foot wings on the side of the garage?

Uh, and if they were removed, you were increasing the setback.

You would have increased the setback possibly from 16 feet to 30 feet.

So, was that the lease relief necessary?

Um, I asked the board to address those issues uh in pursuant to the judge's direction, I think you have to make certain specific findings of fact to that effect.

Uh so uh if you can point out uh in the record where the HDC made a formal vote, please note it.

Um I'd ask that you consider whether or not this is the least relief necessary.

Again, so that's I don't have anything else to add.

So uh thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Lynch.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

So now we're going to proceed to a motion, and we will have discussion.

We'll have a vote.

Please, Mr.

Riley.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um the petition of Sean Maloney and Margaret Chai Maloney, um, I move to adopt the board's finding of fact, information in the staff report, application supporting documents, testimony of witnesses, together with the comments spread on the on the record by the board members, and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of approved under each element under chapter 17.108.010 C.1-C.4.

Um that applied on the date of the application, 612 23, uh, of the new port zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications, and also that the petition has met the burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.008.020 G.1-G.7 that applied on the date of the original application of June 12th uh 23.

Of the new port zoning ordinance entitled Special Youth Permit.

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

Great.

Thank you.

Uh very much, Mr.

Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Great.

So before we begin discussion, just to be clear, um, this is a motion that we are have on the floor that if we're in favor of, we're in favor of the petition, the original petition, correct?

That is correct.

And so a nay would be we we we would be turning down the original petition of the uh baloneys on uh Harrison Aber.

Okay.

So we all know that.

Yay is for for the uh the homeowners and uh nay is for um for turning that down.

Um Mr.

Chair, one other quick point.

Um in the list of uh items that was sent to you uh as far as the record, um there's two pieces from the HTC.

One was their original full approval, the other was a final approval that was actually done subsequent to your approval because um they needed to go back to the HDC to essentially rectify a small difference between the the placement based on what you all approved.

Um after discussion with our solicitor, we feel that that final approval from I believe it was October of 24 should be excluded from the record, but we feel the original HTC approval should be considered as part of the record, sure.

And again, as I said earlier, we all heard the testimony, so I mean it's in you know, and and it was and it was alluded to by Judge Lamphere.

Uh in in his instructions as well.

So may I ask uh Nick a question?

Nick, so regarding the HDC matter that Mr.

Lynch brought up, um, some of that was sort of floating in space.

Uh was that resolved by the time we made our decision?

Did the HDC or they just was that a pending decision at the time we made our decision?

No, they they had approved the carriage house being constructed in this general location.

I believe it was off by a few feet, and that's why they had to go back to the HDC.

That's what it was.

Okay, the 16 foot setback location.

Um and as far as the question is uh around whether they took a formal vote on other locations, we do not have record that they did do that, but a common practice at the HDC is that an initial application is presented to them, they take testimony they take the initial uh temperature of the board and then continue an application when effectively it's not going to be approved in order for modifications to be made.

And I think that's the um the suggestion here is that there were other locations proposed, but this was the only location officially voted on by the HDC.

Right.

So it's a sort of a sense of their board, basically, is what they give both the petitioner and the objectors, um, so that they can go back and recon, you know, redo it and come back.

Yes.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman?

Yes.

I thought I might suggest that we uh as we start our discussion, we take the three specific questions that have been asked of us by the judge, and uh I'll read those questions out, and we can all all comment on those questions based on what our our uh our thoughts are on the case.

I think that's a great idea.

That makes sense.

Yes, it does.

So one of the uh questions, the first question or one of the questions, and we'll start with this one.

Did the historic district commission formally vote to reject any other designs for the carriage house project, or was it merely apparent that the present proposal would be unsuccessful?

Um I'm happy to go first on that one if you if you'd like to well you want to take them one at a time, is that what you're saying?

Yeah, take it one at a time and we'll answer.

We'll go ahead and but we don't have three motions, so what if everybody says, Well, I don't like that and I like this one, and we're just we're putting our we're putting our just as a point of discussion, a point of discussion.

Okay, fair enough.

You know what I mean?

We're putting what we feel about about that particular question that's been been put to us by uh by the court.

Okay, that makes that make sense, sure.

And then if if someone and we have discussion back and forth as to what we think about that, sure.

So we're gonna just discuss issue one right now, right?

All five board members.

Then we're gonna go to issue two of the qualified board number three.

And if one of us wants to say, I agree with uh uh member Grimes as to what he put on the record, then you can move it move right through.

We don't all have to speak to every single one of them.

Yeah, of course.

Okay, that makes sense.

Yes, yes.

Give it a try.

Give it a whirl.

Up by 11.

Okay.

Um the um on this first the HCC question, um, there was a lot of discussion in in the meetings on this, and it was addressed by um uh an architect as well as uh Mr.

Hull, uh an expert witness in Mr.

Hul's written report.

He says any settings away from the road is impractical.

This eliminates most southern and western portions of the lot.

Most of the northwestern portion of the property consists of wetlands, and much of the land on the northern side of the house has also been used for septic and gray water leaching fields.

Any possible setting near the front of the house was rejected by the historic district commission?

So we don't have a written rejection, but we have an expert witness that probably was at that meeting and has conveyed to us uh like we rely on regularly um that uh the HDC has uh had rejected the other locations.

There was also in the transcript uh Mr.

Parks cross-examined uh Mr.

Casali, and he uh who was an engineer witness of an object of the objector, and in that cross-examination, he he asked Mr.

Kasale, were you aware the project went to the Historic District Commission before coming here tonight?

Is that correct?

Yes, I am, he says.

Are you aware that the applicant proposed several alternative locations to the Historic District Commission?

Yes, I am.

Are you aware that the Historic District Commission rejected those alternative locations?

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And would you include alternative locations situated on the northern north of the current house?

Is that correct?

It was our understanding that those specific locations were rejected by the HDC.

Are you aware that the HDC considered locations to the north of the house, even if they were not specifically in your yellow whatever?

Yes, I am, and the HCC in fact rejected those alternative locations.

That's correct.

So there was evidence entered into the record at our January 2024 meeting to give us every indication that the HDC had in fact uh had in fact rejected um uh various locations on the property, and did say that the location where it ended up being located was the most appropriate.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

I'm happy to go next.

You want to add to that, Ms.

Sherry?

Yeah.

Um I just want to say I'll echo those sentiments as well.

Uh what I will add um to Mr.

Lynch's point.

Um, yes, there was no formal rejection of the other locations.

Um, but as Mr.

Riley has so eloquently stated, there was extensive HDC testimony on the location and the temperature check of where um the garage building should go.

Um additionally, during our uh hearing there were several subject matter experts uh that came and testified to the location and its suitability.

I know I recall kind of probing the various different areas of the lot, um, looking out if the wetlands um were a suitable area, and realizing that's not but all buildable.

Uh talking about the backyard and the historic gardens and the trees there and why that wasn't suitable, and then obviously with the HCC so clearly articulated the the front of the building was not suitable.

So it really only left this one section of the property for this garage to be built on.

Uh and it is well within our purview as a board to to weigh that evidence uh before us, and even though there isn't a formal rejection by the ADC, I think it's well within our purview the way that evidence that this is the only suitable location for this garage.

Okay.

Russ, do you want to sure give us a little bit of that?

Um I would uh I would uh agree and uh echo my uh fellow board members' uh discussion on this.

Um I I went through and read the uh the testimony uh and the transcripts from the meeting, and I think that um uh there was I think first of all, what Nick helped uh and Nick Armer helped clarify was that the process is not that historic district votes on every single possibility or thought about where it might go.

It's more of a feeling out process of of where, you know, where um uh out of the out of the uh entire spectrum of possible locations and uh whether they're uh agreement or whether they they don't believe that's a uh a suitable location.

So it's not a they're not gonna formally review and reject or or approve six different locations.

They're going to they're going to sort of narrow it down and work to get where where that needs to go.

So but I think there's adequate uh more than adequate testimony um in the transcripts, particularly uh as been stated, but also uh discussions with the architect uh Andy Sarna, uh, who testified that the HCC considered other locations but rejected them as unsuitable.

Uh some of the dialogue was that there are actually places that uh it may fit, may encroach into the wetlands, but they were considering it, but it was it was rejected.

Uh it says at one point that the uh owners were uh considering and had put forth a uh a proposal for a five-car garage, and that was summarily uh uh not uh was rejected by HTC.

Um they did talk about different aspects in the in the structure, this historic structure that just would not be allowed to to add a garage there.

So I think that again, while there is not a formal vote, there was certainly a process to narrow down where this garage uh could be placed.

And I I think it was um um well documented and and well spoken, and I I believe that uh uh we took that into consideration and and voted appropriately on that.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Um so I'll go next.

Uh I concur with my three colleagues to my left here.

Um I will add a couple of things uh to what they've said.

Um again, uh just to reiterate uh a sense of the HDC.

It's it's uh it doesn't have to be a vote for us to to take it into account for us to think that it's something that's important for us to deliberate on to make a decision on.

So it was clear to me, as I believe it's been clear to my colleagues that that was the uh the the consensus what there that there really wasn't any other place that was as suitable as the the current place uh as to where it was.

And I'll add to that as well that the garage was originally built before we had zoning laws, okay.

It was built a hundred and twenty years ago.

We we didn't get zoning laws in Newport, I don't think until what 1977 or something like that in a more formal way.

So let's look back to a hundred and hundred and ten years ago when this all occurred.

Don't you think they were looking for the best place to put these garages as well?

And you know, I mean you don't need zoning laws to say, well, we don't want to put in the wetlands, this is where we're gonna put the septic system, and this is where we're gonna do this, and we don't want to put on the front of the house because that's not gonna look good.

Um so this is what we're gonna do.

So I think that they did that right.

And again, the only reason that that this can of worms was opened up in the first place is because they wanted to redo it uh in the same essentially the same place it was.

So and you do that, you change anything, now you've got to get a special universe use permit and a variance.

So that's why we're here on that issue.

Um and uh so for those reasons um at least on this portion of this, uh, I agree uh with the decision that we made and we'll reiterate that tonight, Mr.

Grimes.

Um I will also comment on the HDC matter.

Uh, you know, to me, the issue really is um we're not deciding what did HDC make the right decision, and that's their job.

That's not our job.

But the question is, did the HDC do their due diligence?

And and from you can hear from the testimony of my colleagues is that they did they did, they did due diligence, and they did they examined all the options and they they looked at what was in front of them.

They looked at multiple plans, they looked at um the you know the the property itself with those issues of um uh the landscape, the wetlands, um, and you know whether or what what was the right decision to make?

You know, personally I think they made the right decision, but that's not what I'm here for.

I'm to make sure that the HDC did their job, they've paid attention, and they covered the bases in this to help us make our decision.

So that's where I stand.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Grimes.

Okay.

Next up, item number two.

The second question that was uh posed to us by the judge was did the Maloneys create their own harm by modifying the existing garage into a kitchen.

David, can you repeat that?

Did the Maloneys create their own harm by modifying the existing garage into a kitchen?

Right.

I'm happy to go with that.

You're sorry, sure.

So I'm going to uh quote from Mr.

Houle's report on this.

Um the uh question, this is quoting from Ms.

What the question of need can be raised since the owners are closing in an existing garage.

This can be misleading.

The existing garage had only 91-inch doorways, seven foot five inches.

There they were impractical for modern cars to enter, exit, or open car doors when inside.

Today cars have uh seven foot wide uh width uh and huge mirrors, and uh they're just the the existing garages that were built as the chairman stated over a hundred years ago, uh, are just don't don't cut it.

They're they're they're uh they just don't work.

So to repurpose um to repurpose those that garage space into a a kitchen, which was also uh as was stated, um, was built for a use that no longer uh is practical in this day and age.

Uh um the kitchen was insufficient and uh uh so the repurposing of the of the garage uh made sense.

So uh I don't feel uh I felt that was a a very clear and satisfying uh answer for me to say that the uh there was no uh no harm or no uh uh wrongdoing by the owners in uh converting that existing garage space to a more practical and uh current use for the property.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Mr.

Um Mr.

Johnson.

Mr.

Rhymes, would you like to go?

Um I will just reiterate uh Mr.

Johnson's point.

Um, you know, we're dealing with modern standards uh even though with old homes.

Um the uh the garage was just not adequate for modern uh kitchen living and um and placing uh a new facility for parking needs for larger for larger homes, I mean for larger cars made perfect sense.

So um I I am completely satisfied uh with the repurposing uh of of that uh project uh for the kitchen when the former garage.

Great.

So um happy to go next.

Uh I will reiterate uh my two colleagues again on this uh on on this issue.

Um again, citing Mr.

Goul's as Mr.

Johnson Mr.

Hole's testimony in terms of uh car width and uh the garages themselves um and let's not forget um you know when you know talking about modern standards but let's not forget what this kitchen was this was a kitchen for you know that was um for a mansion um where you know uh you had servants that were doing the cooking so it really isn't a kitchen that is is set up for modern standards there's uh in terms of putting that together it was a different lifestyle it was a different world back then and now you've got different you know so people want to hang around in the kitchen so people you know uh need bigger kitchens so I don't just think that's a convenience and I don't think that they created their own hardship as either I think that is a hardship I think the the size of the garage is a hardship so reconfiguring them uh if you will um to have bigger garages and also a bigger kitchen um but to keep it you know in in in the realm of of of uh a good of good sizing I think makes sense um in this case so uh I'm I'm fine with that decision and I agree with my colleagues on that.

Mr.

Riley yes and I'd also concur with my my three uh members um ahead of me um there they there's no question in my mind that this um um they did not create their own harm the um um three car attached garage was no longer functional as a garage it had to have so they could have put a kitchen they could have put a gymnasium they could have put other things in they use the existing footprint of the existing property to upgrade their kitchen that's not creating their own harm it needed a new three car garage they uh to enjoy the aspects of modern living and um that's what they did great thank you mr round miss chevry yeah um I will also echo the sentiments of my fellow board members I do not believe uh the Maloneys created their own harm by modifying the existing garage into a kitchen as so everyone has stated so far the the garage and the kitchen uh that existed prior did not live up to modern living standards uh they existed for a different error different purpose and so to repurpose those uh so that you could have modern living standards and a functional living space and garage um I think fits the the bill here with what our our standard is for the zoning.

