All right, we're good to go.

We are okay.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the uh regular monthly meeting of the Newport Zoning Board of Review.

Today is Monday, June 22nd, 2026.

And um we do have a quorum tonight.

Uh we have four of our regular members uh serving tonight as voting members, and that would be our vice chairman Dave Riley, uh, our secretary Russ Johnson, myself, Wick Rudd, Chairman, um Bart Grimes is a regular voting member, and we have one of our alternates tonight who'll be serving with us, uh Melissa Padavina.

So we do have a full quorum tonight uh for this meeting.

Um next is the uh the minutes um of the uh March 18th, 2026.

We have draft minutes we need to vote on those with any uh is that May 18th?

I think I may need some glasses.

That's the second time that's happened with some readers.

Maybe that maybe it's about time.

Um I'm sorry, May 18th.

And were there any questions on the minutes from any of the members?

Okay.

Uh seeing none, I'll accept the motion to accept them as written.

I make a motion to accept the minutes of the May 18th, 2026, uh as drafted.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All favor?

Aye, any opposed?

Hearing none, that's unanimous.

Uh under communications, we do have a couple of extension requests.

Uh the first one being at 57 Marshant.

I believe that's a garage is it uh something along those lines next door.

Yes.

Uh, they are requesting a six-month extension.

And unless there are any objections to that, I'll uh entertain a motion to that effect.

I make a motion that the request extension request for six-month extension on 57 Martian Street uh be approved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Melissa.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none, that's unanimous.

Moving on to the next extension request, 551 Thame Street.

Uh, they have a request for a 12-month extension.

Uh any questions on that?

And if not, I'll entertain a motion for that one as well.

I believe Mr.

Motlin's in the audience tonight, so I just would like to know a little more about uh you you would like to know a little bit.

Yeah, just uh okay.

Why do you want 12 extra months?

That's the question.

Um as I indicated in the uh the request, uh my client has had some significant health issues this year, and so we've been doing with those related to that and is asking Mr.

Grace for an additional one-year period so that he can refocus his attentions on this property.

But it wasn't able to do so in the last two.

Okay, Mr.

Martin, can you just remind me what prop where that property is again?

Uh, this is the the Wellington, which which was a timeshare uh resort at uh 551 Dame Street.

Right.

So this is a request for an extension in converting it from uh uh timeshare use to a hotel use.

Uh converting uh yes, the interior section.

Number of uh units, well, uh, to a hundred and fifty-one units for keeping the number of bedrooms.

Right.

No, understood.

Yeah, we we went through that.

I had been under the impression that that had been completed, but wrong I am.

So um you're asking for another 12 months, fair enough.

That is good.

Okay.

And you're ready to go with uh uh construct 12 months.

Going to be sufficient to uh complete or two.

Based on my conversations with uh Mr.

Taylor and his development team there and uh discussions with potential partner to me to assist.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to get further clarification.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Marlin.

Okay.

There being no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion on that extension, please.

Make a motion uh for the property at 551 Thame Street.

Uh their request for 12-month extension be approved.

Uh great, thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Melissa.

Uh, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That's unanimous as well.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Um, okay, so this with withdrawal request.

Uh, we don't have to vote on that.

You already did that, right?

We should uh have you guys vote on it.

It technically we allowed for them to submit an application and after reviewing it with the city solicitor's office, determined that this was an inappropriate method of uh seeking their approval.

Um so we essentially informed them that we would be withdrawing it, but because it's an advertised, we should have you guys make a motion to withdraw it.

Okay.

So I'll uh ask for a motion to that effect.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion on the property located to Wheatland Court uh that the uh request be withdrawn.

Okay, great.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye, opposed, hearing none.

We are moving on to our our calendar.

Great.

Um, looks like we've got uh let's see.

Only three summaries, but that's more than last month.

Um great.

So if we could read the summaries in um one at a time, and then I'll I'll ask if there are any objectors to these summaries in the uh audience after each one, and we will we will vote on them together.

That's okay.

Absolutely.

So the first petition is of Shelley Buckhant's applicant CC7 LLC owner, seven cousins court, tax assessors plat 17 lot two seventy-three in an R 10 zone historic overlay for a dimensional variance to install a condenser two feet six inches from the rear property line where five feet is required.

Okay, great.

So I just quickly wanted to ask if there are any objectors present in the audience.

We had none by mail or email.

Um seeing none.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to the next one.

The second petition is petition of John W.

Cook and Carol M.

Macken, owners and applicants.

42 Golden Hill Street, tax assessors plat 28, lot 107 in an R3 zone historic overlay for a dimensional variance to replace two condensers 10 feet from the right side property line.

I'm sorry, 10 inches from the right side property line where five feet is required.

Okay, great.

Um, and once again, any objectors in the audience to this petition on Golden Hill Street?

Seeing none, please, the next one.

Yes, this is the petition of Mark and Evelina Tabor, applicants and owners, 452 Bellevue Avenue, tax assessors plat 36, lot 15 in an R60 zone historic overlay for dimensional variants to demolish an existing pool house and reconstruct a new taller pool house in the same footprint, maintaining a lot coverage of 14.44%, where 10% is allowed.

Okay, great.

And again, are there any objectors in the audience present tonight on this uh petition?

Seeing none.

Um just before we uh we entertain a motion for all three of these.

I question for you if I could, Nick.

Um aren't these uh um haven't we done something on condensers where it becomes more of an administrative decision for you?

What why are we seeing this?

Uh we have not changed the uh method of approval from zoning board to an administrative approval.

It it we reduced the required setback from ten feet to five feet under the code, and then if someone has provided the survey and they have a substandard lot, they can reduce that even further.

Um the applicant at seven uh cousins and add 42 Golden Hill did not have surveys, so we essentially applied the five foot requirement as though they were a standard lot of record.

Okay, okay, and then uh of course the third one is uh because the lot coverage is over anything that they do that they tear down a bill new.

Yeah, we essentially see it as a voluntary demolition, which would temporarily reduce their lot coverage, and then they're asking to go right back up the same lot coverage that still has to go in front of me.

Okay, thank you.

Um so on the summary calendar, I would love to entertain a motion, Mr.

Riley, uh for us uh on the uh on these three summaries, if you would.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

I moved to place all matters called as summary on the consent calendar, and as to all matters on the consent calendar, I further move to adopt as the board's finding of fact, the information, staff report, applications, supporting plans, and other documents, and adopt the board's conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden of proof under each element of chapter 17.108 of the new port zoning ordinance entitled various is variances and modifications.

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

Great.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Vice Chairman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Padovina.

Uh, all those in favor of approving the summary calendar, please signify by saying aye.

Oh, any opposed?

Okay, hearing none.

Uh that calendar has been passed.

If anybody is here that was just on the summary calendar that we just went through, your petition has been passed.

So, as I always say, you're welcome to stay and listen to our the rest of our scintillating meeting, but you're also welcome to go if you want.

Just quickly, just for the record, I'm on.

Uh, I represent the tabers for 452 Bellevue Avenue.

I'm happy to prepare that decision.

Oh, okay.

Oh, I I didn't know that.

Thank you.

That'd be great.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Um, okay.

Well, we're moving on to the abbreviated summary calendar.

Uh right now, we'll take these one at a time.

Uh, we've got six of these, so hopefully we can move through these.

Um, if you would, Mr.

Johnson, uh read in the first abbreviated summary.

The petition of Finn Bar Murray, applicant, Murray Family Trust owner, nine-11 Broadway, tax assessors plat 17, lot 225 in the general business zone for variance to the requirement to underground utilities.

Okay, great.

Yes, Mr.

Jackson.

Good evening, Tanner Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

The uh the purpose of this application is to improve the electrical service at 9 to 11 Broadway, the subject property, uh, without placing it underground.

At present, there are two residential units of the property on the second and third floor, and there's a commercial unit, what used to be the holy smokes store uh on the first floor.

Because the first floor is getting renovated as part of that renovation process and improving the electrical service from 100 amps to 200 amps.

The zoning code requires that that electrical service be placed underground.

However, there's a couple unique aspects about this property.

One is that the electrical poll that services this is in the back corner, so it's a little inaccessible, and then the overhead wires go from more or less behind the colony house, cross over the back of FastNet, connect to that poll, and then service 9 to 11 Broadway, 7 Broadway as well.

So placing this underground would require digging up the entirety of the back of FastNet to place it underground, and then also disrupt service to seven Broadway as well.

Uh so it's just uh a little cumbersome to be placing uh these wires underground across four lots for multiple different uses, uh, and so for that reason we're asking to simply maintain the status quo and continue to use that poll as it exists right now, right?

So I that that actually brings up a question for me.

Uh, in view of the fact that it services a number of different properties there, would that cost be shared or would it be a cost that was borne specifically for uh your your property owner?

Uh so those four lots there at the corner are under common ownership.

Uh so it is uh nine to eleven, seven, and then fast net is the same owners, more or less.

There's different legal entities, but it's the same equitable owners, okay.

So it would be borne by Mr.

Murray.

Okay, gotcha.

Um thank you.

Questions for Mr.

Jackson from the board.

I just comment that in the uh engineering department agreed that the cost would be prohibitive to do this.

So uh that's um certainly a nod to approve this application.

Okay, anybody else?

And might I just add that by digging up the streets is so disruptive to operation of the city, particularly this time of year, if you will.

So I I I support your uh your plan there, Mr.

Jackson.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hearing other questions and comments, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Riley.

Uh yes, Chairman.

Uh, on the petition of uh Bin Bob Murray applicant, Murray Family Trust.

Um I adopt the board's uh finding a fact, the information and staff report, application 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, adopt the board's conclusion of the law that the petitions met their burden of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the newport zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

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

Great.

Thank you.

Um do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Padavina.

Um, all those in favor of uh this motion, please signify by saying aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that's unanimous.

Thank you.

Good luck, guys.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, that's a good idea.

Thank you.

Will you write the decision up for us?

Yes, we'll do.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Appreciate it.

Okay, moving onward.

Next petition is petition of Kendall Tucker Holmes, applicant, 8 Peckham Avenue, LLC, 8 Peckham Avenue, Tax Assessors Platte 7, lot 131 in an R 10 zone for a variance to the requirement to underground utilities.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Um, I'm one of the owners of Bait Heckham uh LLC.

Please raise your right hand for me.

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 McKelvey.

Okay, thank you.

Carry on.

Um, so I'm I'm one of the owners of Bay Peckham, uh, in addition to my daughter and Tucker is my son-in-law.

Uh that put in the paperwork.

Um, we're asking the board for a variance that would allow us to keep the electrical service overhead rather than requiring to go underground and part of the electrical upgrade of the property, just a little bit of background.

Um, in 2025, this board approved a special use permit and variances allowing us to convert an existing two family um at Apeckham to a three-family.

As part of this moving forward on the project, we now need to upgrade the electrical service on the property.

So under section 17 100 3003 0.E, the upgrade would normally trigger the underground in the park.

Um, we're asking for relief from this requirement.

The reason is it's fairly simple.

The distance and conditions involved involved, make undergrounding impractical.

So, run the line underground.

We need to go under more than 40 feet of sidewalk across multiple water sewer gas laterals along the front end to reach each usable utility pole.

We didn't just take our own word for this.

Earlier this year, Frank Santos, an engineering technician with the City Department of Public Services, met at the property with Matt of South Shore Escavating to look at this specifically.

Frank's own assessment in writing was that running the line under the sidewalk would be challenging because of the water sewer and gas laterals crossing the front end.

And the restoration work afterward would mean resetting curves, fully replacing concrete sidewalk panels, and possibly reconstructing the driveway.

And indicated he would prefer to keep the utilities overhead as well.

This is the city's engineer um's professional opinion on the scope of the work that's not ours.

The assessment is echoed in the staff report, prepare for tonight's hearing.

The report notes that the engineering department is taking the position of opposing the undergrounding at this property, citing the cost, the scope of work, the distance, any usable utility poll.

Staff's own findings support the grieving granting of the bearings.

The hardship here is tied to the unique characteristics of the specific lot, the existing overhead utilities, the distance of the nearest usable polls, the amount of the sidewalk, the road work that would need to be disturbed.

Not anything general about the neighborhood.

This isn't a hardship we created.

The property already had overhead utility connections before we purchased it.

Granting the bearings won't change the character of the neighborhood or the area.

Nothing about the property's existing condition will change as the staff notes.

The other properties in the surrounding area also have overhead power.

Relief we're asking for is modest.

We're not asking to change anything.

We just want to keep what's already there without disturbing and excavating and disturbing traffic.

I'd also like to point out that the city mailed notice to neighborhood properties back on June 5th.

And as the writing of the staff report, no letters of opposition have been received.

But which is a good point, and I forgot to ask.

Nobody's here that's in objection to this.

Uh petition tonight.

Seeing none.

Okay, good.

So we respectfully ask for the board approve the ZBR-26-34.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

I think you covered it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well stated.

We offer you a job.

So um uh I go ahead.

Uh uh, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just like to make one comment.

This is one in a number of these uh small renovations, up to a three family that we've seen, and we get it it it seems to make very very little sense to take uh one line on a street like Peckham that's full of residential homes and spend tens of thousands of dollars digging it up, and uh maybe uh maybe the city can go back and start a rethink uh requiring this on uh renovations such as such as your minor renovation.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, thank you.

That was my point exactly.

So the but the what's the point?

I mean, so they have to have bury it in front of their property and then it comes back up again.

Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Code was put in by the city council some number of years ago, um, primarily for new construction, so that when a new brand new construction of a vacant lot or a teardown rebuild would underground all of their utilities at that point.

Um, but it also has a trigger of any renovation that requires the upgrading of their service, that it also has to do this.

Um, but time and time again, we do find that the city engineer even doesn't agree with this requirement to do this.

Or electrical inspectors don't always agree with this requirement.

So it is something we'll um we'll try to bring to the city council's attention and maybe it's changed for just new construction.

I think the thought is that if everyone as they renovate undergrounds eventually we will not have overhead lines, but there's so many complexities to it of where the lines are located, whether they're in rear yards or in front yards and 50 feet, 100 feet down the road that it it may be pretty impossible for us to put it.

And I would echo Mr.

Riley's comments and say I think uh National Grid or whomever the whoever the uh de jour electrical company is uh they should be part of this as well.

I mean, you know, they're the ones that are benefiting, uh from that we're benefiting as well.

But I mean, they're putting polls up everywhere, and they obviously have money to to do that, so maybe they could save a few polls and start putting some underground lines in.

Agreed.

Okay.

Um more comments or questions.

Uh I'll entertain a motion um on this uh petition, please.

Okay, Ms.

Chairman, on the uh petition of Kendall Tucker Holmes, applicant 8 Peckham Avenue LLC.

Um, I move to adopt is the board's finding of fact, the information staff report, application supporting plans and documents and testimony of the witnesses, together along 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 of proof under each element under chapter 17.108 of the Newport Zoning Office entitled uh Variances and Modifications.

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

Great.

So I have a second.

Second.

Thank you.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That's unanimous.

Thank you, sir.

Good luck.

Okay.

Okay.

Moving on.

Next up is the petition of Vincent Cruz Jr., applicant and owner.

10 Red Cross Terrace.

Tax Assessors Plat 29 lot 194 in an R10 zone for dimensional variances to expand the existing one-car garage to a two-car garage, install a bulkhead door, expand the existing front porch and elevate an existing rear edition that is located 12 feet five inches from the rear property line where 16.78 feet is required.

Increasing the lock coverage from 28.85% to I'm sorry, 25.85% to 27.83%, where 23.22% is allowed.

Okay, great.

Yes, sir.

Owners of 10 Red Cross, Johnson summarize our request.

Yes, hold on for one second.

First, any objectors in the audience?

Okay, you have no written objections.

That's why you're on the abbreviated schedule.

And then I have to swear you in.

So please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Please state your name.

Okay, very good.

Have nothing more to add other than what's in our application and we uh rely on the staff report and the uh information that's been already provided that I'm here to answer any additional questions that uh thank you.

Okay.

Are there any additional questions for Mr.

Cruz?

Anybody?

No, no, no, no.

Sailing right through.

Okay.

Um we're gonna move on to a motion then.

Okay.

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman.

On the petition of um uh Vincent uh Cruz Jr., uh I move to adopt the board's finding of faculty information staff report applications, supporting plans and documents and testimony of the witnesses, together with the comments spread on the record um by the board members and adopted board's conclusion of law that the petition has met their burden of proof under um 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 complete within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration and all outstanding invoices relating to the cost of public notice and be paid in full before and as a condition of recording the decision.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Second, please.

Thank you, Ms.

Padavina.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, Mr.

Cruz, you're all set.

You bet.

Okay.

Next is the petition of Mark Bertenstein, owner and applicant, six Maitland Court, tax assessors plat nine, lot twenty-six in an R 10 zone, historic overlay for retroactive approval of a dimensional variances for construction of a second driveway on a residential property with only 90 feet of frontage, 100 feet required, and without the required 35 feet separating the two driveways.

Yes, sir.

Uh you are.

Sorry.

Marker to sign, do you need to swear me in?

Yeah, yeah, you're the you're the owner.

Okay, yes, I do.

Please, your right hand is up.

Very good.

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.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Uh it's pretty simple.

Oh, yeah.

And excuse me before I start.

Thank you.

Um, are there there are obviously no written objections?

That's why it's an abbreviated summary.

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

Okay.

And you did have a, I think you had a letter of support, I believe.

Yep.

Yep, this is the retroactive.

We uh we put this second driveway in in 2020.

At that time, we worked with our contractor, they didn't notify us of any need to get it.

Got a zoning approval to be able to do it.

Um, we went ahead.

We recently got uh some of the report saying that we need to appear and started working.

Brought us here.

Uh the second drive was put in basically it was a grass area on our home that was if you don't make 140 at all, it's a dead end street, it's narrow, but half the homes do not have any driveways.

And our lawn ended up becoming a turnaround of most trucks that were coming down the street.

So we added the second driveway.

We mostly don't use it because it's just on the bike and ISO we have our other driveway, and though it's used for guests, it's used for neighbors, it's used for truck turnarounds, but that's about the extent of it.

Okay.

Um good, that's a good explanation because normally um we're certainly gonna ask you why you know this is retroactive.

Um, you know, what why and so you explain that so that to my satisfaction at least anyway.

Um it makes sense to me.

And in your letter of uh support, uh that made sense to me too.

That uh, you know, instead of people having to back all the way down Maitland Court to get out and turn around, it's easier to just turn around there and come out.

So that that also made sense to me.

Are there any questions from board members?

I just have a comment.

You know, one of the benefits of serving on this board, you discover places like Maitland Court.

Um I never seen it before, and it's a very interesting place and uh uh nice, quiet, and now you've been discovered unfortunately.

Well, luckily it's still a dead end.

Still dead idea.

Okay, yeah, with with a way to get out, so thankfully.

So anybody else?

Hearing none.

Uh motion, please.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman, on the petition of Ma Kurt and Stein.

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

Uh the permit 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.

All outstanding invoices related to cost public notice.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Uh do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Miss Padavina.

All those in favor of this motion, please.

Uh excuse me, this petition and motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

You're all set, sir.

Thank you.

Yep.

Good luck with that.

Okay.

Number five.

The next petition is of Danielle Genest applicant.

Allen Moving Company, owner, 435 Broadway.

Tax Assessors Plat 6, lot 11 in an R10 zone for a temporary use permit to allow the installation of a temporary four foot by eight foot informational sign regarding regarding the future use of the property.

Yes, and are you Ms.

Genest?

Yes, I am.

Please raise your right hand.

Just want to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding.

Please state your name for the record.

Danielle Janest.

Thank you.

Hello, we're um, as you said, we'll sit fine to put up a sign.

Can you put put the yeah?

There you go.

We're approved to um build a building that will be uh home for us.

It'll be a center for arts and education, ballet studios, a performance space, and we would like to put up a sign to let people know what we're planning, what we're doing, it will help us to fundraise for the project, and we get a lot of questions about what's happening on that land to represent ourselves well, help um help the community understand what we're doing.

Yeah, I mean, we I I think a couple of us at least anyway were on this petition originally.

Were we not?

I drove by uh I drive by every day, actually.

Um it appears that you've uh taken everything down, right?

Right, yeah.

That old moldy administration building and the school as well.

Yeah, the old school.

So it looks like you're ready to get going, right?

Yeah, we are trying.

But there we go.

What was the target date of completion of this project?

That was before us for a while ago now, right?

Yeah, it was a long time ago.

Um and then COVID uh sort of that long ago, COVID time.

We the sort of the ri ramifications of COVID helped slow down our campaign basically to raise money, so it's just a little slowed and now we're trying to revitalize that campaign.

We received money to do the demolition, and now we're building back up so that we can get the whole building built.

And you've requested extensions for this project and we did, yeah.

Okay, good.

I seem to remember extensions, yeah.

Yes, giving you extensions.

Fair enough.

And where are you now?

When will you need another extension?

Uh we have we still have another year or year and a half, I think to go on what we got a two year.

I think we gave you 24 months.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Very good.

Um, any other questions?

I I just have a couple of questions.

I think for Nick and Zach.

Um the I couldn't find it um clearly, but do our temporary use permits for signage do they cover exclusion of any um advertising?

Not that I assume um you guys would be having Coca-Cola advertisements or something like that on the sign.

Um, but that and does it do we sort of automatically cover any issues like if the sign was graffitied.

Um do we have any sort of supporting regulation within our temporary signage?

Um those are good questions.

I think that we we don't have anything in the temporary use permit section that references um not having advertisements on it, but you are approving what is in front of you today.

And that does not include advertising.

So I would say that it would uh violate the approval if there was any other advertising on it.

Um you could put a condition of approval regarding keeping the the sign free of any graffiti or um, you know, other tagging on it or something like that.

Um there isn't anything in the code, but I I'm sure that they're looking to keep it clean so that people know what they're doing.

Yeah, yeah.

It was more a point of curiosity.

I am actually feel confident that because this is tied to a campaign that you're running to fundraise that you will absolutely want to keep that um in good shape uh at all times.

So I have no concern to add a condition.

Okay.

Yeah, nor do I.

Um we're okay there.

So I had a couple of questions and suggestions because your fundraising, you know, we're uh we were happy happy and pulling for island move and company.

Um is there any um issue with uh illumination on the sign?

Nick, could you do like a solar light or something on there?

Um, we don't have anything in the code that says we couldn't do that.

Um so you're showing it currently on the fence as well.

Um and I know that Broadway can be full of cars at night.

I don't know if you'd consider uh it's a four by eight, which conveniently is the size of a piece of plywood.

So you certainly could, and I don't know if this any kind of a height restriction, but if you I'm just thinking if you got it up a little higher and got it lit, you know it's the longest day of the year today, but uh in a few months it's gonna be dark at you know five, six o'clock at night, and I think all the help you could get with people driving by there.

So if we're not breaking any laws, um I would just make those couple of recommendations as long as we don't have to approve it.

Yeah, I think my only worry is that since this is what was presented, um I would worry about deviating from this.

It almost would feel like a um a monument sign or a uh free standing sign, which under the code typically isn't allowed in this district.

That actually is where we came up with this idea to do it as a temporary use permit because they were looking to just put a sign there, but in a residential zone we're limited to a four square foot sign for a commercial business.

Likely when uh this is eventually built, the final signage will likely have to come back in front of you.

If it's any bigger than four square feet, which I assume it will likely need to be.

Yeah.

Um so I would say elevating it worries me a little bit because I don't know that that perfectly fits under our our allowances and it's not shown in front of us.

So hesitate.

I was just thinking other, you know, construction signs are typically, you know, framed up and up and visible and all because you have trucks going through and all that.

So um, but if you want to get this approved tonight, you've got the sign made up.

Let's get it up.

And if you want to illuminate it, it sounds like you can, just to bring a little more attention to your cause.

Yep, that's it.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay, Dave, if you would.

Yeah.

Uh happy Mr.

Chairman.

On the uh, on the petition of Danielle, Janest uh applicant island moving company owner.

Um, I move to adopt the board finding a fact, the information in the SAP report, application supporting plans and documents, and testimony of the witnesses, uh, together with the comments spread on the record by the board members, adopt the board's conclusion of law, uh, that the petition has met their burden of proof under each element, under um chapter 17.107 of the Newport Zoning Ordinance entitled temporary use permits.

Um, the uh petition be granted on the condition that the project be started substantially complete within 12 months of the decision, or extension request of 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.

Second, second.

Thank you.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Thank you very much.

Not that unanimously.

Good luck.

Good luck.

Okay.

Our last abbreviated summary is coming right now.

This is the petition of Jenna and Quincy Miller applicants, Miller family living trust owners, 63 John Street Tax Assess Plat 28 lot 67 in an R3 zone historic overlay for a dimensional variance to install a hot tub 10 feet from Memorial Boulevard front property line, where 20 feet is required for accessory structures.

Great.

Thank you.

Um yes, sir.

Before we get started, any objectors in the audience on this petition on the John Street petition.

Hearing none?

Okay, please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Will you state your name?

Quincy Miller.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So uh I think I'm following the list of everybody else in front of me.

Essentially, I think it's been articulated what I'm looking for.

My house sits on the corner of 63 John and Thomas.

So technically I have three frontages.

Uh and that's when I learned that this was considered a frontage while I'm here in front of this body today.

Right.

Okay.

And so it is it is the hot tub fronting backing up to you.

I assume we have a fence on you know that protects.

Yeah, so so I went through HCC first and then work with them on where to position the hot sub to reduce the amount of visibility from in street.

So because of the height of the wall memorial, essentially you can see one inch of the hot tub if you're standing on memorial, even across the street.

Um, so I'm actually, though, still gonna put up a couple uh plantings in front of there as we talk with HCC.

Putting a fence up along memorial is less ideal because it makes it takes away from the beauty of the properties.

Uh, and so that place where I'm putting the hot tub is tucked behind the stairs and the memorial wall, so that's the most hidden place on my property.

Okay.

Also the most convenient.

I don't have to go far up in the steps, that's right.

True to that.

Questions from board members?

No, Mr.

Miller.

Hearing none, I think we're gonna go to a motion on this.

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman.

Um on a petition of uh Jenna and Quincy Miller, applicants, Miller family living trust owners.

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

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

Great, thank you.

Second, please, second.

Okay.

Um all those in favor of this petition, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, you're all set.

Yep.

Good luck.

Good luck to you.

Party time.

Um, I think we're moving right along.

So why don't we get right into the uh we have three full hearings tonight?

Uh hopefully, we'll see what happens.

And uh, why don't we start with the first one?

Certainly.

The first petition is of a collection at Barney LLC, applicant and owner, 18 Barney Street, and three and four Barney Court, tax assessors plat 21, lot 63-4, and an R3 zone historic overlay for dimensional variances to install an HAC condenser on the front building located 13.5 feet from the Russo Court front property line where 20 feet is required, and reconstructing a previously existing two-story deck on the rear structure located zero feet from the Russo Court front property line, five feet required, increasing law coverage from 59% to 61%, where 45% is allowed.

Um yes, great.

Thank you, uh Russ.

Yes, hi, Mr.

Jackson.

Before we get started, uh I do know that there are uh some objectors to this.

Are there any present tonight?

You know, Mr.

Chair, Peter Regis and Peter and I represent Death Merrill, Harry's Honor, property directly from treatment of this property who are objecting to one aspect of this application, and I do believe there's at least one other, but it's here.

Okay.

Do you have your clients with you, Mr.

Regan?

I do.

Okay.

Can they raise their hands?

Where are they?

Okay.

And is there are there other objectors?

Is that okay?

There's another one.

That's it.

Okay.

All right, yeah.

We will, as Mr.

Regan knows, we will get to you, folks.

Okay.

We certainly want to hear what you have to say.

Uh, but first we have we wanted the petitioner to be able to get uh uh to present their case.

Okay, yes, Mr.

Please.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, J.

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

Um I have with me this evening uh Mr.

DJ Laney who will testify uh as the applicant.

He's a principal of the collection at Barney LLC.

We also have uh Mr.

James Fool as our real estate expert.

Um, before I get started, I do there was just sort of one preliminary issue that I I wanted to um put before the board just to clarify.

So we had submitted this application asking for uh a couple different forms of relief and specifically in relation to the reconstruction of this two-level porch uh on the north side, northwest side of um the building identified as three Barney Court.

Um, we are requesting in the application two forms of relief one relating to lot coverage and one relating to setback.

Um I've had communications even at the time that we were putting this application together uh with um Mr.

Armor about whether or not there was an actual need for the setback variance.

And so at the time, um we did not have uh information to provide regarding uh the location of structures in relation to the next building up on the streetscape and whether or not that result if if they if they also had a zero setback, or as we believe in approach over the property line into the right of way, uh then our position would be there's no setback requirement based on the provision of the code, which allows you to match what's on the streetscape in terms of setbacks.

Um again at the time we did not have that, so we submitted in the application a request for this variance.

Since then, I we've provided site plan, which illustrates that the next property up on Russo Port, which I believe is identified probably as nine Barney Port, uh, has a landing and stair structure uh along Russo Court which encroaches across the property line.

So I'm just trying to understand before we get started, we're prepared to go either way, but I just wanted clarification for the record whether or not the city's position is that a setback variance for this proposed porch on the 18 Barney Street, three Barney Court property is required or not.

Um after reviewing the uh survey that's in front of you right here, the survey clearly shows that the property uh parcel number 21-167 has a landing that encroaches over the front property line.

We have a stipulation in the code that says that if in a direct abutting property has a less than required setback that you can utilize their setback.

Um, and so while this is actually a new code that was put in regarding a five-foot setback required in the R3 zone for new construction, you can still utilize this code section that allows you to reduce it to essentially match the neighboring properties.

Uh obviously that neighboring property has a landing that goes even over the property line, but we would say that a zero foot setback is an acceptable setback.

So the setback requirement for the deck would not be required.

So for the deck purposes, it would just be a lot coverage requirement uh that you need uh the variance for, and then there's the separate setback requirements for the condensers because those are accessory structures that are being requested to be within 20 feet of a uh right of way.

Right.

So um getting to the deck and the fact that the petitioners are are their intention is is that it's a deck that was there, and obviously the objectives are saying they don't remember it being there.

Is there any research that we have or should we just listen to the testimony?

I think we should listen to the testimony.

I don't think it's relevant to the setback request.

Um, again, from a lot coverage standpoint, it's not there today, and so we consider that lot coverage doesn't exist, and they're asking to either add it or add it back, whichever way you want to look at it.

I believe that HTC was presented with some evidence that there had been a deck there, but I would say let's leave it to the uh to each side to that.

Great.

Thank you.

All right, thanks, Nick.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So um, so then so we'll take the setback requirement out basically.

Correct for the deck purpose.

That's what we should do.

Okay.

So important.

Now we're before you on two variants request.

One relating to the deck uh for the increase of lot coverage from existing 59% to 61%, and then one specific to the um request to attach the AC condensers on the side of the front building again on the Russo Court side, but it's uh still 13 and a half feet away from Russo Court.

So just quickly, I'll just to give uh uh sort of an overview of the project.

Again, this is uh an existing non-conforming multifamily development with a total of six dwelling units.

Those six dwelling units are dispersed between um, I'll say three buildings, although the back building has a common wall, but uh between three buildings.

The front building identified as 18 Barney Court, has three dwelling units with the dwelling unit on the level.

It's the 18 Barney Court building, which um uh is uh the building that we're requesting the setback variants as it relates to the AC condenser.

Um the 18 Barney Court building is not what you see on the screen at the moment.

Um, those that, yeah.

If you look at the site plan there, the 18 Barney Court building has its front door facing.

That's 18 Barney, 18 Barney Street, not court.

My apologies, my apologies.

18 Barney Street, and then there's um uh an opening between the two buildings, and uh, and then the back building is three and four Barney Court with front doors facing Barney Court and the backside if you will, those properties facing Russo Court.

So again, it's um it's non-conforming in a number of ways.

One, it's got six dwelling units.

Uh two, there are um uh existing there's existing lot coverage, was which is already at 59 percent.

So any modification to this development is going to require some type of zoning relief.

Um the parcel itself has four four thousand four hundred and forty-six point five five square feet, which is conforming for the R3 zone.

But again, as you look at that map, uh, that site plan, uh the property uh is fully developed, it has been historically for a period of time.

In fact, uh in the area that provides what we believe to be a driveway between 18 Barney Street and the back building, uh, up until approximately 1971 there was uh another building sort of sandwiched in between, uh, which was taken down at some point.

Um I have with me again this evening the applicant EJ Laney, he'll be testifying uh in relation to when they acquired the property, the development plan that's underway.

The fact that everything that um is being done to the property and everything that's before you this evening has been reviewed and approved by the Historic District Commission.

Uh and he can testify as well to whatever evidence they found on site, which indicates to them that there had been previously uh a two-level porch structure on the back of three Barney Court, which is adjacent the structure being adjacent to uh Russo Court.

So unless the board has any questions uh from me, uh we can get started with Mr.

Lanny.

So, question for you, Nick.

This isn't considered a rooftop deck.

No, it's off the second floor of the property.

We we uh defined in the code the different levels of decks and essentially anything between five and fifteen feet above average grade adjacent deck is a second floor deck, anything 15 to 25 feet is a third floor deck.

Um roof deck is you know on top of a portion of an existing part of the building.

Okay, right.

Mr.

Chairman, if you look at the renderings that were up just moments ago, you can see that that is yeah, directly attached to the second level of the structure that's identified as three Barney Port.

Yep.

Mr.

Jackson, your architect here, do you have an architect here, or will the owner be able to address anything?

Whatever design questions there may be.

Thank you.

And uh Ms.