Yes great thank you so much um we have one more correct yes and um does the carriage house project as designed uh require the least relief necessary um uh that's the um um condition that we had that the relief be granted is the least really necessary yep and that's because it was we didn't consider it thinking that it wasn't uh part of the new law but the new law didn't take effect until months after we made the decision without that so that was the whole basis of this uh Miss Chevry would you like to begin?

Sure.

Um so I do believe the carriage house uh was the release uh lease was relief necessary um even though it wasn't part of the standard that we consider at the time I I do that was still an evolving thing at that time and I remember considering that and I think we poked at the design of the carriage house several times and asked thought provoking questions on is it the smallest footprint that you get is it in the best position that you can get um and for those reasons I will say that the ultimately, the design that we made our decision on was the least relief necessary.

Great.

Dave?

I'd echo all those comments made by my fellow board member and add um that uh this was a setback relief that we were granting.

And we asked not only that this was the general location, I remember uh um uh detailed discussions of moving it back, moving it over a little bit more to the right, where a pool area was and so forth.

Uh a three car garage is a very reasonable request on an estate uh uh a state type property as we're talking about here.

It would be only typical for it to have a three-car garage.

Um, so I believe that we did grant the least relief necessary.

Right.

Mark, did you want to?

Uh sure.

Um I also agree that this is the least relief necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of of this property.

Uh uh just to echo the uh uh the uh the comments from from my other colleagues.

Uh I do want to uh uh just reiterate a couple more things too.

Uh, you know, the these are modern standards in an old home.

Um, and as a Dave Dave Mr.

Riley mentioned that um uh this isn't a state.

This isn't just uh you know your one-car garage and home.

This is an estate living and having uh three car garage uh on this standard uh on this lot is is not uncommon, and frank, frankly, it's it's probably the expected.

Um the um so anyway, I do for those reasons I I too would I'll wrap it up and say that I do think there's the least relief necessary to uh to take care of this project there.

Russ?

Okay, sorry.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm just gonna read very quickly in granting a dimensional variance, there must be evidence to show that the hardships suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted, amounts to more than a mere inconvenience, meaning that the relief sought is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use to which the property is proposed to be devoted.

So I feel like in demonstrating that the existing garage spaces were inadequate for a car of today's size that they were currently part of the property.

The hardship is that the petitioners were unable to house their automobiles.

The original home's design included space for three-car garage.

It recognized there was a need for parking, but these spaces became inadequate.

The new garage building, the carriage house, is designed to complement the design features of the main house.

As has been stated by my fellow board members, this is an historic building, uh magnificent building, and you're not going to put a one car uh 12 12 foot tall garage on this property.

It would be, it would be way out of character for what what should be there.

So the new the new garage, the new carriage house building was designed to complement the design features of the main house.

It'll be situated in a similar location.

It is situated in a similar location to where the approximately where the existing garage spaces were previously.

So the carriage house needed to meet standards and approvals of the HDC, which means it is going to be uh of substantial property and a substantial building.

So I believe that the criteria and the standards that were had to be held up to uh for this for this carriage house, uh, I believe that it is the minimum relief necessary in this particular location for this particular property for the owners uh for a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted permitted use of this property.

Mr.

Johnson, just a quick clarification.

The um standard you just cited is the newer standard that the judge we cannot apply to it.

It needs to be the standard that is this is the least relief necessary.

That was changed into the minimal relief for the reasonable enjoyment of the property.

So you need to make a statement as to was this the least relief necessary.

So I would say that yes, this would also apply to the uh least relief necessary.

And I feel like um when originally we originally voted on that, that was uh the intention and the understanding that I had, and uh it hasn't changed with uh with the testimony I just gave, even though it is uh reflecting of a new standard, it's still working.

And Mr.

Chair, if I can interject on page three of the memo I prepared, uh I explained in what I think uh Mr.

Johnson quoted from.

What happened when the when the General Assembly got rid of subsection D4, least relief necessary, they also amended section E2, which took the language from the case law, which defined least relief necessary and included it into the definition in the next section.

Right.

So essentially the board did uh direct the issue indirectly previously.

Now you're just doing so more explicitly to satisfy Judge Landpeer's concerns.

Right.

Yep, that's correct.

I remember seeing that.

Thank you, Mr.

Gavin.

Um, so to quickly uh finish off this portion of our discussion.

I'm sorry.

No, that that would that's that's that, but I did want to put on to the record that that um all the findings of fact that were adopted from the original decision, um as outlined in the draft decision dated one one uh twenty four and written by Josh Joshua Parks, uh it would be included in our finding of facts for this uh, yeah.

Didn't you state that, Mr.

Gavin?

Right, but not just to not the nitpick, but it wouldn't be the draft decision prepared by Mr.

Parks, it would be the board's decision that the board issued and entered in recording.

Okay, okay, so it shall be.

Um I haven't declared myself on item number three, so quickly, um, is it the least relief necessary?

Yes, of course it is.

Um in in terms of the way that we argued the case when it was initially presented to us uh those years ago.

Um, it was clearly in the discussion that we had and the questions that we had of of witnesses was clear to me that that that commentary was incorporated into our questions and our commentary.

So although specifically um we didn't say that because we thought that we weren't gonna be using that um that category again because it had changed.

Um I believe that it was you know that we we had clearly um added that into our thinking and and into our our our commentary and our questions of the witnesses.

Um so for me overall, I just want to say one thing.

I think these are these are decisions.

If you look at what the board has been saying on these three issues that have been put back in front of us on a remand, I mean they're essentially decisions that we made, we just didn't state them uh specifically because it wasn't part of the uh of it wasn't part of of our findings of fact at the time.

We didn't think it was, but it was, but then it became then the state came back and said, No, that was and so uh the appeal was done.

But the appeal, in my opinion, is is on very narrow terms, I think.

Uh and that um we incorporated all this thinking into our decision.

So this time around, it's very simple.

I mean, we did it so and so we believe that that's what we did, and so now I believe that we've all stated very specifically the findings of fact um in terms of what we think about them, and I think we've all agreed upon that sort of unanimously.

Um I'm gonna ask the board, does anybody want to have any closing comments or should we are we ready to go to a vote on this?

And voted.

I would just ask uh the solicitor if you feel like there's anything else that we need to cover.

No, no, we're done with testimony.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I get he can.

I thought you were talking about the lawyers.

I would I would just suggest that the uh the the uh the supplemental decision be issued that incorporates the uh the prior decision and uh the comments and observations made by the board this evening.

So it'll be a supplemental decision, it won't restate the entire one, but issue a supplemental decision that addresses the court's instruction.

Do you want Dave to incorporate that into another motion?

Or is that what you're saying?

Um, over an overweening.

No, I think I I I think uh he'd like me to say that the supplemental decision that we're making this evening incorporates a prior original decision back in January of 2024, along with all the findings of facts and statements that have been put on the record by the board this evening.

Okay, so it's it's essentially an amendment to the motion, you know, stating it.

Call it a supplement.

A supplemental motion.

Fine.

That's great.

Okay.

Um so I'm just gonna poll the members individually, starting with you, Ms.

Chevry.

Um, how do you vote on this uh this motion?

Including the supplemental motion.

Yeah, Mr.

Mr.

Chevry I.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Mr.

Johnson, aye.

Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Grimes, aye.

That's five to nothing in favor.

Um, we've uh we've uh taken care of this, and if you would, Mr.

Parks, we could write up the decision for us once again.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um thank you, folks very much.

It took us a little while to figure that out, but I think we got it right.

So where are we now?

I think we're okay.

We can move on.

So maybe Barking read it in.

Do you want to read in the protective club motion, Bark?

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, yeah, be happy to.

Okay, we're not gonna take a break quite yet because it's only 7 35.

Been here an hour and a half.

So we're gonna move on to the next petition, uh, full hearing petition.

We've got three more.

Number three.

We're on number two, correct.

Okay, um this will be uh corrected and amended petition of uh 594 596 Thame Street LLC, applicant and owner.

594, 596 Thame Street.

Tax Assessor Plat 35, lot two thirteen in a limited business zone for dimensional variances to construct a two-story rear edition, expanding an existing standard restaurant, and creating a new one-bedroom dwelling, increasing the lot coverage from 46% to 60.3%, where 50% is allowed without providing additional on-site parking, six additional spaces are required, and seeking a variance from the commercial parking standards regarding aisle widths and backing into a public right of way.

Thank you, Mr.

Grimes.

So um you're probably gonna fill me in, but let me just ask um I know there was one more letter of objection.

Was it it was by somebody who would had written other letters of objections?

Do I have that right?

Correct.

And so this is his third uh letter of objection?

I believe so.

Yeah, we've combined all of the letters of objection and then all the letters of support into the uh agenda, but then we did receive one uh today by someone who had objected before.

Right, and we've had some testimony from objectors as well at the at the end.

And I just want to point for the point out for the record that uh member Russell Johnson was not at the last meeting, so that's why he's recusing himself and that uh Melissa Patavina would be the vote.

Right, Melissa will be voting on this, Melissa Padavina, thank you.

Um so I wanted to ask, are there objectors in the audience uh tonight on this petition?

There is.

Are you Mr.

Boldick, perchance?

You are okay.

Um did you testify last time in November?

I think you did.

Okay, so um we'll give you a chance to uh say a couple words.

Um I don't think that we closed the testimony, did we?

Um where were we?

If you recall, uh Mr.

Chairman, um good evening, Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott Holberkin, Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

We were here in November, and we the applicant essentially completed its presentation.

There was public comment testimony from a butters.

And just as um I think the board completed hearing some of the comments from a butters.

Uh there was a sentiment among a couple board members that you thought the plan would benefit from a couple changes.

Um, one of which was find a way to get some parking on site because the original application we were gonna have no parking on site.

And then the other uh thought was to make some changes to the um design of the addition to reduce the glass exposure to help mitigate noise and impacts to the surrounding neighbors.

So once I sensed that that was something that some of you were interested in, I requested that the matter be continued.

And of course, as you know, we fell victim to two blizzards, uh, you know, in uh uh issue with notice, and so here we are in May after we essentially fundamentally presented the case back in November of 25.

Uh because of the lag of time, if you'll indulge me, I did sort of want to spend maybe five minutes giving a recap and going over what we did in November, and then this evening um I do have witnesses, although they'll be strictly on the changes that we've made.

So, for instance, Chris Fagan, the architectural designer can just walk through the couple changes he made regarding uh the rear of the addition in relation to the exit door and glass and things of that nature.

Um he can also talk about where the two parking spaces are going to be uh located.

Just quickly, same thing with Mr.

Hoole to confirm he's reviewed everything and he still has the opinion that it meets all the standards for the dimensional variances requested.

And then um lastly, we did since so much time has gone by and parking was clearly one of the concerns about this application.

We brought in uh a traffic engineer Todd Brayton to take a look at the application and he'll give a little more complete testimony.

But I do think it's we're gonna make an effort to have a sort of streamlined and compressed presentation since we were here for a couple hours is my recollection back in November.

Yeah, we were, and and you know, to be honest with you, um, you know, six months goes by, and I mean, you know, I mean, you remember the testimony, but uh, you know, you need to be refreshed.

So, I think that would be helpful, and you know, take the time that you need, you know, please to do it.

I appreciate that.

So, again, um the applicant, you know, presented its case case back in November of 2025, and essentially the proposal is to construct a two-story addition on the rear of this existing building, which is the Protective Club.

And I'm sure you're all familiar with um this long-standing institution down in the fifth ward.

Uh, the footprint is the original application indicated 500 square feet.

I think you saw a note in the uh a note in the uh staff report regarding the fact that the original plans uh for the addition matched the existing um southern building uh wall uh and as a result it was encroaching slightly into the uh public right away.

So the there were one of the modifications during the travel of this case is that the addition has been shaved off a little bit uh facing McAllister Street so it doesn't encroach across the property line, even though the historic building does.

So as a result, the the addition is actually gonna be a little bit less than 500 square feet.

Um, but again, uh in consideration of the addition that's proposed, we're talking about taking existing lot coverage from 46% and bringing it to 60.3%, which is less than what was originally in the uh application, partly because of uh just a math area transposition of numbers.

So the request is 60.3% law coverage.

As you heard during the first hearing, there was quite a quite a bit of testimony.

Uh the purpose of the addition is to expand the service area and create a small function space on the back side of the protective club.

Um the second floor above the new addition, uh, the applicant is intending to utilize to create a one-bedroom dwelling unit.

Um, the proposed um addition is being constructed over a portion of the lot where there is an existing curb cut, and there was historically an um space for parking, at least in terms of of the dimensional standards, it could satisfy one parking space.

Um, again, the original application was to eliminate that, but what you have in front of you this evening is to keep the one space that was on site and add an additional space uh with a driveway along the east vehicle stacked.

Uh as it relates to parking, uh I just want to go through this analysis.

Excuse me if you, as you listen to me, you start to get an ice cream headache, but I need to walk through this a little bit because there's a little inconsistency between what was advertised and what's in the staff report.

What was advertised is correct.

We're asking for a six-space variance.

There was just, I think, some given this has been around so long, a couple of the figures didn't get updated in the staff report.

So I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page and that the testimony that we're providing with Mr.

Brayton is in support of the actual variants that we're looking for.

So again, the property currently has 710 square feet of guest service area, and that contemplates one to three employees for this first floor club, and there's also an existing dwelling unit on the second floor.

So in terms of existing conditions, collectively, the required on-site parking is eight spaces.

There is one provided.

So therefore, what happens is there is a what we, you know, the common phrase is grandfathered, but there is a pre-existing non-conformity as it comes to parking of seven spaces.

Now, in relation to the proposal, the proposed expansion will result in 419 additional square feet of service area.

Um assuming that the employee count is going to shift from one to three to four to six, so that creates an additional requirement for a space beyond what was already there.

So again, in terms of the expansion of the club, that brings the requirement to 10 spaces.

There's already an existing dwelling unit upstairs.

We're adding a second dwelling unit, so that totals four spaces.

So the total proposed or uh the proposed uses on site with the addition will require 14 spaces.

Again, that requirement is reduced by the seven space existing non-conformity, and then it's reduced by one space because we're adding a new space to the site that did that didn't previously exist.

So therefore, the net is a six-space parking variance.

As mentioned, the new driveway is proposed along the eastern boundary.

Again, preserving the existing parking spot on site and adding an additional one.

The driveway calls for stacked parking with both those vehicles backing into the public right-of-way.

So therefore, there's also the variance required in relation to the commercial parking standards, which otherwise prohibit backing into a public right-of-way.

Overall, the proposed project is intended to upgrade and expand along existing uh long-standing club in the limited business zone and create a new dwelling unit.

Properties surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential uses.

You've heard testimony at the last hearing from our real estate expert, Mr.

Hull, that it will be harmonious to the neighborhood, not be injurious to the surrounding area or inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the limited uh business zone.

The parcel itself is a conforming lot of record with 3,207 square feet of land.

At this size, however, it is impossible to provide sufficient parking to completely meet the parking requirements under the code for the existing uses, nor is it large enough to provide necessary parking to accommodate the reasonable expansion of existing uses.

The existing building is just under the permissible lot coverage limit of 50%.

As a result, any modification or addition to the structure would require a variance for lock coverage.

Because of the conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to this property, the applicant seeks the request of the leave.

And at the corner of Thame Street and McAllister Street.

The properties bounded by Thame Street to the west, commercial property to the north, and residential properties to the east and McAllister Street to the south.

One of the factors that resulted in the design that was proposed to put the addition on the rear had to do with the historic nature of the existing structure.

As you recall, this building is listed in the Department of Interior National Register of Historic Places as a contributing structure in the Southern Thame Street Historic District.

As a result, the applicant was mindful of the historic appearances of the structure and the historic streetscape.

Accordingly, the applicant moved away from expanding upward with an additional floor, even though it could do so and still meet the height limitations for the limited business district and chose instead and proposed the rear addition that's before you this evening, which provides the necessary additional square footage and also preserves the street-facing facade of the historic building.

Based on the concerns of neighbors and comments from the board during the November 2025 hearing, the applicant has made modifications to the design to mitigate noise and other impacts.

The door in the rear of the new additional will be converted to a solid door for emergency egress only.

A series of windows on the first floor of the rear edition to the facing east but to the north of the emergency exit door have been removed, and the remaining first floor windows have been reduced in size.

The proposed expansion of the existing uses and the relief sought by the applicant will not be injurious to or create a burden for abutting property owners.

As you recall in November of 25, the applicant completed its presentation, and as I mentioned earlier, you heard from a number of um lay witnesses who were here both to support and also oppose uh the project.

By the time the testimony was completed, there clearly were a couple issues that were still um of a concern to the board, which led to the request for the continuance.

Now during the hearing, you heard from the applicant who discussed the work done to improve and revitalize the club over the last couple of years, the applicant's experience in the hospitality industry and the need to build on the success by creating a small function space adjacent to the main club room.

The addition also provides the opportunity to create a small one-bedroom dwelling on the second floor, which is consistent with the objectives of the city to increase housing opportunities.

You also heard from the architectural designer Chris Fagan.

He discussed the design, the desire to preserve the front facade, the challenges with trying to expand upward, and the final plans for the rear expansion.

You will hear from him again this evening to briefly discuss the changes to the site and the modifications to the proposed addition since we were last here in November.

At the previous hearing, you also heard from Jim Poole.

His report is part of the record.

He went through his analysis of the project and concluded that it met the requirements for the requested variances.

This evening you will hear from him briefly again to discuss the changes to the plan and provide his opinion of the amended proposal.

And then lastly, the applicant has engaged, as I mentioned earlier, Mr.

Todd Brayton of Brian Associates.

He has submitted a report, which is part of the record, and he will testify regarding the impacts of the proposal to traffic and parking.

If you have any questions of me, or there's anything from the November hearing that you wanted further clarification, I'll do my best to answer that.

Otherwise, I can present our witnesses to just to sort of address some of the changes that have been made since November.

Sure.

Of course.

Questions, board members?

Mr.

Jackson.

I guess the one question I have that was a concern in November was the illegal short-term uh rental.

Um I was wondering if you could provide like an overview on what's going on with that right now.

I mean, to my knowledge, I mean Nick, you can speak to that.

To my knowledge, there's no active summonses now, and there was discussion that uh in the November hearing that we'd be fine with any type of condition if the board saw fit that the uh be long-term rentals.

Yeah, we I can clarify we have no active code enforcement against this property.

Okay, so there's no been no short-term rentals since then, and the plan is point forward long-term rentals.

Yeah, if you remember it, even in November, there's testimony there hasn't been short-term rents in a long time.

Part of what was going on was a third party who was helping market the property was still posting short-term rentals even though they weren't going on.

So that was one of the violations that the property owner was cited for, but yeah, there's been no short-term rental activity.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Anything else?

I had uh one, Mr.

Chair.

Um the it was originally uh five bedroom units or multiple bedroom units, the residential on the second floor, and the residence is now a segment of the second floor and the other spaces office space.

Is that right?

Or I'm not sure I'm following.

Is the entire second floor residential or okay?

All right, yeah.

There was again there was a dwelling, a multi-bedroom dwelling above the the existing structure.

So it's one dwelling in multi-bedrooms, and then the one bedroom new one bedroom dwelling is gonna be the second floor of the addition.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's that I think.

What's the what is the rest of the second floor become?

Is that office space or storage space?

No, to the right, that I want to make sure we're looking at yeah.

Sorry, it becomes yeah, no, that's that's the existing multi-bedroom dwelling.

So it'll be two dwelling units.

Two dwellings on the second floor.

I made some weird notes and confused myself.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Are you on confused now?

I am.

All right, very good.

Good.

Other questions?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh I guess we'll start with Chris Fagan.

Yes, sir.

Please raise your right hand.

You swear it's all the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

Chris Fagan.

Very good.

So Chris, if you could, um, again, we've you've testified back in November, so we don't need to go through the whole program all over again.

But if you could just sort of walk through with the board the changes that have been made since uh November to both the building and the site, discuss uh the modifications to the rear place the um the rear door, windows, things of that nature.

Yeah, we heard the board's concerns and we wanted to try to work to accommodate them as best we could.

So we looked at the window programming, we reduced the overall size of the windows, and we reduced the number of the windows.

So specifically on the rear of the building, we previously had three windows with transoms and double doors with transoms above those.

We've gotten rid of the double door, uh just leaving a single door without glass in it, and we've gotten rid of the other two windows to the right side of it.

So going forward, we're only gonna have two windows and two trams above, all these windows would be fixed, so they wouldn't be able to open it keeping sound in the building.

Well, Chris, uh may I just quickly when you explain to me when you with the window with the transom and uh what what are you talking about?

Um a transom is a smaller window, which would be above a double-hung window, just to add a little bit additional light.

Oh, it's uh if you look at the window, it's basically the okay, but these are windows are not meant to be open to the public.

None of them would be open.

Okay.

And then you just want to discuss uh the changes to the site, what modifications were made.

Um we added the additional parking space.

Okay, and that's located at the at the east boundary.

The east boundary, um, which is a open parking lot now.

So there was adequate space to get that in.

And again, just to be clear, um they're stacked, but the two spaces meet the dimensional requirements under the code.

Correct.

Okay.

Uh did you uh address the windows on the McAllister side of the uh new addition?

Yes.

So that window programming stayed the same in terms of its configuration, but the windows got slightly smaller.

All those windows are also fixed windows.

All fixed windows, slightly small uh 20% small, uh 40% guesstimate.

10% smaller, 10% smaller.

Okay, thank you.

Question?

Well, I just want to make sure that the these changes you were making are to help satisfy neighbors' concerns.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes, as I remember, there were a couple of neighbors that says, Well, you have that the glass is uh it's not sound proof.

Um, just to just to be clear that I think just to paraphrase my recollection is the main concerns in relation to the building, right?

There's concern about the the size of the addition, we understand that.

But the things that were articulated were concerns about noise, concerns about the original French doors being just sort of a free passageway for club members to go out and convert what is otherwise a parking or grass area as proposed into something else like an outdoor service area, which is not what's happening.

So that's why the modification we've made, it's now literally a solid exit-only egress door.

It's not intended to be uh an extension of the service area.

Thank you for clarifying that's important.

And then the last point again in relation to parking, that was something I recall the chairman mentioning that he was curious at the time about whether or not there'd be any opportunity to add any parking to the site.

So we went back to the drawing board on that.

Okay, very good.

Okay, seeing no more questions, thank you, Mr.

Faye.

Thanks, Chris.

Like to bring up Mr.

Hool now.

Really, wouldn't be a zoning board meeting without testimony from you, Mr.

Wool.

You know, thank you.

Uh good for you.

Yes, thank you.

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

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

James Hool.

Thank you.

So um, Jim, if you could just um again briefly, I know you testified in November, so in general, you you adopt all the findings and conclusions that are reflected in your report, and it were also testified to back in November, correct?

Yes, all right.

And since then you've had an opportunity to look at the amended petition.

Yes.

And so if you could, why don't you just walk through that analysis with the board and then advise them as to what your findings are in relation to this amended petition?

Well, I think that I mean, I'm not sure exactly how much of the of my original testimony you want to re-hear, but you know, essentially what has happened is that uh as Chris just testified, he's reduced the amount of window area, um, they've eliminated the doors to the rear yard, which was of concern to the neighbors in as uh Ms.

Jackson alluded to the fact that there was concern they may have an outside recreational area or service area, and by eliminating those doors, it eliminates the the distinct possibility of all that happening.

Um, course the addition of parking is incredible, um, considering how difficult it is to um use sites down here because they are small, and parking is very lacking as we know throughout the area.

So I you know, everything that I had testified before, um, the building itself creates the hardship.

Um it is a conforming lot, but the building itself um, you know, was designed a long time ago.

Now it's contributing architectural building to the area, it's part of the street facade, it's it's not particularly high.

If you're gonna do anything to the building, you could go up, but if you went up, it would ruin that facade by going in the backyard.

Um it's really not going to be seen by any of the neighbors.

So in general, uh it really is a superior plan to try to try to um do anything else that you can to a building that was set there a long time ago and really can't be altered.

So I I think that the additions that they the changes that they made really enhance everything that I had said about it before.

I don't know if anybody has any particular questions regarding it, but I I just think that it's a superior plan to what we testified before, and I thought it was a very good at the time.

Very simple.

You need Mr.

Rudd.

Yeah, so um just let's just go through the hardship again for me, please.

What okay, you know what's what specifically is the hardship?

It's a it's a lot a conforming lot, right?

It's a conforming lot and the and the it's a conforming lot.

The lot coverage being requested is very high.

But you know, I frequently talk about massing.

And if you were not going to increase the if you were not going to increase the lot coverage, you would end up really having to go up on this building.

Now, I've been through this building because I appraised it for the estate of the previous owner, and it's not built particularly, it has a gap of about four or five feet between the first floor and the second floor.

Makes it very difficult to utilize to it would be very difficult to utilize the space together.

And if you were going to do any kind of expansion and go up any higher, you would really be ruining the facade of the building.

And I think that if you could, you know, when we look at these projects, if you could take that building away and redesign a building, I'm sure that you can get everything that was being requested now in the same footprint, but because you're retrofitting a building, it just is not gonna work as well as it would be again if you were designing it brand new.

And and you know, when I look at it again, I looked at the the the massing, you're putting all that addition in the back, so you're not seeing it at all, the street, and the buildings that are in back of it block it from the neighborhood in back.

So I think that you know, the hardship is the building.

Uh it creates a situation where the only logical thing to do is increase the lot coverage, and and you know, that's not their making.

That building was there for a hundred and some odd years.

So it's so to your point, there's a four to five foot gap, if you will, between the first floor and the second floor.

Yes, there is, and so is that storage space or what is it?

No, it's a gap.

If you were to walk up, if you went to the flight of stairs to go up to the second floor, they're very long.

There's just if whoever built the structure of this building, possibly it was added on at some past date, but and and so they incorporated part of the roof structure.

But it's a very high gap, and so making you couldn't use it for customers, it would be it would be absurd trying to make them walk to the second floor.

Right.

So, that that would be in to your point.

I I think what you're saying is that would be a major renovation.

In other words, you essentially have to take the to the second floor off or somehow remove it to build.

You'd have to restructure the entire building.

And and you know, to the point of if this building was being designed new on site, there's no basement.

There's only an old wall space.

You know, if you could dig down even a little bit and put a low crawl space or a low foundation, you could put a lot of storage there that doesn't exist now.

Right that they have to use part of the space of the building.

Right.

So, again, to to try to intuit what you're saying, um i i if they put a third floor on, it sounds to me like it's not even gonna be a real third floor.

I mean, to I mean it would have to go above you would be looking for another variance and a special use.

But very well be looking for any for going over the height limit, right?

Yeah.

Um on that.

I mean, that sounds to me like you know, you wouldn't be able to do that.

Okay.

That's that's it for me.

Anybody else?

Yeah, for one point question.

Uh Mr.

Hall, that gap, it's just vacant space, like uh crawl space between the two floors.

Mr.

Belinsky hang out one second, Chris, you've seen right.

Can you address it a little bit from uh buildings at the point?

From what I've seen of it, it is a vacant gap exists between the two floors.

So when they proposed um second apartment was put on that, they looked at fire coding for the existing structure.

Having that gap above a bar with two units above it seems little.

Yeah, this building's gonna need to get some fire code upgrades as a part of this.

So that you know, I think it's we're gonna have to look at the um basically the fire tree between the floors.

And any kind of soundproofing for those units.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions, Dave?

Uh yeah, Mr.

Hul, um speak to the um lot coverage of 60% as it compares to the other properties in the neighborhood.

Well, you know, I I was realizing I hadn't done one of my usual things, but sixty-four percent.

If all you have to do is look at page A.

60 point three.

Oh, I'm sorry, thank you.

Okay.

If you look at page eight, um, I don't know if you have copies of my report, but on page eight, I have the GIS map of the area, and you can see that virtually there are surrounding this lot, are a multitude of lots that are almost completely shaded in the buildings.

You know, you can uh immediately around the the subject property you can see that this is not gonna be an outrageous lot of coverage considering what's in the area, both residentially and commercially.

And um on that uh on that map.

What's the large open space behind the uh protective club?

I think that's part part of the um is that the parking area for.

I'm not quite sure.

They the area, the Wellington project, I think that's part of their city.

It's a service parking lot.