Saxon, Shab, you would know, but it is uh what Ms.

Lane would know is is any uh history as to when those decks were there or came down.

Uh yeah, we we don't have specific information as to when they were taken down.

Um as a little background.

This property was owned by Mr.

Brian Pellateer, as you know, Mr.

Pellateer um uh to put it kindly was a collector.

Uh so many of his properties often had collections of building materials, um artifacts uh scattered throughout his property.

At some point, the structure that was on back of three Barney Court was taken down, and the space that used to be occupied by uh at least the first level porch, we believe a first and second level porch, there's still framing, and then the space was filled up with bricks that Mr.

Pelletier had collected and stacked uh along Russo Court.

So there was a fair amount of building material, not to mention what was inside of um this specifically this building at three Barney Court, the garage structure.

So I know you're familiar with a number of the properties uh that Mr.

Pellateer owned.

Uh and what I've just described, I think is characteristic of how he handled those properties, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

He did a lot of work himself, and this property was an example of a property that he undertook some years ago to rehabilitate.

Uh and it was a slow process, and he did rehabilitate to a certain extent the roof on Three Barney Court, but again, it was always a work in progress and not a work that he finished before he passed.

So, thank you.

Yep.

All right, I'll bring up Mr.

Laney.

Yes, sir.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Please state your name.

EJ Lanny.

So Mr.

Laney, you are a member and one of the principals of the collection at Barney LLC, is that right?

Yes, I am.

And that LLC is the owner and the applicant to this before the seat is correct.

Correct.

Why don't you just briefly describe when you acquired this property?

We acquired this property about seven or eight months ago, and our development plan from the onset, you know, we thought this was a very unique property being a parcel, yet three individual buildings and six dwelling units.

And we sort of had a few goals for the project.

One was to restore housing uh in the buildings.

The second was to maintain and restore some of the historic fabrics to the buildings, and also provide some modern amenities uh to the new uh owners and occupants.

So Mr.

Laney, this is not your first development project.

Correct.

Yeah, we do uh quite a bit of work here uh both on island and middle town and Newport, including subdivisions, condo developments, uh, a lot of historic restoration.

Yeah, you had the A Roll Street property, correct?

Excuse me.

You had the A Roll Street property you were in front of us for?

Uh no, sir.

No, okay.

I'm thinking of something else then.

Um we've seen you before, I know that.

Yeah, we've done um some other historic restorations on division street.

Um we've did done a um, I think a seven or eight unit condo development on Gibbs, uh, some things in the point, and basically every neighborhood in Newport.

So we're quite familiar with working with HDC and the staff here.

Yep.

You may have been in front of the board on your property at New York Street, I think, right?

Correct.

Um, why don't you describe to the board the condition of property you guys required?

So 18 Barney Street, the main building on the corner, the green building, as I'll refer to, is in pretty good condition.

We did just complete uh restoration, uh, hence adding some mini splits, laundry in the units and so on and so forth, but we did do essentially a gut renovation to that building.

The other two accessory structures, three and four Barney Court were in uh disrepair.

There was um essentially three other units in those buildings, and our intent was to restore Mr.

Pellateer's vision uh as to how they were divided.

So we uh essentially began a gut renovation and of course a historic application for certificate of appropriateness.

Uh we've spent time at the historic society with Bert looking through historic photos.

Um there's some photos in the application that clearly indicate um a previous structure existing on the rear of three Barney.

There's um I'm not sure if Mr.

Armor could pull up this particular photo, but I think it's quite uh telling.

Um Three Barney Court is the yellow building here, and I'll bring this up to you guys so you can have a look at it.

Yeah, that's part of this mission, yeah.

Great.

So there's existing concrete columns there.

There's existing um steel columns uh that come up from the concrete footings.

There was an existing ledger board, there was an existing wood beam, and the most telltale sign is there's two doors that exit onto this previously existing deck.

Um we did go to uh the historic society and we presented that evidence and information and discussing with um the historic commission.

We did make a few modifications, one to uh reduce the deck size so that is conforming to the zoning code and secondly to um bring it back in from the side of the house so it's not visible from the front of the property and that was approved uh unanimously by the by the commission so what is your um we'll get into more detail about once the photo comes up about the previous structure what's the development plan for the property itself six units the development plan is to essentially sell these as condominiums I believe I'm gonna be living in the the yellow house three Barney myself so um again we've been working with the neighbors to try to address all of the concerns uh but the the development plan is to sell six condominiums.

So Nick was able to pull up the photographs that were submitted as part of the application.

So again one that top photo there we just brought up on the monitor why don't you again describe what we're looking at here because it's so at the bottom of the photo uh at the rear of the yellow building which is three Barney porting from the bottom we can see a green lattice uh that was previously some type of patio um and our intent is to restore that uh with the current design that you saw in blue previously you'll also see concrete footings there's three of them uh there's also three steel uh beam um columns that come up and support the wooden beam uh at the top of that structure uh against the buildings there's two egress doors one from three Barney and one from four Barney port uh and you know ledgers attached to to the wall so to us this was overwhelming evidence that there you know was a structure there as I mentioned the historic commission agreed so again to be clear these photographs were taken at the time you acquired the property that's correct this is the condition you found the property to be furnished correctly that's correct you did not install any either of those two doors that are depicted on the rear of three barney port and four correct so so those support beams and the footings would obviously be to support the the outer edge of the deck right and that would be attached to the house on the on that side that's correct yeah typical framing you would have joists that span between the building and that beam to support it.

While we're discussing that so fast forward to today I was out there and there's a on the uh I would say the natural wood or the yellow uh building to the right there's now a second uh doorway on the first floor correct that's correct one of the um the dwelling units um on the ground floor of the gray building will have an entry door at that location and then there's also an egress door at the back of the yellow building as well that would exit onto essentially a patio at grade it's about you know 28 30 inches high.

So um I don't mean to take you off track here Mr.

Jackson however I'm curious who will be accessing the second and uh second floor deck and the first floor patio porch whatever you're calling it just one owner would be allowed to use that porch that's unit five excuse me unit five that is unit five that is correct okay that is correct just one unit and and again legally that is captured within the rules and regulations of the condominium association.

And how big was that it's 96 square feet.

So it's approximately six by I think 20 or so check my dimensions six by fifteen.

Six by sixteen.

That'd be ninety-six feet.

Correct so you a six foot depth, you know, I know there's some neighbors here that are concerned about noise and you know, understanding the reciprocity of a porch across the street or a patio or a deck that's you know eight feet in the air, I think the you know, the noise created from any one of those locations is essentially the same.

Um so the the deck doesn't allow, and I think the Newport zoning code has size those decks appropriately so that you can't put 50 people on a deck that's 96 square feet.

It's it's meant for you know a few people that are living there and having a cocktail or dinner outside.

Is it a um a self enclosed deck?

There's no stairwell down, up it's it's simply accessed on the second through through that one door.

That is correct.

Okay.

So just to clarify the the structure that you showed the photographs of what existed previously.

Obviously, since that done some demolition working, clear some things out, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah, we frame the new window and door openings, you know, essentially preparing everything that was approved by the historic commission, and we're getting ready to install some new windows and doors.

We've restored um some of the existing windows in accordance with our certificate of appropriateness, garage doors and so on and so forth.

Okay, and and if you look at the photograph that's there now with the stack of bricks behind the lattice, uh in that same location, you've already constructed a and what's referred to as a factory, uh, it is elevated, but it's below the 32 inches that's fall forward to the code, correct?

That's correct.

It doesn't count towards lock coverage, it doesn't count towards any setback encroachment, even if they're worried over here, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah, the intent is to make it appear as the blue rendering with the white deck that you saw previously.

Right, and just to clarify again, the second level deck, there are two doors, so the blue building is a dwelling unit unto itself.

Correct.

And then the uh base or yellowish building, and this rendering has two dwelling units in it, correct?

Correct.

Those two dwelling units that are in that larger building, they are townhouse style, one up front and one on the back, correct?

Uh there's one on the ground floor, and then the other unit is on the second and third, and they they're accessed.

Um the studio on the ground floor is accessed through that red door that you see, and the other unit is accessed from the front of the house, which is essentially Barney Court, not this Russo port side.

Okay, so which occupants will be access to the second floor deck?

Just the blue house.

The door is remaining, but it will not be accessible by that other unit.

It essentially is a bedroom, so that's not um really a good place to egress onto a deck.

Did historic make you keep that door that why it's remains?

Correct.

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah, we we attended to try to keep the appearance of the building as close to the final product as we could and maintain all those things.

We're doing some things at the front of the house as well, with the carriage style doors, the garage doors that you see on the bottom rendering.

So if you could, I mean, obviously, you put some thoughts in this plan.

What what were you trying to do in relation to the neighborhood?

You could just sort of describe the neighborhood as well.

I mean, the neighborhood is fantastic.

Um, it's uh it's obviously a historic neighborhood.

There's uh character and charm, the neighbors themselves have been absolutely fantastic.

We've I think submitted five letters of support from all the surrounding neighbors, notwithstanding some of the opposition.

Uh everybody has supported the project.

Um complimentary as we finished the 18 Barney Street building and put those on the market.

You know, we've gotten some great uh sales velocity and feedback.

So, you know, we're excited to present a new product.

We're excited to have the opportunity to be sort of a custodian of the city and of the historic nature of these buildings to to bring them back to life to you know, essentially clean them out from being brick storage facilities or wood stores storage facilities, and putting some housing units back on the market here.

So, um, if you could also describe what efforts you know, you mentioned it briefly, but if you can go into a little further detail, what would outreach effort by you to communicate with your natives?

It's describing the project and answer any question they had.

We um tried to make ourselves available whenever we could to passers by.

Uh after being there for a few weeks, people would start to come by and ask questions, and we became friendly with some of the neighbors.

The neighbor directly across the street on Barney Street.

Uh, Mike Strong has been a great supporter.

Uh he is actually the direct abutter, and his driveway uh and house actually opposes the other side of Russo Court from the structure that's in question this evening.

Uh Libby Davenport was here this evening has been a great supporter.

Uh Kevin Rinaldi.

Um so we've spoken to all these folks and we've let them know what our development plan is, and we've just received overwhelming support from everybody, and you know, we're quite happy about that.

Um I would just quickly mention in terms of the the opposition, we've tried to meet with those folks as well uh and appease them and discussed uh the this project with them.

Um Miss Theo, who lives at the end, the very end of Russo Court, I believe she's a renter there.

She uh her her address is actually on Sherman Street, if I um am correct.

I did speak with her on the phone a couple weeks ago.

Uh she mentioned that you know she's friendly with Deborah Merrill and she wanted to support Deborah and you know her opposition to this project.

She did tell me that her main concern was noise on the deck, so we did discuss that a little bit.

Um just out of curiosity.

I mean, I'm an engineer by education, and I was kind of curious how noise from this deck or from this porch or from a porch or patio across the street would affect uh Miss Theo at the end of um at the end of Russo Court.

So I took it upon myself to to purchase a decibel meter, and you know, we essentially played some music um quite loudly at the rear of this deck and patio, and I walked down the street and and sort of measured how the sound from the the speaker reduced that property line is about 150 feet away, so it's it's a half a football field.

Um we noticed that the decibel meter was reading just about conversation level uh noise at that at that distance away from the house.

So again, we're trying to address concerns as much as possible within reason, but we do feel like we have the right to restore this historic object, uh this historic feature of this building and um deserve reciprocity from other people that have patios or porches or driveways in this neighborhood.

It is the R3 zone, so you know, our feeling is that if you're living in a highly dense historic neighborhood in Newport, you have to have the understanding that you're gonna have some neighbors.

So, aside from the orbs, we'll just quickly address the AC condensers.

So, again, one of the unique um characteristics of this property is that it has front end on the reside, correct?

That's correct.

So you're proposing to put the AC condenser along the north or northwest side structure that's identified as 18 Barney Street, correct?

That's correct.

Why didn't you change that?

If you look at the uh the map here, the Barney Court side and the Barney Street side have essentially zero setback, the structure is built uh almost on the on the property line.

Uh on the left side, it was um the most appropriate.

You'll see it highlighted in a small red box there, the next highlighting.

Um we also met with Mike Strongen who lives across the street.

He would be essentially the neighbor that you know would be affected the most by this by these condensers.

Again, these are mini splits, so they're condensers that are uh the least noisy of the bunch.

Uh Mike was fine with it.

You know, we have a plan to do some shrouding around the condensers with some lattice, um, just to you know, to sort of hide it, and as many of you may have seen, we did restore the yard there.

So there's a little patio and um a patio set, so we felt that the was the most appropriate location next to the bulkhead and mechanicals.

And just to be clear, this if this sort of uh a particle which I'll refer to as sort of typical or standard, meaning it can have three front set packs.

Uh it had just frontage on the barney street, you can see side setbacks who wouldn't be here, right?

Correct.

Side setback and the R3 is three feet, right?

Correct.

And this is 13 and a half feet away from the group support.

So the one using your gears because we support the public right away and technically it's that's the structure that's actually 20 feet away.

Correct.

Um so just in conclusion, both in relation to the proposed deck, which again is in terms of area of permissible by the zoning mode that's less than 100 square feet for second above the deck, correct?

That's correct.

In relation to the DAC and in relation to the AC condenser, your positions have been thoughtful and careful in developing a plan which you believe is appropriate for restoration of property detectors.

That's fair to say.

I would also just add one uh caveat in regards to you know creating noise from really anywhere on the property.

Any buyer or um any buyer or tenant or um person that is gonna dwell in these units is obviously required to adhere to the newport noise ordinance.

You can't have a party at midnight, you can't be overtly loud, you can't have parties when it's disturbing your neighbors, everyone has the right to call the police and say it's too loud.

But we try to take another step uh by creating rules and regulations that any owner uh or occupant has to agree to and sign, and those state that you know essentially you can't create noise at late hours of the night, and you need to be respectful of your neighbors, and there's fines that can be opposed by our condo associations uh there too if if there's issues.

So we're trying to address this from all angles when we are in a historic uh neighborhood as such.

All right.

Uh needed for the reasonable use of this property as multi-fan development.

Yes.

And you did your position that's what you're proposing both in terms of this port structure as well as the AC condensers, it's not gonna alter the case, is it?

No.

Maybe it's harmonized with the area.

I do.

The other historic structure didn't are.

Yes.

Just put the record, you know.

But just gonna check for the records, correct?

Yeah, he can state it.

So he doesn't need to be an expert.

I understand, but he doesn't, he's just answering the question in his opinion.

We understand that.

And you're gonna get a chance to question him as well.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Well, set, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Mr.

Regan, do you have any questions for this winner?

Yeah, just a few.

Good evening.

Um in your application, you said there's a statement that says the depth slash port structure would be the exact location of the previously previous deck slash, but we slightly small background.

That's correct.

And this structure was not on the property with birth, but well, there was uh overwhelming evidence of the structure with the columns.

I would say yes.

It wasn't there.

This photo, I think is evidence.

There's doors, there's a beam, there's columns, there's footings, there's ledgers.

So I would say yes.

So the only thing that's missing is Joyce and decking.

So the ledger that's there, um doesn't stand both and firewood and building correctly.

That's correct.

That's approximately eight feet.

Okay.

And are there any markings or holes on that deck or that ledger board where a second floor deck is gasped?

Yes.

Really?

Yeah, of course, there's holes in the wood.

You can see them.

Yes.

Are there any other markings or holes on the ledger board where that was attached to the I'm happy to bring you out there?

We can look at it together.

I've offered I've offered that to your to your clients who were trespassing when they investigated.

That's the title stuff.

Let's keep it civil, please, okay?

Yeah, I'm I'm trying to.

Well, I'm talking to both of you.

Um so it's your opinion that that ledger board went all the way across the wood of the building, etc.

It's my opinion that the deck was the size of the wood beam that we're looking at currently in this photo.

And when you bought it, that's where the ledger was, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And that beam could have been to support the roof of one-store structure, correct?

We're not speculating.

There's a beam there, there's columns, and there's a ledger board.

There are no photos historically at the historic society of this deck.

And you submitted historic data sheets about the property, number of them to the ACC, and none of them make any reference to this structure.

The only photos that the historic society had for these projects are right here in my hand.

And just the front of a building.

That's correct.

And so our data sheets that you've submitted to the ACC don't make any reference to this story or stat structure, correct?

The they wouldn't.

I'm an asking question, yes or no, did they make any reference to?

No, but they wouldn't ever.

On any historic data sheet, it doesn't show decks on the rear of a property.

Anyone that I've ever seen, and I've done a lot of investigation of the society.

And did you do any other investigation to look at any sandboard maps or ads?

Of course.

Sandboard maps cover up place uh years up to like the 1920s.

They don't have this time period when this deck was built after the taken down.

So it was built in 1905 by the time.

That's not that's not a red herring.

His application says they're asking to restore something that was previously there.

And they mentioned it, not once but several times.

So I think I'm entitled to determine whether that's in fact the case.