So that's a service parking lot, right?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Mr.

Mr.

Wool, you made a um you did make some contrast to the neighborhood, something about its 10%, approximately 10% is more than the average around the area.

You don't happen to know what no, I don't.

Okay, I don't.

I don't.

I'm sorry.

That's fine.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Yep.

One more witness.

So, Mr.

Brayton, yes.

Yes, this is your parking expert.

Yes, if you would.

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

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

I'd bring it in, Brian Associates.

Very good.

So Mr.

Braden, if you could just um to go through the process, the steps you undertook to uh analyze the petition and the site.

What your findings and conclusions were in relation to the variances requested for parking.

Sure.

Um, so uh we started uh by looking at the application, um the site, uh the added parking, that sort of thing.

We did a field review of the area to get familiar with with the surrounding roadways um and uh the parking in the area.

Uh uh I won't get into detail since it's been already discussed, but it ultimately comes down to uh a six parking space variants that's needed.

Uh and as I mentioned, this this club has been in in existence for a very long time, um, and there has not seemed to been any complaints from members in terms of lack of parking, um, full floor of the space.

Um, and lack of on-site parking uh on Thame Street, especially in Newport in general, but especially on Thame Street uh for restaurants, is is typical of uh the restaurants don't have parking on site.

Um there are other options for parking, whether that's on street parking, municipal parking lots, or using ride sharing like Uber and Lyft to uh to get to the um to the club.

And also there's there's members that are within walking distance, so they can actually physically walk, walk to the club as well.

Um and there is there is available on street parking in this area on Thame Street as well as on Wellington Wellington Avenue, which is just to the north of the club.

Uh and the lack of on-site parking uh does not hinder the operation of the club or of traffic on Thame Street and the adjacent streets.

Um so we did look at just to kind of get an idea of how much traffic this this expansion would uh create.

Um so looking at the one dwelling unit, uh, and as well as the 419 square foot of square feet of expansion um it for the most looking at the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and a weekday, and also Saturday peak hour, the highest number of trips that are anticipated, both entering and exiting combined trips is only six.

So it's it's it's not a huge impact to traffic from the expansion.

Uh so we did look at the the parking and the driveway access.

Uh the as is mentioned previously, the proposed parking spaces do meet dimensional requirements of nine by eighteen.

Uh the north parking space, because they are double-stacked, would be blocked by a vehicle uh that might be parked in the south parking space, so they will need to be coordination uh between the vehicle owners of those two spaces in order to get and use both both spaces.

Uh so the access driveway width uh does not meet standards for commercial use, but it would if it was a single family use.

Um, based on that and in the low amount of volume of traffic that would be using these parking spaces, we don't see that as a as a safety concern.

Uh we did get some traffic counts um and speed data on McAllister Street, just to kind of get an idea of of uh in terms of the backing into uh or either in or out of the of the driveway.

So the vehicle speeds were 18 miles per hour, which is a low number.

Um, and for the day that was counted, there was only 107 vehicles um for the whole 24 hour period.

107 107.

107, okay.

So so not a lot of a lot of vehicles.

Um so and they're looking at uh the surroundings with no hazardous traffic conditions that are evident.

And the other thing also the McAllister is a one-way street, so that does reduce uh potential conflicts because it's only have one one direction of traffic.

Yeah, it's east to west, is that correct?

It's yes, east to west towards thame street.

Uh so it's our opinion that uh vehicles using the on-site parking spaces will not create any unsafe conditions.

Uh and is my opinion that the proposed expansion will have minimal impact on the parking and traffic operations in the area.

Um, neglected, I slip my mind that Mr.

Brayton wasn't here for the first hearing.

So if I could, you've seen Mr.

Braden before, he's been here as an expert uh traffic engineer.

So I'd ask you to ask the board to accept him again this evening as an expert witness in relation to the traffic in parking.

Sure, unless I get any objections uh from my fellow board members, um, yes, we'll I think we can recognize you, Mr.

Braden as an expert in traffic.

You've testified in front of us many times.

So we're good there.

Do we have any questions, Mr.

Bright?

I do.

Um Mr.

Jackson, at the end of the day, um this application is still requesting six real parking spots.

Um I'm hearing that uh parking is you know it's a hard chip, and this and that's basically that's the nature of the beast.

Do you have a plan for any six spots?

Uh cross the street or waits warf or anything like that.

Uh no, honestly, I mean, it to to be frank, I know that this board has often given consideration to that for short-term rentals who are coming before you asking for parking variances.

Um, then my experience that standard commercial operations up and down lower Thame Street, that generally hasn't been something you've been looking for necessarily.

So that's not something that was considered in terms of finding additional spaces off-site within a particular radius.

Um I that most of those requests my recollection related to lodging.

Okay, thank you.

Right.

That that's my understanding.

I would to continue on on Mr.

Brage's point.

Um, I know next door, um, there's some apartments there and some retail as well.

And any thought been given to you know talking to Tony La Russo or any of the owners there about about you know, I can certainly check with my client.

I mean, Mr.

Mr.

Russo, sorry, was here at the last meeting in support of this application.

So obviously, if there's an opportunity for some type of, you know, copacetic relationship so that parking could be shared and some arrangement could be worked out.

I'm sure he would be open to that, Mr.

Russo and and my client would as well.

Right.

Um, because I I think there are some extra spots there before he bought it, they used to tow you out of there.

If um, you know, you we weren't um they would just tow 20 cars out of there.

Um if you if you weren't uh had one of the stickers or whatever.

But um could be a possibility, I would suggest that.

Um I don't I don't I'm not sure that I would want to have that as a condition.

Um I think to your point, I think it's difficult.

How do you figure that out?

You know, in terms of I I get it when you have uh, you know, a a guest guest house use, you've got people going out and new people coming in.

So you tell them here's where your parking places are, and so they use them when you have different people coming in at different times and who knows, you know.

I mean, I I agree with you, it is difficult to do that.

But it would be nice to know that that there would be a friendly parking lot next door.

I think that's what I'm saying.

So any other questions?

I have one, sure.

Um I have a I have a note from six months ago that says something about scooter and bicycle parking, and it could just be a note to myself to ask about that.

I think when we heard from a lot of the folks who go to the protective club from the neighborhood, they all described walking.

Um didn't hear a lot of people say like I get on my bicycle or I get on my scooter, but just to satisfy me in rereading my cryptic notes, was there any plan to have any bicycle or scooter parking?

Um, I I think I think the comment was to the extent there is some space available for that.

So we certainly, if you wanted to put a condition, if you look at the top of that site plan, there's an existing bulkhead that's being removed.

Yeah.

So there is there's a little pocket there that that's in between the addition and the the new driveway, bicycles and scooters could find their way to the backside, and and I'm sure we could, you know, create a space there for a bicycle rack and a couple spots for scooters as well.

Is that fair?

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Would you like that as a condition?

Why not?

I think so.

My feeling is hearing from um people who go from the neighborhood, um, reading a little bit more into the history of the Southern Thames District from uh the piece that you provided us.

Um it just feels like this is a perfect location to promote multimodalism and you know, they've they've managed to put one extra parking spot here.

Um the area is historically known to have limited off-street parking um and even on street parking.

So I think that to have that condition to promote multimodal modalism is important in anchoring that.

So promote not demand.

Well, by the way, by demand like you can't you can't demand that the business, I mean, you can and ask the business to encourage people to get there by other means other than cars, but you you can't actually no one can control what the person coming to.

So what I'm getting at, we can't make a condition that they have parking.

I mean, uh bike parking if they can.

Bike and scooter park.

Yeah.

And you you've agreed to that.

So I think it would be agreeable to that to give you.

My only my only hesitation would be putting a number on the number of scooter spaces because we haven't sort of laid that out, but we can accommodate on site a bicycle rack in an area where scooters can be parked too.

That would be satisfactory.

That's right.

Okay.

Other questions, Dave?

Call?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, son.

All right.

So we we don't have any other witnesses.

I don't know to what extent you're opening it up to anybody else who wants to speak.

Uh if you do, I just I'll if I could have two minutes at the end to close.

Sure.

I think uh we do.

I think we may have one or two um objecting neighbors.

Are you still here, Mr.

Boldock?

Yes, sir.

I can't see over there.

Come on up.

Once again, please raise your right hand.

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

I do to the best of my knowledge.

Please uh state your name for the record, sir.

Chuck Boldock, Dixon Street.

Very good.

Okay, yes, we are in receipt of your letter.

Um, came in today.

And I might say that tonight what I've heard is great plans on the physical side.

And I'd like to just sort of lean a little towards the use side as far as what zoning does look at.

Um the city continues to grow, and we need to be mindful that we are first a city of residence, and the primary reason for which Newport functions.

Development is going on.

We've been I've been here 47 years, and it's pushing the bounds, especially in the lower Thame Street area, the Broadway, and the upper Broadway areas.

The issues become a balancing act for residential life and business profitability.

The LB zone, as we've said so many times, exists to support neighboring residential areas with services and compatible hours, they were not meant to be an expansion zone to augment general and waterfront zones.

So why this request?

Um so far it's been the discussion of the physical size, the variance, the parking, and the parking is another issue.

But the primary request is for a physical expansion, a dimensional variance to better serve is what we heard to provide more, but that translates to being more profitable.

This club has existed and supported its ownership for three generations, and in this LB ordinance, there's no factor that implies or requires expansion for an already successful business.

The expansion will require more parking to be put onto the side streets, but we've been talking about static numbers, how many people would be in the building at one given time with its staff and with the people upstairs looking for a parking place.

When you have so many thousand members of the club, as they had stated in previous testimony, you're gonna be seeing a lot of summer folk coming in to see if we can get into the club.

I I wonder if those hundred and seven cars going down McAllister will be six hundred and seven cars by circling vehicles looking for that parking place.

Well, everything is good with those six extra that they're asking in the variance.

Whatever happened to those other seven ghost spots, you know.

So we're still looking at numbers that every time this board looks at parking and looks at a simple little variance item, is it being addressed citywide?

I know the council's been concerned about parking, but if we were to look at this particular board since January, how many parking spaces have been given a variance that required to go on the street?

That number keeps growing and growing and growing.

Yeah, if I if I can interject, because I did read that in your in your letter.

So I I think you miss maybe misconstruing that a little bit because largely what we've been dealing with over the course of the last couple of years is uh Airbnb or guest house uses, right?

And so what we've been doing is is if they're if they're asking for a variance on parking, is we're requiring them to find off-site parking, and we actually Nick, our our zoning officer goes and makes sure that they have dedicated spots for people.

So we're not we are not willy-nilly handing out, you know, uh, handing out variances and special use permissions for for parking.

We're requiring, and almost all of them are are based upon Airbnb's or guest house uses.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Ross.

Just to clarify that for you.

And I do understand that, but but in the implication is the person in the car.

May not go to that particular place.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

As I understand in the state law, this variance cannot be based on the applicant's simple desire to expand or especially to realize greater financial gain.

There currently is really no hardship that garners an expansion because there's no real proof of loss of beneficial use as the club exists successfully in these last few years.

No relief is allowed to make use of of a more profitable use after the relief.

So simply with the staff report and the consideration of use and how it's going to impact the lower business, excuse me, the lower themes limited business zone, and for the residents, I'm looking at it as a potential for continued overdevelopment in areas that are still very sensitive.

Thank you very much.

Hold on one sec.

Um questions from the board members from Mr.

Boldock.

I hear none.

Mr.

Jackson, anything?

You're all set.

Thank you all.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Is there anybody else here in objection that would like to speak?

Yes.

Do I remember you from November as well?

I think I do.

Come on up.

Please raise your right hand and lower the microphone.

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 right.

Physically, I was away.

And there was a comment made that I didn't care enough to show up.

So I want to be sure that you know I care enough, and I showed up.

So that's why I'm here again.

Okay.

Um I still have a couple of questions.

Um I you know, why why would we object to you know a great watering hole that brings great food, drink and camaraderie, has a great manager, Scott.

Um, you know, I I get it.

A lot of people don't understand why we object, and I would just have to tell you that I, as Mr.

Wildick, I haven't been here quite so long, but I've been here over 25 years.

We've lived through asterisks, we've lived through the boathouse, we've lived through a number of problems, and there is a history that we recall.

We've also seen our neighborhood gutted in the past 10 years.

Part of it short-term rentals, but part of it just an unwillingness for people to continue to put up with traffic, noise, people urinating in their driveways, people vomiting after being drunk, things like that in the neighborhood, which I care deeply about the neighborhood, and that's why I'm here, and that's why I'm asking these questions.

It's not to give anyone a hard time.

I also hope you appreciate that after the last meeting, we were called names.

I had to endure verbal abuse from a patron when I walked by after the last meeting.

So it is not an easy task to come here before you again with all these people behind me that I know are very much in support, but I just feel so strongly that the neighborhood needs protection.

So I hope you can appreciate my position on that.

Thank you very much.

Um, my question um would first be that when they last um were here, they said that they had tried for the past two months um to do a long-term rental.

I haven't seen any signs of a long-term rental per.

Perhaps there is uh a rental going on now.

Well, no, you need to speak to us up here.

Okay, so I don't I don't want to misspeak, um, if they want to correct me, but I can't see any signs of a long-term rental in there, and yet, you know, I was told we're in a housing crisis, and I believe it's a four-bedroom unit up there.

Um, so that concerns me that if it hasn't been rented, why?

Is it because there's not parking?

Is it because nobody wants to live with a bar underneath them that's open seven days a week till one in the morning, which would be one of the concerns of the other neighbors in the area, but I think that's worth following up on.

Um, you know, I think they're a great successful business as they are, but I don't understand why we're just saying, okay, so expand.

I mean, if they're successful, where's the hardship?

The hardship that I heard was expanding up is going to be difficult because of the five foot gap.

What that's not what I'm asking about.

Why do they have to expand?

Where's the hardship?

They're able to enjoy the business that they have now.

It was always um a residence, a family residence above it, for years and years and years.

I I I don't I don't see the hardship.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand that.

The intensification of expanding not only brings the parking problems, which and I heard what you said to Mr.

Bolduck, and I appreciate that, but also the fact is you did grant a variance to the house two down recently, but it became a short-term rental that is short for spaces, and that property was just sold to the Prakashante company.

It will be a hotel short-term rental, so you have robbed us of a community with neighbors.

We have nothing but more short-term rentals, more people that do not take out my trash when I'm away, do not shovel when I'm not away, and vice versa.

Do not get invited to dinner over to my house.

So it does change the nature of the business.

So I think having a neighborhood bar is great.

I'm all for it.

Um, I don't think it's possible for eleven hundred people to walk to the bar.

I know some of you frequent the bar.

I know certain amount of city administration frequents it.

Sometimes I see them drive on the way home from work and stop by and our patrons in the bar.

And that's all great, but it does sometimes take away from parking spots that my neighbors need.

There's a lot of houses on Bame Street that don't have any parking.

And there's a number of houses even on McAllister that also don't have any driveways.

So it is a very sensitive thing in that in our close-knit area there.

And I know a lot of people that are here in support don't suffer those same problems, and they're not in within the 200 feet radius.

So I would hope that you would take that into consideration also.

Um I don't want to belabor the the parking thing, but I just I just think if it's such a problem and we keep granting it, it just exasperates it.

I just can't wrap my head around why we continue to do that instead of trying to cut back and and make it more manageable for the people that already exist there.

Um they did state at the last meeting that they were going to put in um bike parking and scooter parking.

So I I do have that down as a quote from the last meeting.

Um, so I think that's a great idea as well.

And um, unless you have any other questions, I think that's it for me.

Questions from this witness?

Anybody?

Thank you.

I think we're good, thank you.

Questions?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is that it on objectors?

You want to speak?

anybody else?

Okay, hearing none.

Uh Mr.

Jackson, you got a couple of closing comments you'd like to make.

Or we go to discuss.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just a few comments.

Um, again, I given I know it's difficult for you given the original hearing was back in November to try to sort of refresh your recollection.

All the testimony that you heard at that point.

Um, I would keep in mind that, you know, when you talk about why this expansion, there was quite a bit of testimony, both from the applicants as well as club members about um the relatively small space that currently exists and the desire to have a little extra space that could be closed off private for various clubs that meet there.

Um I think there's a lot of testimony about whether whether it's book clubs or other organizations uh that use the space.

And so, you know, this ongoing question of why do you need to expand?

Um the expansion is being requested because it's a success, and I would caution to characterize what has been there for the last 50 years as a quote unquote ex success.

I mean, it was a relatively quiet um uh rundown.

I don't want to speak ill of specs or the protective club, but it wasn't what it is today, and this is a vibrant community um gathering spot that a lot of neighbors come to by foot, they'll be able to get there by bicycle and scooter if they want to, and I don't think it's unreasonable for a property owner and a business owner in a business district, acknowledging it's a limited district, but it's still a business district to request a variance for what I would consider a modest expansion of the existing operations, keeping in mind there was again discussion about this is just about proper.

Well, those financial considerations, correct me if I'm wrong, Nick, those are no longer standards that apply to dimensional variances, so there's no purpose to inquire about whether or not this is strictly for profit or not.

Um, this is just to keep the success moving forward of the club and to accommodate the needs of what the members have expressed.

The location, we understand the fact that it's close by neighborhoods.

Keep in mind, you saw that you saw that GIS map.

When there's concerns, I know there's concerns about parking when there's concerns about how this may disrupt the neighborhood.

This is surrounded by um quite a bit of linear feet of commercial or parking space on the north and east side.

Granted, there are residences across the street on McAllister, but this property is not surrounded by all residential uses.

It is part of that commercial corridor along Lower Thames.

And I think what's being proposed, keeping in mind are expansions of uses that are allowed by right, both the club/slash restaurant use as well as the residential use.

You've heard from not only the applicant, you've heard from Mr.

Hoole, you've heard from Mr.

Brayton, and you've heard from the architect on the project, the architectural designer Chris Fagan, as it relates to the extent that this project meets the standards required for the granting of the variances.

So I would like you to if you would give consideration to the to the uh testimony of Mr.

Hool and Mr.

Um Brayton in relation to those, because what we're asking for again are dimensional variances, and they both testified, been recognized that as experts and testified that from their perspective in their respective fields, those variances have been met by the project that's before you.

And again, we're willing to agree to the conditions regarding bicycle and scooter parking and also long-term rental.

Yeah, no short-term rentals in the property.

Okay, would you also agree to having uh no outdoor service area?

Sure.

I I think I we wouldn't object to that um condition because frankly, if they wanted to do something like that, I think they'd have to if not come back to this board, they'd have to go to the city council to get that granted, okay.

So if if you want to condition that no outside service area without further relief from the zoning board and city council, I think that goes without saying, but we'd be okay with that condition too.

We could put that in.

Yeah, sure.

No problem.

Okay.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you.

You have a question, Board.

No, I just got a speaker.

Noise.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Okay, so we are obviously have closed the testimony uh portion of this uh hearing.

And um, why don't we just carry on?

I know it's getting we do need a break at some point, but let's uh yeah, let's get this.

Let's let's get this thing rolling, huh?

What do you think, guys?

Yeah, something all right.

So um if you would, uh Mr.

Vice Chairman, put this uh into the form of a motion for us, and we'll begin discussion.

All right, Ms.

Chairman.

Um, on the petition of uh 594 to 596 LLC.

Um, I move to adopt, excuse me, as the board's finding a facts, the information in the staff report, applications and supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of council and any exhibits marked, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, adopted as the board's conclusion of the law that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the new bud 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 noticing be paid in full, and as a condition of recording the decision, we'll add the following additional conditions.

Number one, that a bicycle rack, space for scooters be included as um available in the rear of the uh building.

Number two, that the residential properties be rented on a long-term basis, and number three, uh no outdoor service area uh be added without uh uh approval of the town council or the zoning office.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Sherry.

Or you look like you're you want to go.

Yeah, I'll go.

Okay.

Yes, we're gonna have discussion and a vote right now, Mr.

Grimes.

Okay, let me let me start.

Um this has been a six-month process, so I'll try to make this relatively quick.

Um, it's not gonna take six months.

It won't take any more less than five months, I promise you.

Um I after hearing the testimony of the abutters, um, I'm reminded that whenever we're dealing in an area where you've got an R 10 zone and a limited business zone or general business zone, you're gonna have conflict.

There's no question about it.

And um and each of the groups have rights.

Uh heard very compelling arguments here from the people in the R 10 zone that um their rights are being they feel that their rights are being violated.

And conversely, the people in the limited business zone uh they they have rights on their own to to maintain their business.

And and in order for them to maintain a business, they have to be viable.

In order to be viable, I think you need to continue to grow.

So that's just sort of a backdrop.

When I started reviewing this case again, uh I made a list of a lot of things that I thought had to be satisfied in order for me to make a a decision for or against.

And there were several, one had to do with parking, another one had to do with noise, privacy, traffic, density, uh commercial parking standards.

And um, frankly, I I am satisfied that the applicant has done worked very closely with all the all the the experts to help satisfy these now.

Parking, you know, there's no we can't solve the problem.

That's a hardship for the entire community.

Um there's no good answer for that, but um, you know, I've come to grips that there is no good answer for that.

Um, so but I did hear from the we did hear uh uh uh from the traffic expert, Mr.

Brayton, on on both traffic and parking, and I I don't see that as being a uh a big barrier, you know, to stop this uh uh uh project moving along.

I was satisfied with that.

I was mostly concerned about issues relative to noise and privacy, and I'm satisfied with the architect um that with the the window plan and the door plan um would would satisfy any excess of noise coming out of the expansion uh of the of the business, particularly in the back.

Um so with that said, um I am going to recommend that that this uh project be approved with all those with all these changes in mind.

It's not an easy decision, and it's it's frequently a controversial decision.

But anytime, like I say, when you've got an R10 and the limited business on the same on the same street, you're going to have differences of opinion.

And I think this might assertion is going to lean toward the rights of the limited business, because they're in the zone right now, which is the whole commercial area of Newport.

And then that needs to stay viable.

But they also need to be responsible.

But once again, I'm going to vote to approve this petition.

Thank you, Mr.

Grimes.

Anybody else?

Dave, you like to go?

Yeah.

Yeah, sure.

Um, I'll be approving this uh petition.

Uh very sensitive to the uh comments made by the neighbors, Miss Mr.

Bollock and the other neighbor.

Um uh it is a complicated, as Mr.

Grimes mentioned, it's it's you know, two houses away from a residential neighborhood, but that neighborhood has been like that for 80 years, where they've had all sorts of various types of buildings, uh operations, uh auto repair shops, uh all sorts of stuff down there.

Um there were two major obstacles, I thought that the applicant faced when submitting uh the petition.

First was a hardship.

What is the hardship?

Although the lot exceeds the required lot size of 3,000, the actual lot size is only 3200 and is still extremely small.

The actual increase in lot coverage is actually a very small ask given it is um for a two story addition, and they've maintained the height and the facade of that existing building.

Um other uh applicants on Thame Street and Lower Thame Street have not been so sensitive to the design on that particular street, and uh I appreciate them uh being mindful of that.

The next question is will this request alter the character of the existing neighborhood?

Um that to me was the uh most uh complicated one.

And will it alter the character of the neighborhood?

And uh, you know, it is an expansion, but it's a very small square footage expansion, and I don't see that small amount of additional square footage altering the character of the neighborhood.

Uh the applicant, after hearing from the neighbors, added additional parking space, one, removed and reduced the size of the windows uh to mitigate potential noise uh that that would go into the neighborhood and remove the glass French doors with a solid emergency door, meaning that there won't be people out in the back of the building uh drinking or whatever.

Um, and I'm very appreciative of them, mindful of the historic nature of the building facade.

Uh uh, I've been around Newport a long time.

I didn't think I'd see historic and protective club in the same breath.

But it is true, and and it is gonna maintain that as a as a uh um uh nice looking building.

This neighborhood has restaurants, a gas station, guest houses, another club in Tarran in the area.

Um so I don't think it'll be out of character with the with the neighborhood.

The parking issue is just a dimensional request.

The parking situation was improved by one space.

The variance needed is to reverse into the right of way.

I drive down that street.

I possibly was one of that 101 cars that drove down the street one day.

Uh virtually every home on that property on that street has to reverse into that street because there's very, very, very few park houses with parking, and if it's one, it's one tiny little pocket space.

So uh it's a very lightly traveled street.

So I think reversing the variance to reverse into a right of way was uh um easy to make that decision.

I find that the applicant has been very credible.

The plans uh continue the protective club as a neighborhood club as it has been operated since the ownership.

Uh and for many, many decades.

So thank you, uh Dave.

We're in.

Sure.

So I really struggled with this one and went back and forth.

And like my colleague uh Mr.

Riley, it really came down to two elements: the hardship and altering the general characteristics of the neighborhood.

And I found the testimony of the neighbors to be very credible and concerning, and and that's really where I put a lot of my weight uh as we were hearing the testimony today.

Um speaking first to the hardship, I do think there is a hardship, even though there is um this is a standard lot.

Um Mr.

Hool um and Mr.

Fagan spoke to the historic nature of the building and how it was built with a gap in the floor, and and that would be challenging to address by building up and um making other modifications to the building other than what is being proposed here.

Um they talked about how there's no basement and that's taking away from the storage space.

Um so I think the extension off the back uh is a reasonable request.

Um getting to the characteristics of the neighborhood, that's where I really was most concerned and when we have neighbors coming up here and saying they're walking by the club and getting hollered at because they come up here in the zoning board and and speak um to protect their neighborhood.

Um, I think that's important for a club that advertises being a good neighbor.

We want to have good neighbors here, and so those are things I don't like to hear.

Um to that extent, i it is a neighborhood that is on the edge of a limited business.

I used to live on Simmons Street.

I know what it's like to live near Protective Club.

Uh there's a lot of college students going up and down the street.

Um I've experienced similar situations where I've woken up with several bottles in my front yard.

I think the the tipping point to me and and why I will be supporting this application are the conditions that we're going to be supporting the neighborhood, no outdoor business uh service area, no short-term rentals, uh the addition of having the parking spots that support those long-term rentals.

I think those elements give credibility to the applicant and their petition that they do want to be a good neighbor and that they care about the surrounding community, and so for those reasons, I don't think uh this petition, if we approve it will alter the characteristics neighborhood.

I think that the applicant has proven that they are invested in building this community.

Uh and for those reasons I will be supporting this petition.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Miss Batterina, would you like to go?

Sure.

Um I think uh I actually felt pretty um ready to vote on this about six months ago, and uh I am gonna be supporting it today.

I feel even more encouraged um to be supportive of this application.

I think the the hardship was actually a little clearer for me because it is the lot size, but it's relative to the type of activity going on, the success of the activity going on.

Um, and so I think, you know, the hardship for me was easy to identify um business relative to the lot size.

It is in the limited business zone.

I think um I think Mr.

Grimes uh described parking as a community wide issue.

It really is.

And I I just want to say a couple of things.

It's I think it's it it really the thing that really sort of exacerbates that is that we have these parking standards that really don't suit a lot of our areas.

We can't possibly for many of the parcels operate what we're allowed to for uses and provide parking to the standards that are required.

The other thing is the more we trade off parking the more we bring in parking especially into the center of the city especially into the neighborhoods you are attracting exactly what you don't want cars.

I think there is a solution I think it's tricky because it requires a lot of change in behavior a lot of change in choice.

It requires us to get out of our cars park further walk more ride a bike get on a scooter travel some other way.

So I am really especially satisfied by the conditions that we are adding tonight because to me it assures uh true housing opportunity it ensures a multimodal opportunity um and it does ensure some protection for the neighbors I am sorry to hear that you were treated poorly that absolutely shouldn't happen and I hope just like I hope that the club will promote multimodalism.

You'll also promote um good neighbors uh good good attitudes towards neighbors I think that this particular business creates an economic development opportunity that uh caters to locals in the neighborhood which is wildly different from catering to tourism which is typically what happens in Newport um oh I guess that's my last point that's it I'm just gonna abruptly stop oh okay wow all right came right at me there uh thank you uh Melissa appreciate that that's okay um so um not not to belabor this point but I'm going to agree with my colleagues and and vote in favor of this petition just a couple things um uh you know I think largely with businesses down this way and and it's not necessarily people driving around the neighborhoods and looking for parking places they find ways to park their cars and maybe walk down I do know um you know as a longstanding member past president of the Hibernians around the corner that um the uh the Wellington nine months of the year is fine for parking and then we have a little lot that uh that the o that the hotel does uh gives us a nine spaces uh for for us as well even in the summertime um so it does become at times a problem but uh you know for us it's when we have a party for a hundred and fifty people or something like that it's not what it's not what the protective club is doing that room I'm guessing is gonna hold maybe 15 or 20 people something like that.