Because that's part of their argument to you, and we're just replacing what was there.

We're restoring.

Okay.

So that's fair enough.

And um, you know, we're we're quite capable on this board of understanding what red herrings are and what aren't, and understanding the different testimonies that's being given to us.

I'll please wrap up this portion of the testimony.

If you would.

We get the point.

We get the point.

You're trying to get him to say when it was, and because it isn't, then maybe it was never there.

This eleven two-story structure will further.

There's no evidence at the historical society that shows when the deck was there or removed.

Um any records in the tax assessment's database with the dark.

The tax assessor does not keep data from that age for things like this.

But at least nothing within the time frame that they keep out.

Correct.

Um, some of these things may be, you know, should should be taken up with the historic commission.

I don't necessarily think they're appropriate for this.

There was an appeal period for the historic application and certificate of appropriateness.

And that yeah, that's okay.

We're fine with that Ms.

Laney.

Okay.

Okay.

We know, yeah.

Let's carry on if you wouldn't stream.

And uh did did you consider any other location of this uh second stroke deck, other than what's being proposed?

So to put the deck in a different place where it wasn't previously no what's not which once again is the relevancy of my question once again that is a party would reply there right and and we will decide the relevancy of it ourselves okay we're listening to you so all the questions I have to okay we're good any redirect?

No Mr.

Chairman unless the board has any questions questions from the board anybody I do but I don't go ahead and I I messed enough already okay I think I just have two um the I'm just looking at the HTC's conditional approval and you said they do want you to keep the doors that would generally egress to the deck um I just trying to is that the retain carriage doors with off swing because I thought that was referencing the carriage door is on the front of the house yeah um Mr.

Armark would you be so kind as to pull up the renderings the blue and the white so the top left of that rendering is the rear uh Russo Court frontage and the bottom right is the Barney port frontage.

So the carriage doors that uh Miss Jillian is referring to are the black ones in that photo.

Okay.

We're maintaining those historic carriage doors there outsway garage doors.

Understood so um can you tell me where in their decision they require you to keep those upper level doors.

We presented this exact uh plan which included these rendering and all of the architectural elevations and essentially that is the record of what we're maintaining.

Okay.

Is that Nick is that a fair statement that sounds about right to me that if this is the rendering HDC approves it those doors have to be there.

Correct.

If they wanted to change it they would need to go back to the orchidally the um preservation planner for modification to an approval.

Thank you for that clarification I have one more question.

Do you have um evidence of your uh or a copy of your um condo association rules that would address some of those noise issues absolutely I don't have a copy of my person tonight but I can certainly share that with the board.

Okay email through Mr.

Armour would be happy to do so.

Okay.

It absolutely exists and oh yes of course yeah we've sort of curated it over the years doing this many times and that addresses everything from you know where you put your bicycle to trash removal and noise.

Okay thank you so many um so a couple of questions uh we discussed air conditioning condensers for 18 Barney um just to clarify are you planning on putting in condensers for three and four Barney and do you have a location that won't require any relief from this board yes and yes um the HDC plans that you'll see here I I think it's listed if we scroll down but they're essentially going on the sort of the dark side of the blue roof that is in between the shed roof uh and the yellow wall so they would be hidden on the roof so the whole thing at grade okay got it um six units currently six apartments that are being converted to condominiums correct so I'm assuming Nick that uh parking is grandfathered or where we call it because you've got six units and it's remaining the same.

Is there anything that happens uh with a conversion or Mr.

Jackson going from apartments to condominiums.

There's no change uh from zoning perspective between an apartment versus condos.

Uh we have been in discussion uh with Mr.

Lonnie and Mr.

Jackson about um their current work on the driveways between uh three Barney Court and 18 Barney Street.

Um their contention is that there had been driveways in that location.

I have not seen evidence to that effect at this point.

Uh we decided that it was not relevant to this deck proposal or the condensers to deal with that aspect at this time.

That is something that we are following back up on uh if they you know are able to provide any evidence that there had been driveways there.

The ramification is that because this is a multifamily property, uh, when you are creating a driveway, it has to be it has to meet the commercial parking standards that it is uh a drive aisle that parking spaces are actually on top of to prevent the reversing onto the right of way.

Right now, under the plan essentially, uh it's actually on this site plan that shows driveway for unit four, driveway for unit five would require those two cars to effectively reverse on to either Russo Court or Barney Court, which would require a variance from this board in order to approve that condition, unless we are presented with evidence that would uh effectively show that this is a grandfathered situation here where these existed previously.

Okay, so now that that's established the front, I think you said the front of the properties are considered on Barney Court.

Yeah, if I could just quickly follow up on that, yeah.

There is once it was determined by the zoning officer that that from the city's perspective, a driveway didn't exist between these buildings.

We filed an appeal that will be on your agenda next month, and simultaneously we filed an application for a variance.

If this board determines that Mr.

Armor made the right decision, we're also asking for a variance to allow that space between the two buildings to be a driveway.

But again, that's that's an issue for next month.

This application is uh one last question.

So the front uh is out at the site today.

Uh there are two what I would hear to be I would say would be garages on the first floor.

Is that use going to remain?

Will they be in interior parking spaces or are they going to be part of the unit and parking on the street?

They will be interior parking spaces.

Okay.

So essentially our intent is to provide one garage space at three Barney Court, the black doors, one garage space at four Barney Court, the red door, Maroon Door, and essentially two driveway spaces if this board, you know, so agrees next month that would allow for parking spaces for this development.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

And just to be clear, Mr.

Johnson, those two spaces that'll be for you next month are not necessary, in addition to the existing condition.

No, but they'll certainly be a help in complementary to your project.

Dave, anything?

No, not at this time.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we're done, Mr.

Laney.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jackson.

What do we got next?

We've got Mr.

Wool next.

Okay.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Hole.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Please state your name.

James However.

Yes, sir.

So Mr.

Chairman, um, obviously Mr.

Boole's been before you a number of times.

If you could ask that you accept him as um a real estate expert.

Uh yes, we have done that in the past, and uh we will continue to do so.

So Mr.

Boole, you were obviously engaged by uh the collection of Barney LLC to evaluate this zoning application in analysis and rendering opinion regarding uh the requested variance.

Is that correct?

It is uh before you get into your testimony.

You prepare a written report which was submitted to the board, correct?

That's correct.

And uh you adopt all the analysis and conclusions and findings that you reached in your written report as part of your testimony.

Yes, why don't you if you could just describe to the board what steps you undertook when you were engaged?

Uh how you went through your analysis and what your completions are related to this application.

Sure.

Well, one of the advantages I had here was that I had seen this building prior to the collection bond.

I had I had actually gone in and gone through the property, including all the way through each of the Barney Port buildings, which were loaded with as described, collection of the billet here, and uh I you know basically one of the things that I recall, sort of dovetails it for this conversation, is that the doors were clearly of a much older period, you know.

They were the framing on the inside, which you have to see pictures of, um, were clearly put in when these buildings were aerial, probably when they were first built.

So, in terms of the fact that the doors, I consider the doors really more of a giveaway, if anything, of some level of something, uh, haven't existed on that spot in terms of uh the deck.

There had to be some exit above above the doors, and one thing that hasn't been uh clearly stated, although it's pretty obvious, is the door on the we put up the any of the back, any of the new.

That's good.

The door actually on the building in the left side of this photograph is three feet away from the yellow building, so you can see that it came whatever was there came all the way out because it had to receive both of those stores.

So it really took up what appears to be the entire space, or would have appeared to take up the entire sort of foods there.

So when I well, when I looked at the you know, we're looking at originally what I looked at two dimensional variants.

I was looking at the first one.

Now it's been eliminated on the death, so it's simply a lot coverage uh issue.

We're moving from 59 to 61, and the other variants for the air conditioner requests.

Um, when I look at it, uh what is the hardship?

The hardship is clearly the any characteristics of the subject buildings.

The buildings already take up 59 percent of the lot coverage.

Um they've been in this place for an extended period of time.

Um, they come right out to the street on each of the three streets that are fronted, and um that is clearly the hardship.

Um, there's no other room to do anything at all.

If you're gonna do any kind of work to this property, you're gonna have some sort of expansion of lot coverage, um, very any simple request.

So I don't see uh either of these as being the hardship is the way that three uh the buildings take up the space, of course.

The fact that the lot itself has three frontages, so that makes everything very difficult.

The hardship is not a prior action, it's existence for extended period.

The granting of the recursive variance is not all for the general character.

I don't see it um affecting the general character of the neighborhood.

These are the minimis changes building, it's essential you have some sort of an exit off of the second level.

Um the air conditioners are against the and you've correctly noted that it's not on the northern side, it's on the western side of the building.

Um the air conditioner um are on the western side of the building.

But they're set in 13 and a half feet from Russo Court.

Um, so I don't see any impact on the neighborhood.

I did look at lock coverages, most of the lock coverage is in the 40% range in the area around them, but there were two that really j jumped out.

One is a building that directly abuts the subject property uh that fronts on both Russo and Barney Court actually has a hundred percent lock coverage as far as I could tell looking at the city record, the lot is in fact slightly smaller than the amount of first closed space.

So it actually I think that's greater than 100% hot coverage, and a little bit further down on the same side of Barney Street, you can see there's a building with 83% hot coverage.

So I don't see an impact in the neighborhood at all.

Um they're revitalizing and keeping with the land you stole to become planned.

They're revitalizing what was really a build series of buildings are in tough shape and really needed revitalization.

Um so I think that they're very what they're doing is pretty much in harmony with the plan.

And in granting the dimensional variance, the budget um would be more than a mirroring convenience if denied, I think that's absolutely correct.

Again, these are absolutely minimal changes to the property.

So I think that it would be uh more than a mirroring means to deny the request.

They're very simple requests.

So just in conclusion, Mr.

Poole, uh, based on your report, based on the testimony you've offered this evening, uh, you reached the conclusion that in your opinion the applicant isn't at the burden in relation to all the required findings for granting the variance or proposed increase in lock coverage from 59 to 61 percent, but there's a it is, and you reach the same conclusion in relation to the request to be coaching to the 20th required setback for the placement of the EC.

Yes.

And lastly, there's obviously been quite a bit of discussion about what did or did not exist in this location on the site in the past, correct?

Yes, all right.

I just want to be clear.

You've you referenced it in your testimony to provide context to the project, right?

Yes, in other words, it wasn't a fundamental aspect of you reaching your expert opinion that the increase of lock coverage from 59 to 61 percent was uh you know dependent on type of pre-existing condition.

Yeah, yeah, no, not at all.

I I only have any conversation about the pre-existing nature of it because it was it's clearly apparent that those doors went somewhere, and they have been on that building long before the current owner coke possession of the problem, right?

So, would it be fair to say that even if this second level deck was attached at a different spot unless building it still required two percent lock coverage, like the achievement driving at the same time?

Absolutely, absolutely two percent is the minimum, it's not it's 96 square feet.

Sure, go ahead, Mr.

I think um you just said that um if this debt was somewhere else, we had the tax.

No, not exactly well.

If the debt the question that was asked was, was your opinion, your conclusion, based on the pre-existing nature of the debt?

And the answer is not.

It's appliance with the code, you said that two percent is the buttons that take into account of the property.

Well, we can't really the decision is not as either or the conclusion I reached was based on what was being executive and as far as I we have no idea if it's moved somewhere else, if it would have a different impact.

Well, do you know how far the second story deck is from the second story?

No.

It's fairly close, though.

Everything has.

But this is particularly well, I'm not really sure, but it's more particularly close to the door.

It wouldn't be.

So when you were answering this question about that the deck was moved, you were talking simply about the lot coverage.

Well, I did answer the impact question.

That is another clear question.

And but you don't know how close it is to the bedrooms across the tree when you make that knowledge.

I believe it's 20 feet.

It's 20 feet, is it not?

Twenty feet.

That's what I saw.

But I guess that's just a follow-up.

So Mr.

Roole, uh the German's reference 20 feet.

I believe that was in a letter of objection in relation to the approximate distance.

Yes.

Okay.

We're in the R3 zone.

Yes.

Front setback is zero.

Yes.

Rear setback is five feet, side setback is three feet, correct?

Yes.

Even if we gave this the most generous required setback being five feet, the distance of the injectors uh property and entered window as she's described is four times distance otherwise required by rear setback.

Correct?

Yes.

So she in fact has a much larger uh cushion in terms of setback in relation to neighbor's noise, and if someone builds a bacon lot right next door to her and builds something three feet away or five feet away from the property with the fragment.

Yes.

That's the nature of the R3 zone is that you're making it.

Is the fact that the deck itself is so small, but it's not the type of deck that's going to be used by, you know, it's not a part of deck.

It's 90 cents.

Yep.

That point has been made.

Thank you.

Mr.

Regan, did you have one more comment?

No.

Okay.

Uh questions from the board.

Please.

Anybody?

Um I just would uh two things.

Uh I appreciate your insight onto the two doors on the second floor.

Uh that's helpful to me anyway.

Um existing uh currently and there is no door on the um how I'm not sure of the addresses, but the uh the building that is not getting receiving the port or deck, uh there is a first floor door there now that is shown in the picture that's not on the building now.

Is that correct, Ms.

Jackson?

Is what I'm looking at.

I mean, not sure.

But yeah, the rendering will show an egress from four the rear of four Barney Port.

Again, that first level stonework patio, which is there is allowable by right, and so it's providing a secondary egress from the unit.

Right.

And it's more common space than the second floor porch, which is specifically for that unit correct on the second floor.

Okay.

Um as far as Mr.

Hoole, as far as uh the first floor, there is no railing, no lattice, no anything, so that is a uh an open porch or deck or whatever you want to call it.

We're talking about proposed on the first floor on the proposed levels that's right.

And uh do you feel that uh that has any impact as far as sight lines or any issues with uh driving?

Does that make it better or make it worse?

I mean, is that no, I don't think I I think it's fairly neutral.

I don't think it's gonna have much of an impact one way or another.

I'm not sure if I'm exactly understanding the question, but I I I think that the fact that the first floor patio could exist right.

Right.

I think my question is if that the ballister or railing that's shown on the second floor were on this first floor as well, you would have more of a feeling of that being on the street and perhaps a little closer, but by not having that there, it it perhaps gives it a little more of an open feel on the street level.

You are correct.

Okay.

Anybody, Melissa?

Thank you.

Um question for me.

Did you do a study?

I didn't don't think I saw it in your report.

You did a study of uh other uh density and other uh lockover.

I didn't do the whole neighborhood.

If you look at um if you look in the review board on some tree, I think it might be nine.

Yeah, I I it is nine.

I I only looked at the buildings that were immediately around the subject property.

I didn't do a larger um I I think quite frankly the amount of coverage is being requested when you're at 59 is fairly high even in the R3 zone.

So I wasn't I I just wanted to show that the houses that were the buildings that were all around it, and you know these were typical are the coverages, most importantly 40 percent range, but then you have some of these that stand out that show the rain code.

Yeah, and I and I saw those, and I that's not exactly what I was getting at.

Did you did you look at uh in the area and look at other decks in the area, patios and decks?

Yes.

Yeah, I mean on two um four Barney Street, there are third-level decks.

Um, you know, there's not a whole lot of uh upper story decks, but it mostly has to do with the fact that I think that these are already virtually all the buildings right on the street mostly zero setback, so there's really not much room for them to be constructed.

Um one of the things about this, you know, that makes this particular request sort of difficult is the fact again, referring to the fact that you have three frontages, so that what is these decks or the deck that's being deposed is actually in the rear of the building.

And then typically if this was on the rear of the building almost anywhere else, if you didn't have that free frontage issue, you it would not have any kind of an impact because it would be legally uh set behind on the did that answer your question?

Yeah, I mean by and large, yes.

Um just wanted to get to that point.

Anything else, Mr.

Will?

Thank you.

Okay.

You know, just to the point though on four barn or the deck to run that building is set back to the whole mile set, right?

Right.

Yeah, I think I'm familiar with that.

Yep.

Mr.

Jackson, do you have anything else?

Uh I don't have any other witnesses if I could just have a minute after uh Mr.

Regan presents his case and if any other members of the public speak to have a minute or two.

Sure, you'll you'll yeah, you'll have a chance to cross examine and we'll let everybody do a closing argument as well.

And okay, Mr.

Regan, you're you're up.

Thank you.

Uh I know you've got a uh full document, so I will try to be as distinct uh as possible.

Um, as I mentioned earlier, look like you go through.

And three who's a poured directly across this property.

Um we here to object only to one aspect of this application, and that's the second floor balcony proposed to be directly across the street.

My clients' primary.

Um my clients are happy with the rest of this project.

They're happy to see this property upgraded and restored, like the rest of the neighborhood has been uh over the last few years.

Uh it is the fact that this um balcony is so close and only 17 feet from my client's bedroom that is in the song.

Um, so can we can we clear that up as a 20 feet or 17 feet?

My client will testify that it's 17.

Okay, um, which is about the distance from where you are from where I am.