So there's a book club I think there might be a knitting club there or something um things like that.

And a lot of those things too are going to be maybe weekend days in the afternoons um not necessarily in the evening so uh you know again to echo my my my colleagues uh parking is an issue we're trying trying to deal with it um it's very difficult to do um and uh uh particularly as it relates to uh to you know guest house Airbnb uses we're seeing a lot of that um on on in terms of uh petitions um so the hardship we've been through that I agree with that um somewhat of a hardship for a retail place but I it's a tricky question because you know they're they want to do more business and so they could build upstairs and ask us for a uh a variance on the height of the roof but that would might be worse you know in terms of massing so I like the idea of hiding it yet a little bit if you will in the back and creating an an additional parking space as well as the uh the parking for the bikes and for the scooters.

I think that's going to be helpful um so harmony in the neighborhood let's address that quickly um and it all kind of feeds into this aspect of things uh i is that it's become clear to me in the testimony even from the neighbors that the uh the owners and the and the managers of the club manager of the club and the bartenders are basically good stewards of the neighborhood um they do a good job in terms of uh communicating with people uh and and wanting everybody to get along so that to me that's a really important thing um and I think that that's going to be helpful going forward I think that they want to be able to do that because you know who wants uh you know people saying you know nasty things to you when you're walking by specs I I you know we understand that here okay because remember when we did make a decision half the people don't like us so it doesn't matter what we do okay um so we get that and it's not necessarily a nice thing I appreciate that but I think that that um is is something maybe from some patrons I don't think that's coming from ownership and management I really don't um I think that that's gonna be a better situation uh so good stewards and I think good stewards of the neighborhood um and uh the other thing was uh with with my colleagues that that I thought was really important was when we had this uh the first meeting in November um you guys did speak I remember both of you coming up and we took your your your criticisms and your suggestions seriously because we reflected that back to uh Mr.

Jackson and he went and made mitigations so they they did they went and changed the windows so it's not going to be as noisy it doesn't look to me like it's gonna be very noisy coming out of there and then um as well there was the there was another issue uh that they that they that they handled uh based upon that so we we listened to you and then they listened to us in terms of what we what we were trying to say so there were some mitigations there um and I think that that's important that that kind of puts me over to the top over the top too we try to listen to you folks in the neighborhood um and so uh that being said uh for all those reasons uh I am gonna agree with my colleagues and I'll be voting to approve the petition tonight.

So um what I want to do is uh at this point is poll each of the members in terms of how they're going to vote uh starting with you Miss Chevry how you vote on this petition Miss Chefrey I Mr Riley Mr.

Riley I Mr.

Rudd is aye Mr.

Grimes I Ms Padavina I okay so that uh that is a five zip decision in favor of uh of the petition uh if you would Mr.

Jackson um please write that up for us we would appreciate it and uh we're gonna take a quick five minute break and we'll be back with uh the next petition thank you thank you all we have it's perfect you guys no I mean well you made a difference Tom you know uh Chuck I'm sorry Chuck you made you made a difference I appreciate it going okay so we're gonna take a quick vote if we can uh we're gonna uh we're gonna reverse the order on the last two uh petitions if it's okay with you it uh is five Tyler Street here that's you sir yeah we're gonna we're gonna have Mr.

Lee's and and uh his petition on Memorial Boulevard go first and then we'll we'll get to you but if we don't and it goes another month it's it's it it's it's not the worst thing for you because at least if we were going to turn you down you get an extra month so but anyway um so if I could have a motion to that effect that we're gonna move uh the uh the memorial boulevard uh to the to the front of line I make a mo uh uh I make a motion that um we move to the uh application number four uh for the petition of two d petz a llc um and move that in front of the petition for Samuel Hollowell at five tyr street.

Second second thank you uh nicole all in favor please say say aye aye opposed okay thank you and thank you for that appreciate mr hello thank you um yes please mr lease and members of the board for taking us out of order uh um let me read their petition in please uh so petition of two patzi llc applicant david but gazoski revocable trust and carol rzarski revocable trust owners 7 memorial boulevard tax assessors plat 29 lot 50 in a general business zone for a special use permit to convert an existing standard restaurant to a fast food restaurant that would also offer small private catered dinners on certain nights between 5 p.m and 11 p.m.

Very good thank you uh Mr.

Johnson yes Mr.

Lee good evening Mr.

Chair members of the board Matt Lee's representing the applicant 2D Potzi LLC uh this application involves a property at seven Memorial Boulevard which you probably are all familiar with it's uh uh single story commercial structure with uh on one side it has a Dunkin' Donuts on the other side is the applicant's premises and just to the right of that if you're looking at it is the old former tavern building which has uh been a real estate office in recent years yeah that used to be pasta beach if I remember correctly right correct so yeah the space has been a restaurant for over 20 years uh it was originally uh in the early 2000s it became pasta beach and then about uh around 2000 or 2019 pasta beach moved over to Bellevue Avenue and 2D Potsi uh opened up a restaurant in the same space uh twotipotse changed its name to Mr.

R a few years ago um although it's the same applicant that's before you tonight and uh they've decided to change the concept from Mr.

R, which was a standard restaurant as was Pasta Beach before it uh to more of a grab and go uh concept with a sit-in option I'll still have tables where you can sit and eat but under the zoning ordinance uh definitions it would be considered a fast food restaurant which requires a special use permit and then um because the grab and go use would end at five o'clock they wanted to be able to make use of the space in the evenings so they're proposing as an accessory use to have a uh a private catered dinners upon request uh to no more than 35 people uh it would occur no more than three times per week during the summer so memorial day weekend to labor day weekend and then two time no more than two times a week uh during the rest of the year and just to give you uh a sense of what that looks like in terms of the the private catered dinners to no more than 35 people I have a photograph of the of the premises set up for that purpose uh which I could hand out to the board if I approach sure so this is uh this is set up actually the tables and shares for for 30 people have maybe one table so it would essentially be for birthday parties uh showers showers showers anything that nature uh we'll label this as uh applicants exhibit a sure oh by the way um we had no written uh objectors uh letters of objection and nobody's here in objection I'm not aware of any objections okay good so you know good so as indicated, there this would be, you know, a fast food restaurant during the day, technically, and then uh at night you'd have uh as an accessory use of catered catered dinner use.

Um there's adequate parking on site.

There's always six faces in the back that are dedicated to this premises.

Um that was always adequate for the standard restaurant use.

The fast food restaurant use actually requires less spaces.

Um, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, you're get you're gaining two spaces on.

Um no physical changes are proposed to the property at all.

Um, so there's no variances being requested.

It's uh it's just the special use permit.

The city council uh last week granted the uh victualing license application subject to zoning board approval.

Um they but uh my clients would also agree to conditions.

I know there was some you know discussion with the zoning officer whether there'd be uh you know, sort of an expansion of these uses as I described it, but they would agree to conditions which would include that the or particularly the accessory use would only be between 5 p.m.

and 11 p.m.

Uh the accessory use would be limited to no more than 35 patrons.

The numbers of dinners would be as I described it earlier, it would only be uh three times a week during the summer, which is Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend, and no more than two times uh a week the rest of the year.

And they'd also agree because in the staff report there was some reference to concerns about that it would become noisy or something of that nature.

They'd agree that there'd be no live entertainment at the premises.

Um, you know, I'd point out also that it's it's been a restaurant for over 20 years, so it's really not that dissimilar from what it's been for 20 plus years.

Um so and I could submit that I to type them up, I could submit them as uh as another exhibit, which we agree to.

Sure, Dave will take that.

I made up the well, he'll read about it.

I'll read these in.

Okay.

Would you like one?

Well uh mocked is as exact uh applicants exhibit B.

So the application uh we believe meets all the standards for a category three special use permit, and the addendum to the zoning uh application kind of takes you through each one of those standards.

I don't I won't read the whole addendum back to you, but the the standards for a category three are essentially that you meet the parking and loading standards for the proposed use.

Uh the applicant does that as described in the addendum.

Uh that the performance standards are met, and I think we take you through all the performance standards, which many of them relate to things like lighting, drainage, vibration, noise, um, things like that, but there's no no physical changes are being proposed, so those are are satisfied.

Uh the development standards likewise.

Uh I mentioned the requirement of a victualing house uh application being filed.

We've already obtained that subject to zoning approval and some other standards which will be uh which will be met.

Many of the standards for a category three for a fast food restaurant are actually um start with for new constructions and alterations exceeding 50% of any building dimension, certain things will occur, but we're not proposing any new construction or anything.

So none of those really are are applicable.

Um, likewise, things like all proposed lighting to be dark sky compliant.

Again, there's no change, there's really no no lighting.

Um that's really about it for the category three special use permit.

This is uh general business district.

I think you're all familiar with the area.

It's a heavily commercial area with all sorts of different uses that are kind of constantly changing and evolving.

Talbots becomes a bank, the tavern becomes a real estate office.

I don't know what was there before Empire, but it was something else, became a coffee shop.

So um you look like you remember what was there before.

Wasn't it senior frogs?

Well, that was way back, yeah.

That was on the second floor.

That was uh yeah.

And then Maximilians, too.

Maxy's, yeah.

So um, it's always Sully's or something.

Sully's was there, yeah.

There was a yoga, there's a yogurt shop.

There's a yeah, anyway.

Sully's was where Empire is.

Sully's was uh Sully's further down Williams Street, I think, yeah.

Um, so uh in any case, and then you've got you know, Memorial Boulevard's of four-lane state road, and then from that you have a high wall and and a wide sidewalk before you hit any residences, kind of far across the street.

So I mean, we know it's uh not gonna have a negative impact, I don't think on anybody.

Um the representatives of footypazi LLC are here with me tonight.

Uh Tyler and Aldridropolo, uh, the brothers who'll be running the restaurant.

Why don't we see if there are any questions from the board?

Sure.

Why don't we just target that and see which direction if we want to go in a direction?

So why don't we open it up either to the owners or to Mr.

Lee's for questions from the board members?

anybody let me just try?

Uh Mr.

Lee, so remind me again.

What is the parking requirement for this property?

So for a uh fast food restaurant, the requirement is one space for every two hundred and seventy-five square feet of gross square footage, which is defined as the space within the outer walls of the building.

And so in this for this particular uh property, uh the based on the floor plan, which you see up there, there's eleven hundred and twenty-seven square feet within the walls of the building, and so you divide that by two seventy-five and you come up with 4.09 spaces required.

You have six, six, yeah.

God bless you.

Yeah, that's what I said how yeah, okay.

Just want to make sure that the map was right.

Okay.

And are those designated within the lease?

Is that building shares with Dunkin' Donuts?

Yes, designated that you each get a certain amount.

It's designated in the lease as six faces.

Have you had any kind of traffic studies?

My my concern is just dealing with Dunkin' Donuts in the past.

Certain times of day you have a queuing issue, and that's a major road.

So people coming in for Brab and Go and people coming in for coffee.

They don't care if you've got designated six spots, they're gonna park there.

So has it been any kind of a traffic study?

We haven't had a traffic study for this um application.

I think there's there's so much there is the parking in the back.

There's also that, you know, you have the parking right in front there, which is used by Dunkin' Donuts, obviously, but there's also a lot of parking, you know, on both sides of further down Memorial Boulevard, the other side of Memorial Boulevard.

And I think our view is that really, like I say, it's it is a it's a busy area, it's kind of a drop in the bucket type situation where you're you know, you'll have uh people parking where they can park and my guess is that uh Dunkin' Donuts, the rush hours first thing in the morning.

Yeah, this is not a first thing in the morning kind of business.

No, that's a good point.

It's more uh the afternoon than noon time, and then the afternoon when maybe Dunkin' Donuts is slower, so that's a great plan.

I should be good.

The question is board members?

I just had one quick question, mostly um out of curiosity.

That is uh in the conditions that you are proposed, is that actually limiting the dinner events to two times a week and off season three times a week in the summer?

Yes.

Why?

I just yeah, I find that really strange, and like coming from looking at it as far as like economic development goals or business goals, that seems not fitting.

We would certainly be willing to wait, you know.

If if the board doesn't think those are necessary, would be willing to do without those conditions.

I know that I think it would those came out of maybe preliminary conversations with the zoning officer looking to say, well, how how is what is gonna happen to this?

It's not gonna become an every night thing.

So the idea was it would be limited.

I think from a business standpoint, I don't think they're thinking of doing it much more than that anyway.

It's sort of uh upon request.

Um, you know, if they have somebody who wants to do a party uh of some kind, but it's not gonna be just practically speaking, it's not gonna be an every night thing anyway.

Yeah, it's not open restaurants or no, no, it's not an open so is there something more impactful that I'm missing between like having a private party versus when it was pasta beach at night.

Not really.

I mean, Matt and I've had some discussions for the last few months on this.

Um we don't have any any other like sanctioned catered dinner places that I could use as an example.

So I kind of said to Matt can you provide some sort of operational plan and this is kind of what came out of that.

I don't think that there's anything in the code that says you need to limit them to certain nights or number of uh times per week um but it was more to try to kind of understand how they were going to operate this this component since it is kind of yeah I mean to me it's akin to like if I called a restaurant and I was like I want to rent the place out for my birthday and which I wouldn't do it's I'm anti-social but um that's why you're on the board that's why I'm on the board yeah you don't care what half the people he get after decision uh but anyway I I think everybody yeah I just I don't think it's a great limitation to include because I think it limits the economic develop it limits the business opportunity.

I mean like I say we'd be happy to not have those yeah we'd be happy to accommodate you guys yeah right I that's preferred I mean that that that that would work as well practically speaking it probably wouldn't be much more than that anyway but questions board members yeah um so right now I I've been in the existing restaurant um what what's gonna change what's what's the uh so um it's more of a lunch dinner menu what's changed what's what is the fast food gonna be so it's gonna be like we actually actually have a menu which we submitted to the city council because with the fictional license but it's essentially it would be and these guys can speak to it probably better but sandwiches salads you could get pizzas you could get other app kind of Italian style appetizers.