Um, so just up front, we we mentioned the the and we'll address the the issue of what might have been there versus uh supposed to be there.

Um, but first, preliminarily, and I had a conversation with Mr.

Armor about this this afternoon.

Um there is no definition in the code of what a deck is versus what a balcony is, and as you know, the code's been revised over the last couple of years to um put some more restrictions and limits, particularly with regard to upper story decks and balconies, but it doesn't describe what makes one a balcony, what makes one deck.

Uh and it's important.

Balconies are limited to four feet width.

Um taking a look at this, we believe that this is actually a balcony because it extends outward from the second floor, situated above front porch and it's not accessible from the ground level.

Uh Mr.

Armor probably has a different opinion on that since he accepted this application as a deck, but just preliminarily, we don't believe that the applicant has requested proper relief.

Uh second, we don't believe that there's any hardship here that would warrant the addition of both the front the front level porch as well as the second floor balcony, and certainly don't think that the relief saw here is minimal to be joined on the property.

We believe it's more than what would be necessary.

We think that first floor porch is adequate.

Um, lastly, as I mentioned, most importantly, being 17 feet from my client's bedroom.

Uh, this is gonna have a significant adverse impact on their quiet enjoyment of their property uh and their quality of life.

So, with that, I'd like to call Dev Merrill.

Yes, Ms.

Murrell, please raise your right hand.

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

Please say your name for the record.

Deborah Merrill.

Okay.

How long have you lived under so forth?

13 years.

Yeah, probably speaking the mic, thank you.

Yeah.

It was passed, but I live in number one Russo Court right now.

Uh, can you describe the neighborhood under so forth?

Yeah, it's a very um quiet neighborhood, very charming.

There's only a few houses there, and um, you know, it's uh we don't get too much traffic other than the occasional car that comes up and backs out.

Um we really do enjoy it very much.

Um, we have a backyard deck that we set out on at times, so I understand Miss Delani's desire to have that.

Um, explain in your own words why you're objecting to this aspect of the issue.

Yeah, um, it's very um it it impacts my privacy as well as sound.

Um, so our bedroom is on the second floor in the front of the house.

Previously it was in the back of the house, but there is a party deck um right around where the churches, which is quite far away, it's gonna be 200 feet away.

Noisy, you know, we're not the type of people to call the police.

We don't want to we like to have good neighborly relations when we can.

So we move to the front of the deck, the front of the house, and now we're just a little bit concerned at this deck.

We'll have some noise issues as well as the privacy issue.

I stepped away in here, you can hear me.

You stand on a deck, you're that's about as far as my house is from this deck.

I'm an electrical engineer, I'm gonna put my engineering hat on for a second.

Um there's some things about sound that are different than when it's coming from your porch versus a second floor.

Sound travels in a dome and it propagates.

When you're on a second floor deck.

There is it's an unobstructed um line of sight.

So there's no trees, you know, it's very sparse over there.

There's no place for me to land any tree.

There's no place for me to put a tree.

The sound dissipates and it propagates throughout the neighborhood.

So there's nothing to break it up, in other words.

There's also no ground absorption.

When you're sitting on a porch and you speak in voices, whether they're loud or even at a conversational level, the ground absorbs the noise, your railings absorb the noise, shrubberies absorb the noise.

I my client testified in general terms about I get that, but unless she's certified as an expert uh in this field, I'm considering I'm an engineer, electrical.

Well, your honor, Mr.

Laney, who also said he's an engineer, testify that is going out there and doing experiments on the sound meter on the noise and air.

So I think that number then.

Which I don't completely disagree with.

I'm just asking you to exercise some discretion here.

My client testified you have with a meter to the reading.

That's different than what we're finding as to what impact trees ground, different things.

I I think we can separate this out.

So just keep it brief, okay?

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I know it's late.

Um, but the the noise was generated on the first level, not from the second level, we needed his meter.

We get your point.

Yeah, okay.

So it's really impactful to me to have a deck.

I spent the summer in Bristol caretaking my mother in a very similar situation, and I heard voices every night on that deck.

They were conversational.

Um, when guests came over, it's quite loud, it's disturbing.

You don't want to call the police.

That's the last thing you want to do in your neighborhood.

So for us, it's a noise.

And as you said, you didn't object in the other as this application.

No, we are so thrilled that Mr.

Lanny is picking up all the debris, the rocks.

We've been there for 13 years with rock piles full of rats, and um all the bricks, thousands and thousands of bricks were removed.

He's done such a great job cleaning up the property, it looks beautiful.

He's done great landscaping, he's done a wonderful job on 18 Barney Street.

We're just concerned with the noise deck, and you did make some suggestions as to how the application might be modified, and just try to resolve that.

Okay, and those unfortunately were accepted, but um, and I don't want to be labored this point, um, but it just with regard to the question of what might have been the era trees.

Um did you yourself do some research on whether there wasn't one or two sort of through?

I did.

I know you said to the uh the zoning boards once again.

But we can really describe the food status, but we didn't know that.

Yeah, we were trying to find photos.

There were no photos um of the back of the property.

Um we just interviewed our you know, our neighbors.

Theo has been in the neighborhood quite some time, um, as well as I did some sandborne map.

I went back to the 1800th and 1903, the 1921 and the 1954 sandborne map, and there's a picture of the 1953 sandborne map in my objection letter.

If you look at it, you can see that indeed there is some patch.

Oh, you know, have that to display.

I'm sorry, saying that again, what?

I have a photo um of the sandborne map from 1953 illustrating the um structure that was behind the house.

If you could just pull that up and take a look at it, so you can see where I'm pointing at the back structure.

Here's a number one there on sandborne maps, the number indicates the number of levels, and there's a little asterisk to the right, which indicates an asphalt roof.

So in 1954, there was a structure at the back of that house that was one level with an asphalt.

You might describe the reason for the piping.

It's holding it up.

So, I got one more thing.

I do have a picture.

Ledger.

And there's no name.

Actually, I know the photograph.

Okay.

We can't we can't accept that for on phone.

That's okay.

And um honestly, we do work for all the records that we're doing.

We just uh put a term.

That's it.

So what is this?

So we're gonna it's just a closer photo of the ledger.

I had asked if they were any more other than the attaching the ledger of the house.

Indicating where a deck might have been attached to the ledger.

So this is just a closer view of what was previously shown.

So so you're you're refuting the testimony of Mr.

Lanny, where he he said that you take a look at this uh photograph.

Okay, so that is an exhibit.

Okay.

This is a 1953 uh no, this is this is the current oil.

Okay, okay.

Uh by Mr.

Merrill, that made it.

I'm just gonna shown in the photo previous John Mary's.

Patrick, I'm just gonna ask a step back a minute.

I just want to follow up on that 1953 review of that Sanford guide.

What what was your conclusion from uh from that book?

I think it's um so the map indicated a single level struck here.

So there was a structure there for sure.

Um but the number one means one level, and the asterisk means an asphalt roof.

If you look at the rest of the document, you can see the connecting structure between the front house and um and number three, I guess it is.

It was a two-level um structure there as well, and you can see there was a little one-level structure in front of it.

So it's pretty clear on the sandborn map that there was something there, and it but it had a and there's a key in the sandboard map as it's explained to the significance of that.

Yeah.

And then then this image which shows the rest of the house talking about being two stories.

Yep, two stories, to the right, three stories.

Let me just ask it a different way.

Does this sandborn you reach conclusion that there was or was not a deck in place 72 years ago?

It was not a second floor deck in place, no.

Okay.

This uh recent exhibit you sent.

Um I'd like you to comment on why there'd be a door.

Um that um would step out to an asphalt roof.

Um me, so Mr.

Pelletier started many projects and didn't finish many projects.

He had basements full of shutters and doors and windows.

Um could be that he started and never finished my expectation.

Because it's a fairly new ledger board.

I think it's pressure treated.

It's probably, you know, not from the 18th, 19, early 1900s, I think.

It's probably something he put up maybe to make a staircase and make his apartments live.

That's what I'm thinking.

Okay, so how how do you um how do you account for Mr.

Wool's testimony that the hinging and and you know that there was evidence that this stuff was very old uh on the doors?

Well, I also, you know, previous conversation with Mr.

Pelletier indicated the houses were moved to these locations.

Sometimes when a house is moved, has a door, you know, from its previous location.

It could have been stairs that went to them.

My understanding is that house was moved.

It is an old structure.

Um, so you're saying that I don't know.

It's just conversation with Mr.

Pelletier.

Okay.

So we're we're yeah, we're we're going down a rabbit hole here.

Okay.

Yep, fair enough.

Thank you.

Um, I just like to uh note that we're gonna list this picture as uh objectors exhibit number one.

Thank you.

Um hold on, Miss Um Merrill.

I have a question, unless you have a question, Mr.

Chairman.

Um no, I mean why don't we we'll switch it up this time, we'll have the board ask some questions and then you can do some cross examination, okay, Mr.

Jackson.

Oh, I'm I'm happy to wait if uh that's fine.

It's usually the way we do it.

Okay.

I just had a uh question in in uh your testimony uh concerning uh voice levels on the second floor deck.

Would you um say that in your opinion, uh conversation on the first floor deck and a second floor deck would be dramatically different as far as its projection, echoing, etc.

To my bedroom location, yes.

As well as in um in our house on the first level, we're putting in a planter with shrubs, which dissipates the sound.

We also have a porch, um it's lower level, and you have ground absorption as well of the sound waves.

So when you're speaking on a lower level, sound is not project as much.

Okay.

Um, I'm satisfied with that.

Thank you.

Anybody.

Um so just to play devil's advocate, and I'm not just understand me, I'm not you know, I'm not uh trying to uh break you down here, but um the testimony was given by Mr.

Hoole and by Mr.

Lanny that you know we are in an R3 zone and there are no setbacks, and so you're five feet and five feet, so but my calculations that would be five feet on one property, five feet on the other.

So um you're looking at at um at maybe ten feet would be would be appropriate.

Um so knowing that full well, um, and then really to me, and this is really more of a discussion aspect of things, but the the deck itself is within, as you know, is within rights.

They have rights to the size of the deck.

What we're what we are discussing here tonight is the is the two percent in additional uh lot coverage, correct?

You you're obviously well aware of that.

Not the deck itself, um, because they have rights to do that deck um as long as it's within the lot coverage pr provisions on that.

So I'm just looking at um you know an R3 zone.

It's really that's an urban zone, right?

You understand that.

It's a what?

It's an urban zone.

I mean R3, I mean, because of the lot coverages and everything else.

So I understand that there's an expectation that you're gonna get some privacy.

And then my other questions are really too so you have you have a deck yourself on the back of your house.

And how big is that?

Six by eight, maybe.

So let's say fifty feet for arguments like something like that.

And so that does that do you have a backyard in your house?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, I do.

And so that's all within your setbacks and everything else.

And is it a second floor deck or on it's a first it's a raised patio basically on on that.

And then you were stating that you moved from the back of your house to the front of your house, and the reason again for that was and so the reason was because there was where there was another big deck somewhere else that it wasn't Airbnb in place at uh I think it's eight Barney Street.

It's no longer an Airbnb, but at the time, you know, they had multiple, you know, nights where there would be loud noise.

Okay.

And so it's like yeah, we'll just in front, no big deal.

So, you know, we solved it within the components of our own home.

Right.

Of course.

So I understand that, and nice of you to do that without com complaining about it.

Um big difference there though, right?

With Airbnbs in terms of uh, you know, they're renting it out to people who are on vacation, and so they don't care whether it's Tuesday, Wednesday, Monday, Sunday.

That's another concern.

That's what they're doing.

One year.

Um in the condo laws, they can rent them out.

So, you know, Mr.

Laney's a nice person, but he may not be there, you know, and any time property can get sold or owner occupied air to be or proximity.

The big issue is one that Ms.

Wool called out in that you have a property and you have no backyard.

It's no trees.

Most decks are in the backyard, and there's something to absorb the sound.

This deck has nothing.

First thing it hits is my front wall.

Sounds like that's my concern.

No, and then I understand that, and it's it's fairly said.

It's just that we have, as you know, as a board, we have to weigh everything, right?

And um, so that's that's I'm just trying to bring that bring those points out.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Yeah, can you locate your house again?

Are you on the corner of Barney Street and Barney Court?

I guess.

Or are you one in?

It's an R.

So directly across the street.

So you're directly across from where the stack's gonna be.

Okay, Mr.

Regan, is your client uh in an R3 zone or an R10 zone?

The question.

Um R3, sorry.

It's R3 as well.

Okay.

So where's the boundary for that?

I mean, it's all R3 down there, isn't it?

Basically.

Yeah, that map showed it.

Yeah, okay.

That's all that's all downtown.

Yep.

Okay, any other questions for Ms.

Merrill?

Mr.

Chair, I have a question about that sandborne map.

Um there's a dashed line on the front of that.

Number one.

Do you know what that dashed line means?

That's a porch.

I have a one-level porch.

Okay.

Interesting.

Thank you.

Do you have any questions, Mr.

Jackson?

Mr.

Chairman, of course.

Yeah, that's great.

So just so we're clear, Mr.

Marvel, the the the proposed second public to that.

Right with the pregnant cursor's point.

Would you agree with me on that?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Your property is out behind an orange, correct?

So you are not directly across the street, where the proposed porches you are diagonally across the street.

Partially adjacent, partially across.

Okay.

But the this the room is only full.

You have to be wide there.

You know that how it's on the survey map of the street.

So take a diagonal from porch.

My window, but you know, in front of the house, it's 17.

Even 30 VPS.

I'm confused.

We're talking nine said seventeen.

Yeah, your letter said 20 just to be clear.

17 to the front of the house.

Yeah, no other questions.

Okay, well, at least we finally got that figured out.

Thank you, Ms.

Merrill.

Appreciate it.

That's all the distance that I have, Mr.

Chairman, though.

Oh, okay.

So on a butter that you're not representing, Mr.

Regan.

That's correct.

Is that correct?

Yeah, come on down.

Absolutely.

And if I could just reserve a minute, uh, yeah, I'm gonna give both of you uh gentlemen a chance for a closing argument.

Closing comments.

Yes, please raise your right hand.

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

Please state your name for the record.

Theo Greenblatt.

BO Greenblatt?

Theo Greenblatt.

Okay, yep.

Okay, Ms.

Greenblatt, yes.

Um, so uh I would like to clarify a couple of things um about the way that Mr.

Lanny characterized his communication with me um because I feel that he was sort of diminishing my objection and making it seem like um my only objection was because I was friendly with Ms.

Merrill um in fact he uh phoned me at 6 30 on a Saturday morning out of the blue did not know who he was and in that conversation he asked me if I had quote unquote been roped into this objection by Ms.

Merrill and in fact I received the letter from the zoning board and I responded to the zoning board have a friendly neighborly relationship with Ms.

Merrill and with everyone else on the block um I'm a capable adult I make my own decisions um I've lived at the property that is 17 Sherman Street and creates the dead end of Russo Court right since 1988.

In that time a second floor deck has gone up at 15 Sherman the second floor deck has gone up at 19 Sherman uh second floor deck went up at five Rousseau Court and that back deck at the fast net uh has gone up and so that the quality of sound the ambient sound in that in that area kind of surrounding my house um has changed dramatically in the amount of time that I have been living there and so yeah I have a concern about adding anything else to that uh and and I think and I don't have scientific evidence um I I don't I don't measure by decibels I just know experientially what it's like to um have people having just our ordinary conversation on those decks that are in close proximity to my property um and and in fact the noise from as far away as the Fastnet uh it's enough to keep somebody awake at night especially in the summertime with windows open I don't have an air conditioner um mostly I don't need that I'm very glad to have lovely sea breezes um and you know have never used an air conditioner so my windows are open at night um and I'm gonna I'm gonna hear that sound uh so that's really my my main concern is um is about adding to that kind of ambient noise um in the area right okay hold on there may be a question or two um so I assume you're in an R3 zone as well is that fair to say I have no idea yeah so in an R3 zone is just denser you know that's that an R 10 is much more residential you know in um uh an R3 zone is more of a denser um you know so I guess my question to you would be do you consider yourself to be you consider yourself to be sort of an urban resident right I mean you you you consider yourself to be in an urban setting per se uh you know it's downtown Newport yes yeah okay and again that would be that would be emblematic of an R3 zone as well so I understand that okay great um any other questions for Ms.

Greenblatt?

Mr Jackson anything thank you thank you for testifying appreciate it okay um okay so there are no more witnesses nobody else I did want to I don't I don't at this point I don't think we're gonna get through the whole calendar we'll see sorry it doesn't matter we want we want to make sure that we get everybody everybody has a say so both do both of you want to testify program or I like that meet but these guys I'm doing but they can bar what well hold on please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth in this proceeding okay please state your name yeah sorry but if you're a little bit shy you still need to speak under the mic just pull the mic down yeah there you go thank you that's good that's good support I like that thank you that important I'm just Davenport and I live on Barney Street and I'm thrilled about all the work that these guys are doing to preserve these homes that were absolutely dilapidated.

They've gone to everybody, just people I don't even know or say, what's going on here?

They're doing such a great job.

And honestly, I like the deck I like to hear people having fun.

We live in a city.

We live in downtown Newport.

It's expected to hear people talking, being on decks, enjoying their lives.

So there's the air conditioner blowing a little bit noise.

I mean, that's but I don't know.

I think these guys are great, and I'm thankful that they're doing what they're doing.

And I'm really sad that people here complaining about a deck for people to enjoy a small tiny little deck where there's not gonna be 50 teenage kids, pardon.

So I'm thinking them for all the hard work that they're doing on these things.

Did you send a letter in?

Oh, you did, okay.

And are you a director butter?

Where's your house?

14 Barney.

Oh, okay.

Yes, you are.

Okay.

You're right there.

Okay.

I just wanted to voice my opinion.

Very excited about this project that they're doing and very thankful.

Great.

Thank you.

Questions?

Well, you're not done yet.

Thank you.

Uh oh no, hold on.

We got to see if there are any questions.

Any board members have questions for Miss Bradshaw?

No.

Thanks for speaking out.

Okay.

Thank you for listening.

Okay, so I think that's it.

Um, unless anybody else wants to testify.

I think at this point we're gonna close testimony.

Could I just ask Mr.

Chairman very quickly?

Um there was discussion about condo documents and requirements and rules and that.

Um the concern over overall concern seems to be um the noise from a second floor deck.

Um is there any or is there any uh willingness to um limit uh time on that deck so that for example you couldn't be out past 10 o'clock or something like that, which um might ease the um objectors uh concern that it wouldn't be uh a one o'clock in the morning uh you know, uh loud uh conversation or otherwise.

So I'm just proposing that to see if that would be uh potentially uh uh uh some sort of a solution.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Um so I just conferred with Mr.

Lanny.

So that the the declaration and bylaws and rules and regulations that are recorded in land evidence.

Um my understanding is that the rules and regulations speak to a 10 p.m.

limit common areas, it speaks to common elements.

This is a little different because this is adjacent directly to one of the units, limited use, and it's a pertinent to that unit's use only.

It's a limited common area.

Um my client is hesitant to put time limits on uh that which go beyond what is otherwise permissible, you know, under the ordinance.

Like someone should be able to on their own deck go out if they want to, if they're not disturbing anybody.

So there'd be a concern that now if it's a if it's an absolute condition to the zoning approval, if you if this board seats fit, then we're we're potentially from our perspective, the applicant's perspective, handing over a mechanism for complaints and some type of enforcement because someone was out on the deck past 10 p.m.

So there is a hesitancy to include that as specifically an element or a condition of any approval here.

Um so that's that's the application.

Well, the on the other end of the spectrum, it's not really enforceable either.

I mean, if you've got somebody that's it's their it's their unit.

They can't go out and that's my point, grab a towel off a chair that they left it uh there in the afternoon.

No, that doesn't work.

Thank you.

So I I'm personally I'm not in favor of that.

Okay.

I just get the same.

I just think this uh it's just unenforceable.

I mean, yeah, I mean it can't.

Just uh one uh one comment regarding the noise ordinance.

So there's a general noise ordinance uh that establishes uh 10 p.m.

is the typical cutoff for uh centrally amplified noise.

There's a decibel reading that we can go out and take decimal readings.

Uh generally human speech is not limited in that time frame, but at after midnight, the zoning code does say that loud talking or yelling, it actually uses the terms footing and holery cannot occur after midnight.

So that is something that could be enforced through um, you know, someone calling the police after midnight if there was some loud um just human speech.

Yeah, and that's done through your office.

Correct.

Correct.

You actually have people that go out with decibel meters and take readings.

Yeah, correct.

And typically I'm where it comes into the police department, and then I have a uh two enforcement officers that would be out there at night.

No, just a thought, you know, besides um uh this neighbor on um Russo Court, you have five other condominium units where someone would be complaining about noise if there was excess of noise up there.

So this isn't isn't really just unique to the Russell uh Russell court uh client, if you will.

Um so if there was noise, it wouldn't only bother them, would bother everybody in that in that structure.

Right.

So that's probably something uh we'll address in our discussion, right?

Yeah.

Um okay.

Um so we're done with the testimony portion of this uh uh petition, and I I want to give each of you guys a uh chance or a little some closing comments if you want to.

Chair, I'm sorry, can I just ask one more question of the applicant um regarding what is the arrangement?

Could somebody actually do an owner-occupied Airbnb?

Or are what are the rental rules in the condominium association?

Because I I very quickly started to take ahead and say, no, no, an Airbnb can't happen, it's residential.

I can speak to one element of that.

Um we allow the home occupation for guest house.

Um, the zoning code actually says that only one such home occupation can occur on a single property.

So out of six condos, technically only one of them, even hypothetically could be used for that home occupation for guest rental.

So how that has to be while an owner is present in the building in the unit and renting one of their bedrooms, an extra bedroom out of their unit, which I don't even know from the configuration of these condos whether that actually is possible.

Okay, so uh so any residential zone.

So that was a little confusing to me too, and that's a good question.

Thank you, Melissa.

So R3 is looped in with R10 and all that, and not with general business and not with waterfront business.

Correct.

So a in overall guest house use is not allowed in this district.

The only allowable short-term rental is as a home occupation out of an owner-occupied dwelling unit, and only one such unit on a single property could be used that way.

Right.

And so how many bedrooms is this thing?

Three.

Well, most of them are two bedroom units, right?

This one's three, yeah.

Yeah, three varnies, three bedroom.

Okay.

So essentially what you're saying, Nick, is that the owner of the condo would have to be in residence while the uh while the renters are there renting the place.

Correct.

Okay.

So it's almost like a boarding house type thing.

You know, such as a.

Okay.

So three bedrooms, one kitchen, whatever, maybe two bathrooms, something like that.

So if I could just just to follow up on Satadine's question, just to clarify the condominium documents require uh any tenancy to be at least three months.

So there's no month, you know, there's no monthly even uh certainly no weekly or anything like that.

So minimum lease term has to be three months.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

It's been almost two and a half hours.

I'm right.

No, I want to hear the summary first and then the dump take break and then after that.

Okay.

No, I just want to get it all out there.

Okay, so we are gonna take a break before we we start our discussion.

Uh, but I do want to hear, we do want to hear the closing uh comments and arguments before we do so.

Okay, and we'll take a five-minute break and come back and we'll we'll discuss and we'll vote.

All right.

Alright, so thank you for your time tonight.

Uh as I noted up front, we take only issue with one aspect uh of this application, which is the second fourth deck, and I don't want to belabor this point because we've spent a lot of time.

I don't know what was there, but I think the evidence shows that what was there was one story porch.

Uh, and that what we saw in these photographs, which includes this pressure treated ledger, is not part of what was there 75 years ago or earlier.

It's some project that was started but never finished by Mr.

Pelletier.

But at the end of the day, I don't think that matters.

I don't think it's about what was there, you know, 75 to 100 years ago, it's what's being proposed there now.

What's the impact on the neighborhood, particularly with regard to the neighbors across the street?

Uh, and this is a hundred-foot deck, 17 feet from the house, 20 feet from the bedroom, and that's what this is all about.

And if you take a look at these revisions that have been made by the city to the code over the last couple of years, this is really sort of that same situation that this those revisions were designed uh to address these proliferation of upper story decks in these very tight, very close neighborhoods where everybody knows what everyone else is talking, arguing about everyone knows what everyone's having for dinner because everyone's so close to them.

Um so that's the issue here, not what was there before.

Uh and I believe that the um condition that was suggested on this was actually the same condition that I suggested to uh Mr.

Jackson earlier this evening that they're just being cut off, uh, because as was mentioned, um Mr.

Laney doing a wonderful job renovating and upgrading this property, but he's not gonna be there forever.

Condos get sold, honor owners have the right to change the rules and regs that are there at the bottom of the actor.

Um, and so the board has the ability to impose conditions to mitigate the kind of that this deck might have, and having a cutoff at 10 o'clock, uh, and then you can say that we're not going to be any gatherings on the deck of these languages.

So, yeah, someone going out and grabbing, you know, I left my phone out there, and I realized out of my pocket that I don't get it.

Obviously, that's not a violation.

I don't think anybody would be uh objecting to something like that, but that really has the ability to um and it's not really about enforcement, it's just someone being on notice of what's expected, that they're gonna act like a big neighbor like the rest of everything.

Um, and I would also suggest that there'd be a condition if the court seems to approve this, that the deck only be used or accessed by one unit.

Because once again, there's that door there that's not going to be accessible under the current documents, but that could change as well.

Umce again, Mr.

Lanny's not going to be there forever.

Uh so you know, I don't believe that the applicants met their uh burden of proof here.

I don't think that having high lock coverage as a hardship, just is free reign to add whatever expansion you want.

I think first floor porch is a reasonable expansion as reasonable enjoyment to the property.

I think the second floor deck on top of that is excessive.

Uh, and you know, if you look at the evidence, they've got the burden proof.

There's no full density study here.

There's no study of uh the rest of the decks in the neighborhood.

Uh so I don't believe the applicants met their burden, but so we'd ask that the application be denied, but once again, if the board believes that it's appropriate to grant it, it's also appropriate um to take into account the impact that it's gonna have on the neighbors across the street.

So we would ask that you add a condition to any approval, 10 p.m.

cutoff, any gatherings on the deck, and a uh a condition that that deck, which physically is accessible by at least two units, only the accessibility.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Reed.

Mr.

Jackson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, obviously, our position is we've got ample evidence in the record, both from the applicant as well as from Mr.

Poole, who was the only expert that testified this evening, uh indicating that we have provided sufficient evidence to meet the standards in relation to the two variances that are being requested.

Um, in relation to the concerns of the neighbor, Miss Merrill.

I mean, let's I I brought it up during testimony and I'll bring it up again.

What they're asking you to do is give them more protection in terms of distance and setback than they're entitled to under the law.

I mean, you said it repeatedly.

This is the R3 zone front setback zero, side setback three feet, rear setback five feet.

And and again, just for to illustrate my point, I'll say it again.

If if there was a vacant lot right next to Miss Merrill, and someone built a house, they could build this exact porch, which is only ninety-six square feet, three feet from the property line, and there's nothing she could do about it.

And that would be substantial encroachment versus what's being proposed here into their privacy relative to sight lines and noise.

But that's not what happened is what happened.

We've got a proposed second level porch, which meets the requirements under the code.

Mr.

Regan talked about the new law which was passed to try to limit the proliferation of second level decks, and I don't disagree with them.

But the caveat is you're allowed to do it if it's less than 100 square feet, second level deck.

There's not a prohibition.

You just have to meet certain requirements.

This deck meets those requirements.

By Miss Merrill's own testimony, 20 feet from her bedroom window, which is what her expressed concern is.

And so here we have a situation where the distance is almost seven times what it would be in relation to a side setback, and four times what it would be for a rear setback in this zone.

And so she's asking you to place conditions on the deny the application.

If you grant it place conditions, and again, um that really shouldn't be required.

When we're talking about setback is not on the table, the size of the deck meets the requirements, and only the only variance in relation to this deck is lock coverage.

And you heard Mr.

Hool talk about the fact that uh there is a hardship, the existing conditions of this site create a hardship, and a relatively minor modification like this deck is uh that which seeks two percent lock coverage um is completely appropriate and in character with the neighborhood.

So for those reasons, I I would suggest that the evidence in the record is sufficient for you to make findings that the applicant has met their burden of proof for the two percent two percent lock coverage increase that is being requested, as well as the request to place uh the air conditioning condensers 13.5 feet from Russo Court.

So for those reasons, we'd ask that you approve this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Um, so uh at this point, I think what we're gonna do is um we're gonna call for a uh well you will go for yeah, we'll go like around 840.

It's 8 32 right now.

So about an eight minute break, we'll come back and we'll have discussion amongst the board members and we'll then we'll take a vote.

Okay.

And we'll also discuss, you know, again, whether we want to have any uh conditions.

Ron, okay, thank you, Nick.

Uh okay.

So now we're uh we've finished all testimony and the closing arguments.

Uh we are gonna have a vote now, but it's been suggested to us uh that we split the uh the petition into two petitions, actually, and so that we have a motion that's made uh in effect for the uh uh for the condensers, and then we have a separate motion that we do for the deck.

Uh is that amenable to you, Mr.

Regan?

Okay, so that's what we're gonna do, and then we're also gonna have a discussion about conditions as well.

And um I have my opinions, but I'm only one vote here.

So um it depends on the majority of the board.

Um what do we want to do first?

What do you think?

Why don't we put the motions on the floor?

Well, we can't do that unless we know if we're gonna have conditions, right?

Why don't we start with the condenser.

Let's start with putting that on.

We got one thing over the way, and then we'll start with the condenser.

Okay, let's do the condenser and then we'll move on.

Very good.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um the petition of um the uh petition of the collection at Bonnie LLC.

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

In this particular case, we're gonna be addressing the variance under section 17.16.040 set back requirements to install an AC condenser.

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

The additional condition um that was um indicated by the petitioner is that they'll put screening around the uh the AC condition, AC condenser.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second, okay.

In the interest of moving things along, is there any discussion on this motion?

Everybody has.

Hearing none, we'll go directly to a vote.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

I'm sorry.

Do we have to vote these by uh individual individual?

No, we can do it by a claim.

Okay, and do whatever we want.

Um, so yeah, that's I'm trying to move things along.

Okay, yep, got it.

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

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that's unanimous.

Okay.

Now we should have a discussion in terms of whether we want to have conditions on the second motion or not.

And if we do, what those conditions would be.

So there have been two things that have been suggested.

Uh Mr.

Regan suggested that we put time limits on when people can convene on the deck uh at a minimum.

Um, and then as well, it was suggested by him that um that we have a condition to uh put a prohibition on having it the deck have access to you know to two units.

There's one unit uh that apparently doesn't have a door there anyway, or isn't gonna have a door there anyway, from what I understand.

So would that I mean I know you guys object to the one with the time limits with the uh having it just be that one unit?

Would that be an objection to you guys?

Would you be amenable to that?

Yeah, I think the applicant will accept that second condition.

He did testify that that doorway for the building on four Barney Port exists because the HDC required him to keep it.

Right, but on the other side it's a bedroom wall, essentially, right?

It's not a door, is it?

Yeah, it's not gonna be it's it's it won't be used to access the deck.

No, okay.

So we can include you're okay with that then.

Yeah, okay.

What unit is that?

That would be unit six.

I have no idea.

Well, we gotta put that in the building is four Barney Court.

The unit designation is five.

United five.

So I I suggest we just say limit access to one unit that way.

I I think to further clarify, at least in my mind, we're discussing the second floor deck, and there'll only be one unit that will have access on that second floor.

On the first floor, there was discussion that that will be used by both buildings, um, and it's more of a porch to get out of the building uh egress, it's not a okay.

So I don't think we're discussing that.

One unit.

I just want to clarify which one it is.

Okay.

So you're okay with that?

You go to that, yeah.

So we'll we'll we'll fashion something.

I'll try to figure that out when I get there.

Yeah.

We got that one.

Yeah.

Um and then what's the pleasure of the board on on uh uh the second uh um condition that Mr.

Regan suggested, which is time limits on when people can be on the deck that we put in.

Now, that being said, Nick did say that there are time limits anyway.

There's 10 o'clock uh, you know, loud music, and then there's 12 o'clock on conversation.

Um, and so there are remedies for that from what I understand.

You can call and complain, and people come out and with a noise meter and take a decimal reading.

So there is stuff there, but Peter uh excuse me, Mr.

Regan is asking for us to put conditions in uh to the motion.

So I I give that out to you folks to discuss.

I'm not in favor of it myself.

I'll just state that.

Uh if I can go to I'm also not in favor of that.

I think the you know, we have laws that protect um us from those issues.

And um, you know, I just hate to think like, okay, I'm a big stargazer if I wanted to go out on my deck and you know, have a look at whatever is happening up there.

I would hate to think like, oh, I'm not allowed to do that because the zoning board cut me off at 10 o'clock and this is happening at 2 a.m.

I'm not gonna be out there with anybody chatting up anything, but it just doesn't seem it it seems fair to exercise the laws that exist.

But the laws that exist don't preclude you from going out at eleven or midnight.

You just can't make a lot of noise when you're out there.

Right, yeah.

And I think you should be allowed to do that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well I don't think the board is to not uh recommending.

Well that's worth discussing whether we're gonna put it in right uh put it into the motion as a condition or not.

And I'm just saying, Mr.

Regan wants is suggesting time limits.

They're not in favor of that.

So that's what we're commenting on right now.

Well, t I I I guess what I'm getting at is I don't think there should be time limits for people getting at going out on their deck, but I think there should be time limits in terms of when noise is being generated.

So if you're gonna do stargazing at one o'clock in the morning and you're doing with four of your friends, that's not gonna work.