So it'll be a long pasta pasta beaches line or uh well there are rest offering similar that's not curious.

Alright hold on hold on hold on yeah raise your right hand please swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding yes stay your name for the record please John Eldridge Ropolo.

Okay so we're gonna have more prepared foods as well so you might be able to go in and grab maybe a Wellington where you can bring home and cook so things like that as well.

Okay.

Some lasagnas already ready eggplant parms meatballs things you can grab go home heat up cook things like that.

Little food love idea somewhat yeah um okay that's good to know um let's say you're having a dinner party for 10 10 guests and you want to do an apparito hour we'll have cheese boards we'll have sandwiches things like that that you can come grab order ahead of time pick up and take home okay um I struggle with the word so I'm gonna call it a liquor license you currently don't have any in the current you do not okay.

But I know in you can have events and it can be what BYOB as Mr R was before.

Okay but you are you've applied for an pending zoning approval tonight uh you're going to be granted a uh a license correct no there wouldn't be a liquor the caterer or it would either be BYOB or a cater if they have class P link.

Okay.

So what's the license you've been describing?

A victually license is just to serve food any restaurant has to have okay go right to booze.

So okay yeah thank you actually Dave Nicole no thank you.

So did you have something else?

No no no okay we're good thank you.

Thank you.

I think we're good.

Okay.

Thank you.

We're gonna put this in the form of a motion.

Right okay.

If you would Dave uh yes I think we want to consider per malicious advice yeah let not restricting them to three days a week well let's just go down to three days a week and not you know and then not to have to after memorial Day and just three days a week oh okay sure.

Is that is that okay?

Let's sort of a it's up to the pleasure of the board I think you can discuss whether you think that condition is necessary whether you want to set it at three or not have a limit.

I honestly I agree with Alyssa I don't think they're you know I would leave it up to them the way they're doing it no fighting me that is done just take it out yeah so sometimes you get more than you think how about that doesn't happen often uh on the petition of um uh two potsy LLC applicant David Gazowski revocable trust and Carol uh Bazarski revocable trust um I move to adopt the board's finding a fact information and staff report applications supporting documents and testimony of the witnesses um along with representations by counsel and the marked exhibits together with the comments spread on the record by the board members and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.109 of the Newport zoning ordinance entitled special use permit uh category um I think it was three category three 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 officer 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 the following additional conditions that the proposed accessory use feature private dinners upon request would only occur between the hours of 5 p.m and 11 p.m and the accessory use would be limited to no more than 35 patrons and third there'd be no live entertainment.

Great thank you Dave do I have a second second thank you Nicole Paul would you like to start with your discussion?

Sure.

Um pursuant to section 17 dot 109 and subject to the standard conditions of approval um I feel this application meets all the criteria outlined um within our zoning code and for that reason I will be voting to approve that's awesome thank you um I will also be voting to approve this application uh it's a for a special use permit they've met all the uh all the standards under the the category three special use permit um regarding parking and loading standards performance standards and development standards and therefore would would uh would would meet all the all the uh necessary uh points and um I'll be approving this uh petition great thank you rush yes uh I too will be uh approving this petition I'll echo my fellow board members' comments and uh feel that the uh the petitioners and their attorney um presented a um a convincing and valid argument for their petition and um uh feel like uh they have uh met the criteria so I will be voting to approve great um so I'm happy to go uh I too will be supporting this petition uh a couple of things that have not been stated I echo obviously the comments of my uh fellow board members um one of the things that again just thinking about being good neighbors I mean you've had this you know uh Mr.

Rs for many years and you know I mean you got your fixing license from this city council had there been you know problems up there that probably wouldn't have occurred um so I'm gonna go on that uh that good that good recommendation and that uh you know you guys have been running the solid business, you just wanna change the format a little bit, and I think that's fine if you think it's gonna be better.

Sort of sounds to me like it's gonna be more of uh it sounds to me like a uh you know a high end Dave's marketplace or something like that, you know, where you can go and get all that cold stuff and go heat it up and um I think it's a great idea uh and something maybe that we need for you know more of a downtown Newport location, people can come and get that stuff.

Um so yes, um for category three it meets all my findings of fact, and so I'll be supporting the petition as well.

I too will support this.

Um this is an existing uh restaurants have been there a long time and very much in character with the general business zone, and for the uh reasons stated by uh previous board members, I'm not gonna belabor it.

Uh yeah, I'm gonna vote to uh approve this as well.

Okay, great.

So um I'll poll the members starting with you, Bart, if you would.

Oh Mr.

Grimes says aye.

Uh Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Johnson, aye.

Mr.

Riley, I miss Chevrey I.

That sounds like five.

You've got a unanimously fellas.

And you got more than you asked for.

How about that, huh?

Not bad.

Could you write up the decision if you would, Matt?

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, Mr.

Hallowell.

Come on down.

You're the next contestant on Newport Zoning Board.

This is the final petition of the evening.

This is the petition of Samuel Hollowell, applicant and owner.

Five Tyler Street taxes platinum lot one oh six in an R ten zone for retroactive dimensional variance to commit a parking space adjacent and parallel to the sidewalk with a dimension of seven point five feet wide by eighteen feet long, nine feet wide by eighteen feet long required.

Great.

And so uh you must be Sam Hallowell, is that right?

I am.

Can you raise your right hand, please?

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

And state your name for the record, please.

Sam Hallowell.

Okay, very good.

So to be clear, um I we I think we had one objector, didn't we?

On on this?

That's correct, we got one written.

And he he I read his letter.

He said he was gonna be here tonight, um, but he's not here.

He was aware of me.

I don't need to ask about objectors in the audience because it's just a bunch of empty chairs.

So um however, um you also had two letters that came in from neighbors on Tyler Street in support of your uh petition.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, so you can assume that we've been in receipt of those and read them.

I think they came in today, did they not, Nick?

Yeah, I believe there were two letters of support plus a petition signed by a few other neighbors.

That wasn't.

That's right.

Yeah.

We had two two separate letters and then one letter with three signatures on it.

Um yes, indeed.

So um tell us about, yeah, so how long let me ask you a couple of questions here.

Let's let's try to focus in here.

Um how long have you been uh parking uh with with your, you know, your parallel spot as it is?

How long have you been doing that?

Yeah, so I purchased the house in 2021 and I've been parking there ever since until this came back.

In that pull in, you know, or backing in or pulling up in this in the uh the side spot right there.

Yes.

Okay.

So you've been doing that illegally for for five years, let's put it that way.

Okay.

I'm I'm not making a judgment on that um for for for any any specific reason.

I just want to understand that.

Um, and if you made an attempt to talk to particularly that one neighbor, um who seems to uh who seems to be fairly adamant about his uh his uh um his objections.

No.

You have not.

Okay.

Is he made an attempt to talk to you?

No.

Okay.

So there's been no uh no communication.

Um, so please tell us uh, you know what why we we should be supporting this petition.

Yeah, so I I realized that you know, I had a survey done and I realized that it doesn't meet the city's minimum width requirements.

Is that how you found out you were you know you weren't in compliance?

Yeah, I had a survey done.

When uh over the winter, I think.

Okay.

Remember recent this year, so it wasn't four years ago.

No, I didn't know until until he complained, and that's when I learned, and then um Nick asked me to get a survey and did that.

It showed that it didn't quite meet that criteria that the city wants.

Um after speaking to some of my neighbors, uh two of whom were in support of this, they uh their families have owned their homes since 1950s, and they said that spot is always for useful parking.

So I intend to continue.

I would like to use that space if I can using the current curb cut that's for the other parking space that's there.

Um it is possible.

I uh I had one discrepancy with staff notes.

Um I haven't changed or modified anything in my ownership of the house.

Um, like I said, the other past owners of the homes have been using that space um, you know, with the same cobblestone as far as I can get pictures that date back.

Um so um, not on our street we just don't have much parking.

Um and I think that other than this one individual, I everyone I've talked to is in support of it, um, and I think that is long as I could keep all four tires of my vehicle off that off the sidewalk, and I use the current curb cut, it shouldn't impact any traffic flow, any pedestrian flow, and that's why I'm here today.

Okay.

Um why don't we get to the point that uh our board members want to get to by asking questions?

Let me start.

Thank you.

Mr.

Hollow, uh, do you say that um this was already existing when you bought the property?

This a parking arrangement, and that I read somewhere you you're driving a Ford F 150 or something, some large vehicle.

Um, so how how long has this been in existence this parking situation?

You know, uh basically you're parking on the sidewalk or parceling the sidewalk.

How long's it been do how long's that been going on?

I'm not totally clear in your question.

Are you asking about in in terms of my ownership or no, but and and historically?

Historically, I as I said I spoke to two neighbors who families have lived there since the mid 1950s, and they said people have always parked there.

Um I think one of them mentioned that in his letter.

Uh my neighbor who lives, I share a property line with on the north side.

He signed the petition.

He said the same thing.

I think he said his parents bought the house in 1957.

Um, so and no one said anything since the 1950s, huh?

Until now.

Interesting.

Okay, so thank you.

That's gotta be 70, 75 years, right?

I know I know firsthand.

Yeah, I know.

Okay.

Yeah, right.

Exactly.

Um other questions of Mr.

Hellow.

Yeah, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I I drove by the property, and as you're facing your home, on the left-hand side, there seems to be some remnants of an old driveway.

Yes, and that is a current driveway.

So my my home is a two-family uh home, and I rent the second apartment out, and they use that driveway.

So that is currently in use.

For how many spaces?

Uh I mean you can fit two cars there, but it's just one.

They my tenants, there's a side access where they go into their apartment, and that comes out next to that space, so I let them use that one, and I had been parking in the front of the house.

Okay.

Um, they just have one car, so we haven't parked more than that there.

But I think it could be two, it's long enough.

Okay, and and the space you're in is directly in front of the curb, right?

Uh the space in question is yes, right along it's parallel to the sidewalk in the street.

Yeah, so you have to go over the curb to get into that spot.

Well, there is a curb cut that is for the other space, which I think can't quite see from here, but uh there in one of the engineer drawings I had, you can see a radius where you come off the street using that curb cup to get to that street, get to that space.

Aren't there but I aren't there bushes or something on each side of your I I mean the space you have is that is it.

There's nothing.

Like there's no way that you can swing in through that driveway on the on the right hand side but and and get into that space without without going over the curve.

Well, you can use that curb cut that's there for that existing parking space on the side of the house.

Yes.

So it's the same curb cut for two spaces that are perpendicular to each other.

Right.

That's it, sort of in the um in the uh the left center, upper left center.

Yes.

See that little thing radius coming down, that little curve, the dotted line.

That's coming through the curb cut, correct?

That's correct.

And so that's the way you would come in.

Yes.

Okay.

And I do realize it it is small, it's it's old.

It's been there for a long time.

I think like a small sedan in a mid-sized car have no problem getting into that space.

I do drive a large vehicle, and you you can get in there.

It's I have to do you know, kind of a couple point turns to get in, but I think most people on the street have that same issue with their existing parking spaces.

Um, you know, we have parking you were here all night, you know all about parking problems here, and and essentially you're taking this in well, we're essentially you're taking into your own hands and parking on the sidewalk.

In a sense, you're blocking pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk to some degree, aren't you?

No, I I don't plan on parking on the sidewalk at all.

I if I park on the sidewalk, I feel I mean, welcome to ticket me.

But if I can get all four wheels into that space there, then I don't see how it affects anyone else.

And that space is on the street.

No, that is on my property.

On the property, but uh that's his truck.

Yeah, I was added in, yeah.

Well, that's on the sidewalk.

Yeah, that is my property in front of my home.

This part is that cobbles and which is not the sidewalk.

So where's the sidewalk right here?

Right here.

Oh, this whole side.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

So you so not you're not technically blocking the sidewalk.

No.

From little.

No, I I and admittedly, early on, I I did overhang half a tire.

Yeah, or more.

Sometimes I've learned my lesson not to do that because I don't have to.

I can take a little bit extra effort and park fully on my own property.

That's what I intend to do now.

Okay, yep, there it is, right there.

So, do any other questions down that way, Nicole?

Well, the problem is you can have to have access, go over that the sidewalk to get there.

Yeah, so if you kind of zoom right there, you can see that curb cut.

Yes.

And that is what I intend to use to get to that space.

I guess my question is just how was the property advertised to you in terms of parking when you bought it?

Uh it said it had four spaces.

So it was two where I'm proposing, and it is two along the side of the on the parking roof.

So they said that's two spaces when you bought it.

Yes.

That's not two spaces.

Yeah.

Is this unique to your property?

Is there anyone else on the street that has uh this parallel to the street on their property parking?

I can speak to that.

We have another application in for probably the next meeting at 11 Tyler.

Um, yeah, this is five.

That at 11 they have a similar condition.

The difference I would say with that is that we have proof that that one didn't exist when they bought the property and they created it.

This one, I it does look like from going back in some aerial views.

Um the clearest I have going back is probably 2008.

There does appear to be a car in the the bottom left corner.

You look where my cursor is that's in front of the house.

Um, as Mr.

Haliwell stated, you know, this came up as a complaint.

Um following uh violation on a different property, and um it was essentially cited to court.

Sam was cited to court, and the resultant uh ruling by the judge was that go in front of the zoning board and and ask for a variance to use that space and continue to use that space.

So that's why we're here today.

Right.

Can you go back to that other picture, Nick that you showed just a minute ago with the front of the property?

Yeah.

So could you just roll up a little bit so you can see the street and the sidewalk?

So it looks like there's two curb cuts there.

This one for the driveway that uh the applicant stated is for the second uh apartment, and then this another one.

There, correct?

No, I I believe that that's just a mistake in Google that there's a continuous curve if we look from this angle right here.

Okay.

I think um one of the concerns I raised in the staff report was the access on versus access off of the this space.

So um, you know, I I guess my suggestion would be if you guys uh move to approve this, that there be a condition essentially that you have to use the same curb cut to both access and get out of the space, uh, because the concern had been raised, and I believe that this is a a true concern is that if you drive if you continue to drive straight off, you have to go over the sidewalk and down off of the curve, and that uh is a violation of the code.

So it's something that we need to prohibit from happening.

So it the maneuverability uh that's been provided in this essentially would need to be to gain access into the property and gain or leave access, you know, from the property.