But if you want to go stargazing at two in the morning by yourself, that shouldn't be a problem.

Right.

What Melissa's saying is that there are laws on the books that cover that right now.

So they're asking for more.

They're asking for us to to add it in as a condition, right?

So um are you in favor of that or not?

But just say compliant with the city ordinance.

Yeah.

Okay.

That shouldn't be even a condition.

That's that's no, it's it's not a condition.

That's the city law.

They're asking for uh that they're asking for us to put a condition into the into the um uh uh in into the law from the zoning board that they only have a certain amount of time.

They're asking us to add a condition here.

And so that's that's the that's what we're discussing, whether to put that in or not.

And Melissa said she's not in favor of it.

I'm not out speaking.

You can think about it.

I'll speak I'll speak to this.

I'm not in favor for one simple reason because in my opinion there are already laws on the books, and so that that's that's that's good enough for me.

Amen.

Otherwise, and I'm I'm also not in favor of it so I think we've got a majority there.

Say that it's not gonna be a condition.

So we're not gonna make that a condition.

Correct.

Okay, fair enough.

And we don't have to take a vote on that.

That's just discussion.

Right.

Unless we wanted to put it in, then we would have to, you know, take a vote on it.

Okay.

So we're good on that.

So there will be no uh that that condition will not be in there, but the condition on the uh the I guess five Barney Court.

Yeah, you've got that ready to go, Dave?

On the door, the uh actually we will include that, and then but not on not on the time.

So I'm ready to uh entertain a motion when you are, Mr.

Rod.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um and again, uh this motion will only be applying um to um variants under section 17.050 lot coverage to increase lot coverage to 61%, where forty-five percent is permitted.

Um we will not be um addressing the variance that was indicated in the staff report, 17.

16 point oh four oh setback for the deck uh because that has been determined to be no longer applicable.

So um on the petition of the collection at Bonnie LLC, um I move to adopt the board finding of facts information to staff report, applications, supporting documents, testimony of the witnesses, representations of council, exhibits that have been marked together with the comments spread on the record by the board members and adopt the board conclusion of law that the petitioner has met their burden approved under each element under chapter 17 um point one six.

Um of the new port zoning ordinance uh entitled uh variances and modifications.

Uh the petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or the extension requested to the zoning officer prior prior to the e expiration and all outstanding invoices related to the cost of public noticing be paid in full and as a condition of recording the decision, the additional condition uh of that the uh second floor deck will um be accessible only by one of the units.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, great, thank you.

Is there a second?

Miss Fadavina seconded.

Okay.

We're ready for discussion, and uh then we will have a vote.

Um who wants to uh pick up on this?

Anybody?

I don't mind going.

You want to go?

Sure, very good.

Um I think for me the hardships that I've identified are indeed that the existing and historic buildings um already exceed the lot coverage limit by 14 percent.

Um so anything that's gonna happen at all there um is gonna be in far excess from what the existing what the allowable limit is and two percent um to do anything at all does not seem um unreasonable.

I think the other hardship that the deck contributes to is the fact that there is really no outdoor space at this um multi-family collection of buildings.

Uh so I think that the deck actually provides some outdoor space that uh should indeed be enjoyed by anybody in the city.

Um I think that you know, I absolutely hear the issues raised by neighbors, and I can relate quite a bit because my bedroom is about 15 feet away from a deck that is, I don't know, maybe 60 square feet, um, and I look right out to it.

My office is just a few more feet away from that.

And believe it or not, um the that unit, my experience has been that unit has been rented nine months out of the year um school type population folks, and then three months in the summer to a regular um family that comes to visit um the noise level is nothing compared to that of people who come and pass by on the street late at night coming from the bars um it in there are some young folks that live across the street from us there's a patio in their backyard which is much further our bedrooms in the back we hear them so much more than we ever do the folks on the deck who it there's no like it's it's one unit uses it um it's used in a similar way that I would expect this deck to be used um so yes while I could hear people having conversation on occasion it is it's nothing like the other parts of life that happen in the city of Newport um you know I don't expect that my neighbors will live there forever it'll change and who knows what will happen next but I am um I know that there are laws in the city that are gonna protect our quality of life uh and I also really hate to call the police but my partner doesn't so that's something for consideration um if anything should occur um I think that overall what's happening here including the deck is contributing to revitalization of housing and the deck itself contributes to the quality of the housing by providing some outdoor space and that is everything I will be supportive of this application.

Right.

Sure um I too uh plan to support this uh initiative um I do believe the petitioners have met their burden of proof um they're looking to to have a what I think is a modest increase in law coverage of two percent um and again some of this is due you know to the hardship you know being fronted on three streets um and you know we already agreed uh on the uh air conditioner um I just want to speak briefly about the R3 zone I think you know it's kind of the scourge of being in that zone is some you know some of the things we learned today you're gonna be awfully close to the neighbors um and uh it it's just I would call it a scourge um this this applicant one jumped through hopes to go to the historic district commission uh to get everything straightened out over there um the applicant is is making a significant improvement in uh in in an area that really needs work I I was frankly I was I was kind of shocked at some of the bad conditions of of the buildings in that area but I also that main building on Barney Street was spectacular so I imagine he would you'd be doing a really good job over there um I am concerned about noise I am concerned about privacy um but I I think the applicant has has met their burden um so I'm not gonna belabor this point but I I two are going to support this initiative.

Thank you Mr.

Robb.

Rusty one of them sure thank you Mr.

Chairman I will uh echo and support the uh the comments of my fellow board members uh really good points uh when you look at a two percent addition uh uh to this um non-conforming lot uh is is not a uh tremendous lift for me um I think the the hardship uh as been stated is the is the uh the coverage of the existing buildings there and uh and being in an R3 um zone.

I also feel even though this was taken down to uh you know the the issue of the um uh setbacks was was removed uh I think that this this deck structure will fit in uh quite nicely with the um with the existing building that that it's being put on I think it's gonna make it very complimentary.

I'll agree with Mr.

Grimes is that the work that's been done on 18 Barney Street and you look at the items are clear before and after I think it's gonna be a um a tremendous improvement uh I I did hear both of the objectors um points and understand that and I witnessed that in my own home as well um uh and a lot of it is uh uh annoying but it's also part of uh of uh living in Newport I guess and also a lot of it is later night that this objective and I I feel like I'm hoping anyway that a condo owner who's made an investment in a property and and and probably a substantial investment uh will have respect for that and won't be necessarily someone that's gonna be uh a problem with that so I I do believe that um and I also give a lot of weight to HDC I I think that they really vet you through the process and they they do give good thought uh to to that so I I think that um uh this isn't a hardship that was uh created by the uh by the applicant I don't think it's going to to uh affect or alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area I think it's gonna greatly improve the um uh the character of the surrounding area um and I think that granting this um I I think it is a minimal relief um uh for for reasonable enjoyment of a of a permitted use so uh for all those reasons um uh I I think that I'm very comfortable and think this will be a uh a very good addition to the neighborhood and uh I'm hopeful that the occupants are respectful of uh those around them.

Great folks I approve it that's on the point of thank you.

We gather that thank you.

Dave yeah yeah thank you Mr.

Chairman I I also will concur with uh Mr.

Johnson I agree with uh comments um made on the record by uh the rest of the board members and I'll be approving this petition um this is a request uh for a two percent increase in lot coverage um and um you know the hardship um for the two percent increase is um these structures are a hundred and thirty years old they've been covered this lot is well covered uh uh two percent increase on uh 59 percent already uh is um is is uh not a big uh big request um for a variant so I think the hardship is very well uh spelled out and granting the variants will not be altering the character of the neighborhood but will in fact be improving the neighborhood those buildings do look well one's renovated ones not looks like they've been that way for a long long long time in disappear uh so I think it will be in fact improving uh uh the neighborhood when they're all fixed up the relief being sought is minimal but reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use these uh this these are permitted uses it's a it's a good good uh repurposing of uh some old dilapidated buildings um I also agree with Russ about uh the HDC the HTC vetted this thing um they looked at it um and they know a whole lot more about what might have been built on that building than um um Dave Riley does so I would uh put a lot of weight in how they pass it along to us for uh our review um and in granting the variants will not be impairing the intent or the purpose of the zoning office and does not um uh it gets six more housing units on on the books in the city of newport and uh certainly complies with the comprehensive plan by doing that.

So I'll I'll be supporting it.

Great thank you uh Mr.

Vice Chairman um so yes again going last it's a moot point i'll try to be quick but yet i will also be supporting this petition um just a couple of points that i i agree with all the comments uh uh on the record of my uh colleagues and in terms of their support of this um the the first thing is is that this meets all my findings of fact okay i want to be clear about that uh right up front but a couple things that maybe not uh have been brought up or were brought up in testimony that that uh that that helped to sway me um and again um to to mr regan's point this isn't about whether there was a deck there before or wasn't this is really a lot coverage issue as far as I'm concerned let's try to keep it as simple as we can and so to my colleagues uh credit they're all saying that it's two percent I agree with that wholeheartedly um so a couple of the other things that did sway me um you know the deck I think there was a deck there actually at some point and um the fact that there was old hardware I don't think that that was Mr.

Pelletier that was getting old hardware I think that was probably there so it tells you that something was there previously to that at least that's how I'm thinking about it.

Um and then when we were looking at the house um i looking at the across the street it's kind of caddy corner Ms.

Merrill um and not directly in your bedroom and where they are so that swayed me a little bit 17 feet to the front of your house and 20 feet to your window but to that point as well that's what I was getting at with the R3 zone the R3 zone is really an urban zone and so that's why you have zero setbacks on the front that's why you have three feet and five feet so it's really it's it's not you living in an R3 zone I don't think there are expectations that um uh that you know that you're going to get you know um 20 foot setbacks like you get in an R 10 um and uh and you know on the front as well so that's another point um the other thing that swayed me was is is going through these rentals um I wasn't quite sure on that in terms of an R3 um because it's a relatively new uh category um that we that that has been done by the zoning board so I wasn't sure if it was more along the lines of waterfront business or general business where um where Airbnb's are by right guest houses you can do it and you know and you can do it without uh having an on-site manager if you don't have if you have less than a certain number um uh so not so in the R3 it's like an R ten so that means that uh somebody has to be on site that unit that would be problematic with the deck has three bedrooms that means that someone's gonna have to be living in that one of those bedrooms could rent out two of the bedrooms and you know that's the best police you could have is somebody that's actually that's why they do it.

It's to have somebody living in the house because they're not going to put up with noise.

It's not going to be you who would police that it's gonna be somebody else who does it if it ever occurs I don't think that's gonna happen based on what I what I what I can gather in terms of how this is going to work.

Could they sell the condos down the road and somebody could come in but boy that's that's a tough thing to do.

I wouldn't want to have a three bedroom and start renting out one of my bedrooms.

Jeez that would be a mess anyway um so that doesn't that doesn't uh make sense to me either um in terms of how that's gonna work so um for all the reasons that my colleagues stated and then all those additional reasons that I have I'll be voting to support this petition as well so thank you and thank you all for your testimony appreciate it um we we we do listen we really do um so uh I think what we're gonna do is poll everybody and starting with you Mr.

Riley how do you vote on this petition?

Mr Riley I Mr Johnson aye.

Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Grimes aye.

Ms Padavina I so that's five eyes and uh that's the amount of members we have so that's uh that's a unanimous decision.

Can you write that up for us, Mr.

Jackson?

And thank you, Mr.

Regan.

Thank you, Ms.

Merrill.

Thanks for your testimony.

What are we doing?

Are we can we start another one now or yeah?

Yeah or um is it nine thirty if we don't start a new one after nine thirty.

Nine thirty it is.

Okay.

And hopefully we can get through.

Well, we'll see.

Can't we continue to do that?

I'm not going to 11 o'clock, I'll just tell you that.

Well we can't go past 10.

Well that yeah.

That never has Sam Goldblad.

Okay.

We're not doing that.

Read it in.

That was a good thing.

You'd be Sam Goldblatt.

Let's go.

No, for many reasons.

All right.

Please, if you would, Mr.

Secretary, read a next one.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

This is the petition of Dawn M.

Egan, applicant and owner, 153 Ruggles Avenue, Tax Assessors Plat 40, Lot 411 in an R 10A zone for dimensional variants to add additions to the house, including an expansion of the existing garage, rear living room addition, and expansion of the rear deck, increasing lock coverage from 23.8% to 29.9%, where 20% is allowed.

Yes, hi, Mr.

Parks.

How are you?

I am doing uh doing well.

I'd say good evening, but I think it's more goodnight.

Well, no, that's gonna be shortly.

It's gonna be good night.

So much like the last petition that was before you, uh, was here for a 2% increase on lot coverage.

We are also here um on lock coverage.

That's solely the relief we seek uh just here for six percent this time.

And there are no butters in the audience.

I'm sorry, excuse me.

Um there was an objection letter we got today, correct?

We did receive one.

I uh chatted with her briefly just to see if you would show up tonight.

She was trying to make it happen and apparently was not able to.

By the way, it could be the longest um you know uh objection letter I've ever seen.

It's only a couple pages for that.

It's 30 pages of charge.

Yeah.

Uh PowerPoint.

Yeah.

So now that we discussed that, I I feel compelled to address it briefly.

So I would just like to note for the record that the that's the sole correspondence in a bit.

Um there's nobody here tonight speaking objection.

Uh that objection was uh not on a 200 foot of butter.

And the substance of the objection, uh as you as you noted, attached uh voluminous documents which do not concern matters that are properly before the student.

Understood, and and so you should know, Mr.

Parks, that um uh if if the your butter is not within 200 feet, it doesn't carry as much weight with us.

Okay.

Thank you.

And and I appreciate that.

De facto, de facto, yeah.

I I appreciate that.

I just um I need to keep my record.

Oh, it's okay.

Um, so I I will try and be as as brief as I can here tonight.

Um, like I said, we don't have objectors here, but um we do need to uh overcome a negative staff report.

Um, following the staff report, we did submit to the board uh an additional rendering from the architect so that you could see visually what this plan would look like uh in addition to Mr.

Boole's expert report.

Uh so I believe with that uh record evidence in addition to the testimony we'll put on the we'll put reporting tonight, and it should be enough to um to sway your votes and satisfy the standard.

So I have three witnesses to present for you this evening.

I'm going to ask the uh homeowner and applicant to put them up and briefly introduce herself uh and why she's seeking this relief.

I'll then have the architect testify and finally we'll hear expert testimony from Mr.

Hole.

So with that bit of signposting, I'll call up uh Miss Stoney.

Okay, so who's that other guy over there?

I can I count three people.

All right.

I'm just kidding.

If you have questions for him too, um we'll go.

Yeah, who knows, we might.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Please state your name.

Don Egan.

Okay, very good.

So we're here today because we would like to ask for variance.

Thank you.

Thank you for hearing.

Or lift the mic, lift the mic, because you there you go.

Um so we originally bought the house in 2013, and we use it as a summer house.

Um now, as of coming up Wednesday, we will be full-time residents of Newport, which we're excited about.

Um we drew his family's in Jamestown.

I have family here in Newport.

So we've both been coming since we were young.

Um, and like I said, we want to move here full time, so we're excited to do so.

Originally the house um was a summer house, three bedroom house, you know, all the kids shared rooms, which is great.

We have five kids, and that's why we're asking to increase um the size of the inside of our house, because we just want six bedrooms so everyone can have their own space.

Not huge bedrooms, but just so everyone can come home and have their area.

Um the kids range from 11 to 23.

And we want to increase the first floor so we can have family gatherings and you know be able to have holidays and just have enough space for people.

So that's why we would like to increase the house's size.

And you know, we did put a pool in in 2013 that did take up a lot of our lot coverage.

We didn't realize that that you know would then come into play 13 years later um and cause us to have to come back and get approved.

So that's why we're here.

Okay.

I don't even have any questions for the museum, but I thought it's important to for you to hear from her.

And we look at the soul system.

Um I wouldn't like to turn it over to Port, so you have any questions.

That's my job.

Okay.

Yeah.

Do you have any questions for her of your own?

No, no, I do not.

Okay.

So now we'll turn it over to questions from the board.

Yeah, let me just uh you say you have a pool in the backyard.

Yes.

Did you was that included in your lot coverage calculation here?

It was.

It is now, yes.

Yes, it is in our thirteen years ago it wasn't included, I guess.

Correct.

We put it in in 2013, 2014.

Okay.

So you're looking really for all intents and purposes, almost 30 30% lot coverage.

Yeah.

And you're in an R10 zone and you're conforming lot, right?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So you're asking for a lot.

Yes.

Yeah.

And we and it's not very often we have conforming people coming in with usually people coming small lots and asking.

Um so um I'm I've got a I'll I'll ask you more questions later.

Just wanted to cover the high level stuff.

Uh, but I'll come back to you.

Sure.

Other questions from Ms.

Egan.

Yes, yeah, thank you, Ms.

Chairman.