Right, right.

So so you're suggesting that that we put in a uh um the uh condition that he put a curb cut in there, basically.

You you could uh the condition could allow that, but you'd actually we'd have to readvertise this because that would require a second curb cut on a property that does not have the proper width to add a second curb cut.

However, it may be that the engineering department would not have a problem with that because there is no parking on that side of the street, if I'm uh understanding correctly.

If there was parking on this side of the street, adding another curb cut would remove a parking space.

Yes, that was my next question.

But since there's no parking, you could propose um having a second curb cut, it would require a different variance because we have a limit on the number of cars.

Yeah, you're taking away a parking place if they had parking on that side, but if they don't, that that's a big deal to me.

Actually, yeah, I get it.

So uh you showed us a picture of 2008, I think you said that it showed a car, at least looked to be a car in that spot that we're discussing in 2026, right?

So we we just had mention of grandfathered when we just heard the last petition, so uh not the last one, the one before that.

Uh is there any rights uh for that?

Is there any precedent to say that uh there's some sort of grandfather rights because it was in it was it was like adverse possession or something like that because it's been going on so long?

We we are in the process of evaluating our policies around curb cuts and grandfathering uh driveways and curb cuts that probably have been in existence for a number of years but have recently come to our attention for potential violations.

Um I'm not confident tonight to say that we definitively could grandfather this one in.

Um you know, part of the issue is the the actual width being so narrow for the proposed parking space only being 7.5 feet, uh where our requirement right now is nine.

Um I don't know the exact date that that requirement went into the code as far as the actual dimension of a parking space under the zoning code.

Uh I don't know that we have aerial footage that goes back far enough to try to match up that it was done before or after that code went into place.

Um, but I could leave it to the solicitor to opine on this as far as grandfathering rights, but we are working on a policy with the city right now on that.

Right.

Can you go back to that picture of the front one?

Yeah, that one.

So there's a bunch of bushes up there in the front.

Is that something if you took them out that would give you a little bit more width?

This image is 14 years old, so I don't know that this is the present condition.

There's currently no bushes there.

When I purchased the house.

Um they just put gravel down there.

Um there's there's a row of cobblestones.

I'm not sure.

Can't really tell if that was there before, but I'm pretty sure the same cobblestones that are in parking on were there.

Um I mean it's the bushes are in that picture, I'm assuming are maybe nine inches, 10 inches.

Yeah, it's just a ground cover most.

It's just a yeah, it's just a small area.

Okay, so it truly is seven feet, seven and a half feet then.

Did you measure?

Yeah, I believe the survey specifically shows it from the porch to the property edge being 7.5 feet.

Okay.

So we're given a variance on that too.

Then if we if if we so choose.

Sorry, say that again.

So if we so choose.

Huh?

That is the bear.

That is the bare.

The variance is specifically about the width of the parking space.

Yeah, but I thought it was also about the curb cut too.

No, right now the only request is that you essentially allow legalize the seven and a half foot wide parking path.

Okay.

Questions or other questions?

But if that were the case, this were to get approved, then would we have to condition it that he would back out over the curb cut?

Because you're saying that to pull over the sidewalk and the curb is illegal move.

Correct.

There's a regulation that says that you cannot drive a vehicle on a sidewalk, and that it's technically under the police vehicle code, but um it's one that we have uh cited people on before is essentially sometimes it's referred to as mounting the curb.

You're not allowed to drive over the curb and the sidewalk to effectively create a curb cut.

You're supposed to obtain a curb cut and driveway application from the engineering department and create a you know ADA compliant curb cut there so that people can drive legally.

Also, the um essentially the the structure underneath a sidewalk is not intended to be driven on, and so it tends to lead to degradation of that sidewalk.

Um when curb cuts are created, you actually have to put significance kind of concrete underneath the area that's going to be driven over so that it doesn't crack as easily.

So could we make a condition that if we if we approve this petition that Mr.

Haliwell then needs to go and talk to engineering about getting a curb cut?

Well, again, they'd have to come right back to you guys to ask for a second curb cut on a s on a lot that doesn't have the dimensions.

We have a regulation you can only have one curb cut unless you have at least a hundred feet of lot width, and this property I think is 49 feet or something like that.

So you could propose to continue this application, have Sam amend his application to include that request.

We can readvertise it for June, and essentially then at that meeting you could consider both variances, both the width of the space and the second curb cut.

Okay.

If you wish to go down that path.

Well, yeah, but I mean, why would we do it halfway?

I mean, if that's if we're trying to.

This has been around for 75 years, and it's only been seven and a half feet, and no one's ever complained about it until today.

Um, but let's let's get the whole lantern out of let's you know, I have a I see a number of questions.

About so you know, we have multiple streets in the city where people pull up on the sidewalk and they park mine being one of them.

Um that's just like what we do.

How does that situation relate to this one?

Because he's not he's not parking on sort of like what I think is the most susceptible part of the sidewalk.

He's actually parking on a very slender.

No, I I completely understand where your question's coming from.

Um I do not have a good answer to that.

There's been certain people that have complained about that situation, especially um, you know, the lower Thames area and then the side streets off of that, a lot of street, Dixon Street.

Um a lot of them have that.

It is technically an illegal maneuver that all of them could be um given parking tickets for.

Except we have signs that say residential parking only.

Right, so but the parking technically is supposed to fully be on the street, but everyone recognizes there's no way you could get a car around it if you were to park like that.

Um it's kind of been something that's been effectively sanctioned by the city of and not ticketing those property owners because of the situation on the streets.

It we get into this issue around uh snow removal on those side streets as well because the cars are parked on the sidewalk.

Yeah, so how do people clear their sidewalk of snow?

Do you see you are currently using the existing curb cut?

So do you drive past it then back in?

Um it's the street runs north to south, so I come in, I come in straight, yeah, from the left in there, right?

And then when you come out, you have to go over the curb.

Yeah, I mean, I'm perfectly happy with backing out.

Um I don't I mean, I think that's a pretty reasonable outcome for this.

Um one thing I would like to add is that since I haven't been parking there the past couple weeks, um, it's that space has become heavily used by Amazon truck drivers.

So um if I'm not parking there, other people are.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chairman, please.

Very logical place to park short and no, you don't right ahead, but thank you.

Just to follow up on that, if if he's not asking for the second curb cut and it's working for him currently, my train of thought is you're getting a car off the street, and that's our biggest issue as a board.

Absolutely.

So I'm not able to vote tonight, but if you approve the variance, he could more easily get the curb cut after the variance is granted.

He could go back and ask for it after the fact.

We could do that too.

I'm just you know, I'm trying to be accommodated, but maybe that's too you know, not the right way to do so.

Let's get up something, you know, and then uh and then you can go and get the rest of it.

Go ahead, Danny.

Would you would you mention that again, what you thought?

Well, I said he's currently using the existing curb cut, so it's not necessary for him to get all four wheels off the street.

So if you grant the variance tonight, he can ask for the curb cut later, and it'll probably be easier for the town to grant it for them if he gets the variance.

Yeah, my big concern here is in granting the variance without some level of a curb cut.

That variance is gonna be in place forever, right?

They're not gonna get taken away.

And um, we've created a situation where Sam, you say y'all back out and so forth.

Most that Amazon guy is not backing out.

He's backing out and he's going right over that curb.

Uh, and we're creating, I think, uh, from a zoning board situation, a situation that we're allowing us or sort of okaying the fact that you can drive over a sidewalk with a curb on it.

And I'm not sure if we would require a curb cut, then he could go in one end and out the other end, and I I'd be much more comfortable with that.

So I don't know how you do that.

So you're voting for a continuance per what Nick said.

You would say you would want to continue and have him get all his ducks lined up and come back, it was for both of them.

Yeah, just from uh timing and uh procedural standpoint, we've we've passed the date to submit new applications for the June cycle, but we are still able to essentially amend a current application and have it advertised for June.

So if we were to if you if you were to move to approve this right now as it is with no curb cut requirement, but kind of a push to go get a curb cut, you'd have to apply.

We'd probably be in the July cycle at least with hearing us.

If um if you vote to continue it, Mr.

Haliwell can can amend the application tomorrow.

I have enough time to advertise it for June, and we could be back here in June for kind of both dimensional variances of that.

What do you want to do?

I'd love to take the easy approach and just continue to keep using the current curb cut.

Happy to pull in forward and back out, just like any normal parking space.

Um I see what you're saying.

You know, I might not own this home forever, and the next person might drive over the curb.

Um, but I think regardless of whether you grant me access for this variance or not, I think someone's driving over the curb.

Well, one way, and I think it'll be less if I have yeah, but but let's be clear.

One way or the other, we're gonna ask you to get the curb cut.

So um you might you might as well do it so as a continuance because uh we're gonna make a condition that you go go get the curb cut if we give you this variance.

At least that's what I'm gonna say.

So um I think the best way to do it would be to get the continuance, and then it could be on the schedule for next month on both of these things.

And that's what you want, Dave.

Yeah, but um that's what I want too.

As far as if it's a violation of parking rigs to drive drive over a curb, but it would it would sort of be out of the ordinary in my view to do a condition not to violate the law.

Is it sort of presumed here?

If you violate the law, you get a ticket.

You could you could say that on anything.

I'm gonna I do a condition that you don't violate XY.

No, no, my condition, like saying, No, my condition would be if we were going to go that way, which I'm not recommending, is that he we he we give him the variance and then he has to go and get it.

He has to go and get the curb cut.

Right.

I'm talking about just saying a condition that you don't drive over the curb.

That's a violation anyway, that should be independent.

It shouldn't be a condition that you don't violate.

No, it's not that.

That he goes and gets the curb cut, so he's not violating.

That's what I'm trying to do.

He has to come back to us.

He's gotta come back to us next month, or as soon as he can.

I think earlier it was discussed as having a condition that you don't have no.

I think where we're going is is to continue this, have him apply for the curb cut and come back next month.

Um yeah, I it would um like I think procedurally that's that would be the way to do it.

The um requirement to get the curb cut would require the actual installation of that curb cut.

So it is something that you would be required to take on the cost of.

If you get a curbic curb cut application, you're supposed to effectuate it within a year.

Essentially, you're supposed to go and actually build it to the engineering standards required for a curb cut.

But I think we're lucky in this sense that there is no parking on this side of the street, so it doesn't eliminate an on-street parking space where there are other situations where people want second curb cuts and it effectively eliminates all the parking lot.

No, that makes all the difference.

Makes all the difference.

If there was parking on the side of the street, what you know, that's no good.

It doesn't make sense.

So this situation is not unique, obviously.

You're saying you're gonna be addressing it.

What's the time frame for that?

What my concern is I particularly do not like parking in the front of a house parallel to the street.

I I think it is uh it's a distract uh it distracts from the streetscape.

I I don't I'm not a fan of it at all.

Um so what is you know, what is the uh I know these are individual applications, but we could be cited to say, well, you did it at Seven Tyler Street.

Why, you know, why can't I do it on Lincoln Street?

Or why can't, you know, just so um what is the time frame when you think that the uh there'll be some sort of uh guideline or some sort of uh credence about uh how how to handle this because we he's still a foot and a half short on the width when you when it comes right down to it.

Yep.

So there it's kind of two components to this.

Um one is you actually have approved um in the last year or so a similar condition that actually asked for a zoning officer modification for a five or a six-inch variance off of the width.

Um the same individual who objected here objected to that one.

They were not a an immediate abutter, and so you essentially threw out his objection because he did not have standing.

Um so there is a precedent for a parking space in front of a house.

There isn't any regulation that says you can't have a parking space parallel to the street in front of a house.

Um that would have to be a city council code change to essentially eliminate that allowance.

Um the policy that I was referring to is more um along the lines of generally when we've had a property identified to us that appears to either be mounting the curb or using a driveway that was not sanctioned by the city.

Is there a way for us to figure out when that driveway existed in the past and essentially say, you know, we have proof that it's existed at least since the time that the requirement went into place in the city, and therefore it's a legal non-conforming condition allowed to remain.

This may be one of those.

If we can determine that there's enough evidence that this space goes back that far, but you know, it I think it comes down to the fact that a modern vehicle, we've talked about it in the past, is wider than they used to be.

This space may have been created when a car was only six feet wide.

One of the issues I originally uh raised in the staff report are along the lines of the maneuverability diagram was that the surveyor indicated that the vehicle was 5.8 feet wide, and I can't find a car that is 5.8 feet wide.

I think it's possible.

You know, Mr.

Halliwell's mentioned that is uh tenants have a smaller vehicle, and maybe that's the way to do it.

Is that that smaller vehicle uses this smaller space and his larger vehicle uses the bigger space?

But as um Dave has brought up, you know, a variance runs with the property.

If you approve this space with a 7.5 foot width, it's forever legal at 7.5 feet on this property.

So that's just something to take into consideration.

I'm just looking for a sense of the board how we want to proceed.

I vote for continuing this and having him go and getting the uh the curb cut and then come back and get the variance and the curb cut together.

That's what I'd like to do.

I would be supportive of that.

Yes.

Sounds good.

Okay.

So that's what we're gonna do.

We're gonna make it come back next month.

And you're gonna go and get a curb cut from from the engineers through Nick, you know.

Well, yeah, essentially, what'll do is amend the present application to include a request for a second curb cut.

I would say we've probably conditioned that zoning approval on him actually obtaining the curb cut applicant.

Right.

Because if he applies to engineering, they give it to zoning, and I have to say it's denied until you get a variance to do so.

So it's kind of chicken and egg, but they should be sure straight here.

So I'll entertain a motion to that effect.

Can I just say one thing?

And you mentioned this too, Nick.

Uh Mr.

Howell, that um you understand what we're we're saying.

That we're gonna have gonna get a twofer here, and you know, it may be wise to look into what the cost of a curb cut is that was suggested that it's serious reinforcing around that concrete and everything's for this and expense to this, which you've currently your current petition doesn't uh incorporate or include.

So just a heads up that you want to maybe look at what that's gonna cost.

Thank you.

Yep.

So can I have a motion to continue this?

Can make a motion to continue this.

Second, all in favor?

Aye, five.

Any opposed okay.

So we'll hopefully we'll see you next month.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, motion to adjourn.

I make a motion to adjourn.

Second, second.

Right.

Thank you all very much.

That was and I get the bang the gavel.