Um it is a big increase in lot in in lot coverage.

Um did and part of that when I looked at your material you that you sent in is decking.

Uh, you know, a a pretty significant amount of your increasing the side of the size of an existing deck.

Um and all that's adding to the increase in the um in the uh lot coverage.

Um have you considered uh I know that area back there is wet.

Um or generally you back up to the pro to land that would go into Almy Pond, right?

Are you in a flood zone?

We are in a flood zone.

Okay.

Um but we did discuss that when we got approved for the pool.

Right.

You know, it was it's like a very small trickle that you know, it we our yard doesn't get you know too wet or anything.

We never had an issue with the pool, you know, or any of the patio.

Our our house when if I would be open to just doing a deck, I mean just doing a patio and not a deck, but we're pretty elevated, like where you come off the kitchen.

So it would be a lot of stairs to get down.

Right.

Unless it would be uh sort of designed as a multi-layered, you know, deck then a couple steps down to a patio.

Uh that would make up some uh some uh square footage as opposed to as Mr.

Grimes mentioned, you're a conforming lot.

We should put up a flag when we see one, but the downside is is that is that there's not, you know, when you're looking at a 4,000 square foot lot, um that's different than looking at a lot that's already conforming and you're getting into the higher end of that too.

So uh thank you for answering that question.

Russ, any question?

Yeah, um, you you started to go through what the request is.

I also find it amusing that you said when you were young.

Um, this board you're just quite young.

So uh, wait, wait, hold on.

I know.

My apologies.

They're covering our graze well, um, so you discussed uh uh you discussed if you think um you I'd like to have you talk about the expansion of the garage.

You talked about uh wanting more living area to um host families and you have a number of children.

Um talk a little bit more about the expansion of the rear deck and also the uh existing garage.

You're not making it uh larger for a second car, you're you're uh basically pulling it forward and and just discuss what that what's all involved with that please.

We just wanted a bigger kitchen.

We have a pretty small kitchen now.

We just wanted to, you know, expand so we have a mudroom.

You know, we have an 11-year-old that plays a lot of sports, so we wanted to, you know, have area for his stuff, um, you know, a pantry, and then you know, a bigger kitchen, um, our living room right now is rectangular, it's narrow.

We wanted to be able to have you know a bigger open space so the area flowed a little better so that you know everyone can kind of be together.

Um that was the idea right now.

We love looking on to you know, the conservation land and having all the trees in the backyard.

So the bigger deck, we'd just love to be able to, you know, walk out and sit up there and you know, and uh could you just tell us what is the size of that uh that deck and what the expansion is from what you have currently and what you're proposing to uh increase it, Mr.

Dogson, I do have the architecture as well, but present this.

We can you can answer now if you like, or we can wait until no that's uh I can I can wait.

What's any questions?

Uh I'm not sure if this would be a question for the architect, but I want to know how much square foot uh how much living space you're gonna have with this with this project.

So my guess is that he will have the answer.

I think um my only question is I'm trying to I don't know why I can't locate the exact application right now.

Because we got some old.

Um what what is it that you what is your hardship that you identify?

So I think if we hadn't put the pool in, we'd have, you know, we would have enough space, you know, our percentage wouldn't be as high, so that then our lift we could have a bigger, you know, and it and it is bigger living.

You guys, as the owners of the property who asked for the um increase for the pool.

You put the pool, yeah, just to be absolutely clear.

Okay.

So that's an additional money on that.

Okay.

I will be happy here.

And I think originally when we bought it, it was our summer house, and he didn't probably think about, you know, what we wanted to do later on, and now that we're moving here full-time, especially to be closer to older parents, like we, you know, need would love for the house to fit our our needs, just since we do have such a large family.

And I know we could move, but I really do love the area and you know, we love everything about it.

So we were just trying to make it work.

Understood, but um, I I think that is I've heard it and I agree.

I think uh, you know, trying to identify hardship is gonna be a big point.

So just so you know, Mr.

Parks.

All right, good.

That's that's all I have.

Um, and I don't know if the architect will address this as well, but the objection letter that we got discussing uh uh increase in uh impervious surfaces, so uh I'm not sure who the appropriate person is to address that.

I think frankly that's that's enough legal argument because you know this is this, as you well know, right?

This board is a creature of one instead of statute, and regulates what's before it, and that simply is a bad considerations.

It's not it's not in the ordinance for something uh as a factor and an art in it, and a sum so with that that rubber view, right?

I frankly done the the discussion is permanent to the the weak thing saw here.

Uh the only man on which I think it would be about is the fact that the code is some, which means that there are no standards.

There's nothing we can satisfy or built.

Well, that's fair enough, but but um you're you're asking for, you know, essentially going from 20% because it's conforming lot to 30%.

That's if you look at it in this way, that's 50% more than what what is allowed.

If I'm like, we're asking for a six percent in this.

Yeah, but when you're what I understand, but when you're done, it's gonna be 50% more than you already got 23.

I get it.

You're asking for six, but when it's done, you're gonna be 50% above 2020, an extra 10%, that's 50%.

That's a pretty big number.

So so we're gonna take into account.

Let me finish, please.

We're gonna take into account everything that may come up, and I think it's fair game for him to think about massing of the property and what that means to the perviousness, if you will, of of the property.

And um, so you know, he I mean he could take into account what he wants to, you know, in terms of his decision, it's gotta be tied to the findings of fact, yes.

But I mean, I think that's a legitimate point.

That's the previousness.

I think you'll hear um again, it's attorney already.

Testimony on this and there's something that's important, but as to massing, you know, this is not this is not 50% of the technique, right?

Um there's there's a pool, which gets up a bunch of space, that's at rate, that's low.

There's um, you know, decks which are not storing decks that go on the other on the second story of the balcony's here.

That's all about, right?

But in terms of visual masking that's only much much low.

Oh, you'll you'll hear it too that's the money as to that.

No, that's fine, and I'm not making a judgment because we're right in the middle of testimony.

I'm just laying out some of the parameters, that's all.

Okay.

Good.

I think we're all set.

Thank you, Ms.

Thank you.

And next I'll call uh the architect uh Chris Arner.

Yes, of course.

All right.

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

I do.

Please state your name.

Chris Arnold.

Yes, sir.

I'll ask you to walk through some of the things, but first, can we start where um just a thought?

Yeah.

Um I think the the best way to start is to to talk about um lock coverage.

And there were some questions that came up about existing lot coverage and and livable uh usable area or living area.

So currently uh the living space at the first floor of the house is one thousand forty square feet.

The attached garage is three hundred and six square feet, the front porch, one story front porch, two hundred and sixty-seven square feet.

And the rear deck is 256 square feet.

The pool is 564 square feet.

So that's how we arrive at the 23.8% or 2,400.

What percentage is the pool of the total?

23%.

What does that represent?

5%.

8%.

I mean, that's gonna be a key question for us, trust me.

I think it was around 5%.

Oh, it's uh.

Well, excuse me, isn't the pool 800 square feet?

830 to 50.

Okay, so 836 against 10,200, and it's 80%, it's close to 10%.

Okay.

It's 564 square feet.

So the bound has to be 800, but it's closer to that's it's 800.

Do we have that right, Nick?

I'm trying to check it right now.

I don't have it on this site plan.

It's important to get this straight.

300 feet would be uh that would push it in too much.

20 by 30 pools, 600 square feet.

Well, it it may have the assessors has eight hundred and thirty-six square feet.

That's what counts.

Right?

Yes, I'm trying to look back at the approval for 2013 to see if we can get the better numbers from here.

That's significant.

While we're waiting for this, just a quick question for anybody.

Um then uh so did you guys make an effort to talk to your neighbors?

Um I talked to one property.

The reason I'm asking is because you don't have any abutting uh neighbors that are objecting, you just have one that's beyond two hundred feet, so it's important to do that.

Can I can I go back to my original question about living square footage?

Let's put the pool off to the side for a minute.

How much uh I'm just trying to get a sense of of uh of a hardship here.

How much living space um is in the home proper?

So the first floor is one thousand forty square feet.

Yeah, how much total?

Anular box of times two, two thousand eighty first floor, second floor, unfinished basement.

That's you don't count that.

No, so you got two thousand eighty.

Okay.

But you've also got a front porch too, right?

Is that enclosed or is that open?

Open.

Okay, so you don't wouldn't count that.

Okay.

Oh, two thousand eighty, okay.

So in a sense, part of the hardship is the existence of a pool on this project.

Um did you put the pool in?

Okay.

So when did they start counting pools as lock coverage?

Well, it was definitely before this pool was put in because they have a special use permanent invariance from 2013 to that was for a lot coverage increase.

The the numbers, the kind of ending numbers from the 2013 application had that it was 25.1% coverage, but their starting values, and I did review the numbers that were provided.

Have this at 23.8.

Um, but we're gonna keep looking at that.

Okay.

But the pool is eight thirty-six for our for our purposes.

Okay, correct?

Yeah, the tax assessor value is eight thirty six on the pool.

That's what you want us to go off on.

Uh, you know, you want us to think it's eight thirty-six.

Okay, so you know, so let's let's let that go.

Okay, that's I'm trying to help you here a little bit.

Okay, all right.

How many existing bedrooms are there?

There's currently uh four.

Can you explain how much on the same thing?

Yeah.

Um, so if you go to the uh the first floor plans, um, right?

Yeah, um, I did just looking at the plans from 2013.

The pool was listed at 17 by 34, which is 578 square feet.

It could be that the uh assessors is counting the pool surround into the 800, which we would not count.

For the city, yeah.

Well, that but that's what matters.

That's what matters.

So as long that is the that is the that's what that's what I want.

I want to know what the assessor says.

This plan perfect.

So um the upper left plan is the existing board, and you'll see on the left hand side is the garage.

Attached garage, dining room, and kitchen next to that, and then to the right is the entrance there and foyer.

Um, directly behind that there's a half bat, and that small room that's at the back of the house on top of the page is a bedroom, which is the one bedroom on the first floor, and then three bedrooms on the second floor.

It's um, yeah, it's definitely the part of the it's it's like an eight by eight bedroom.

Where's the bedroom on the first floor?

I don't I don't see right there.

That's it.

That looks on us.

Yeah, it looks like a that's existing, right?

Yes.

So you're eliminating that.

We're limiting that to open up the kitchen to the composed family room, but uh open it across the back of the house.

Okay, so that bedroom um moves then to the upstairs above the garage.

There's no full bath right.

There's a half bath on the first.

So the eleven-year-old came after the pool, right?

Okay.

And he sits in our room because you can't put it back.

It's a very small, it's a bump bed.

It's like an ultra floor on the plan.

Okay.

Luckily the master thing up for an expedition.

So in terms of the the existing second floor plan on the upper left, it's uh on the right is the master uh bedroom and bathroom, and then there's two bedrooms at the end of the house closest to the ground.

So the uh lower right plan is the reconfigured plan where we're putting a uh creating the hallway and putting a bedroom of the existing throughout.

A stair up to a third floor part of this also, so eliminating one full bathroom on the second floor to make room to get the stair up to the second floor, but there'd be there'd be two smaller bedrooms and a double bathroom on the third floor.

So it's a cape right now, so currently you don't really have any use for the third floor, it's not really it's just no, there's nothing up there right now.

Yeah, we're we'll take the roof off.

We have about three and three feet, four feet of pitch that we could change to get some free sight out of there, but we're not increasing the height beyond the 30 foot alabout.

Okay.

Um actually, if you can go back to the cyclone, I just wanted to touch on a couple of points and in the areas of work.

So um raise the existing house and lock coverage.

The lower left red hatched area is just the one-story garage addition.

So we're pulling out the front face of the garage, make it even with the existing porch, which will allow us to do a mug room, take the back half of the existing garage as a mug room and tantrum space for the cooking.

Um on the upper right-hand side in red that kind of wraps the corner, that's the addition for the um family room living room space with the fireplace, and then the red hatched area um towards the pool is the proposed deck extension.

What we're doing is pushing out the kitchen um bay wind creating a bay window, moving out about four and a half feet to extend the kitchen, and in turn pushing the deck out another three feet to kind of recapture some of the space that's lost to the uh kitchen expansion.

So that's kind of their areas work all one story um additions.

So you said the existing back deck is two hundred and sixty-six square feet.

What is it?

What is the proposed size of that deck?

271 square feet.

So basically the same size.

Yeah.

Um on the bump out on the first floor to expand the living room.

I see it going out to the right if you're looking at it from Ruggles Avenue.

What what's the wrap that's going on?

Is that deck?

No, that's living space also.

If you go to the um second floor, uh the first floor plan.

It's very picture of uh the same thing.

Okay.

So here so basically we're taking the existing corner of the house out, that right corner, yeah, extending out just to create a little bit larger room for the family room, living room, and fireplace that open through to the kitchen.

Chris, just a quick point.

On your lot coverage calculations on this plan, it says that the existing deck is 266 square feet and the proposed is 403.

Oh, sorry, four or three.

I was looking at the number above the front porch.

Uh 26643.

So it is, um, we had to add an additional stair down, and then we just extended a corner of the deck.

So it would include the okay.

So there was um uh a mention, I believe there was a mention of uh sort of deck versus patio.

Um and I believe patio if it's a certain height off the ground, Nick, it does not count towards lock coverage.

Thirty-two inches is where it starts counting as lock coverage.

So was that something you explored?

Um no, it's not something that I explored just because we had the existing deck there, we're just gonna extend out, but it is something that we discussed.

Yeah, it's 400 square feet.

So I don't know what that that's a half percent.

That's about four percent.

Four percent.

Yeah, they're at the per second.

Yeah, about four feet, four and a half would help, right?

Would yeah.

What have question how far below grade, not how far below the grade of the current deck if you try to make it so that it wasn't high enough to be counted as lot coverage and be a patio?

How how much more of a drop would that be?

From the first floor of the house?

Well, no, from the current deck down to where it would be.

Yeah, about four feet down.

Okay, first floor down to grade.

Okay, well, if you raise it up 24 inches, then it wouldn't be four feet, it'd be two feet, right?

Yeah, grab two, yeah, grabbing two and a half feet at thirty-two inches.

So that that still doesn't count if it's a 32.

You see what I'm saying?

Okay, so that's like so you can remove four percent.

Well that's like three by having two levels to the deck and bring it down to a patio level, just just saying, right?

That's your point, right?

Yes, any other questions?

No, but I think you can see where you know it we kind of agree that you're asking a lot in terms of the lot coverage, and and and the chair is just basically suggesting there might be ways to carve, you know, carve the ask.

That's something that'd be more palatable to the board.

Um, so I and that's why I want you that's why we want you to look at that more.

Yeah, I certainly um appreciative for those comments, and once once we've got all the witness testimony in, you know, I think that's probably an addical time to maybe discuss because it works up as is down as it is, there's a small case.

Yep.

That's a good idea.

Thank you.

Dick, can I just ask with that difference?

The increase in the square footage of the pool.

How does that affect existing um percentage of lock coverage?

Did that impact that?

Well, I I believe that Chris's calculations were based on the 500 and some odd square feet of the pool.

So if the pool was actually 800 and some odd square feet, which it is the existing lot coverage would be higher than the 23.8 that we have was this the kind of starting value.

Um, but then that would in turn push the request up beyond 30%.

Um so I think that is something um we should evaluate a little clearer.

I again um we were unclear in the staff report why the end value of the 2013 application had 25.1%, I believe, when the starting value we were given by the architect today was 23.8.

Yeah.

Um so there was already kind of a question there.

Again, maybe they were maybe there was a portion that was a raised patio, which up until about a year and a half ago, any amount of raised patio counted the lot coverage.

So it could have been that the pool surround was being calculated into the lot coverage back in 2013, and today we would discount that.

And so it could be very possible that the starting value is accurate to what the architect provided us today based on the 17 by 30 square feet of the the pool giving us 540 or so.

I think it's only recent too that that step, like the first three steps were eliminated from calculation.

So they could have been included in all the steps that we include.

Well, I mean, fair enough, but wouldn't it make sense to get a definitive idea of what we're talking about here?

Yeah, I think it's worth, you know, getting an understanding from the board where you guys are are feeling like there could be modifications made to this, because it sounds like that is where you're going.

And then we can kind of get back with the architect and try to get the numbers completely accurate, um, and then you know, bring back a updated supplemental staff report with any revisions that are made, plus clarification on why there's this discrepancy between the pool.

Again, the the applications back in 2013 did not go into a lot of detail, like not just on this project, but on any project, they didn't go into a ton of detail and this in-depth calculation on every piece of lot coverage was not provided back to 2013.

Um so that's probably why there's a little bit of question here.

Right.

So if we're it's currently represented as existing as 23.8% lot coverage, but their pool was not accurately calculated, then it could be upwards of 26.

Well, given the 2013 application said 25.1% lot coverage is what was approved back then.

Okay, that could be the accurate starting value, but again, if some amount of that was raised patio area stairs that are no longer counted, starting value number would drop potentially down to the 23.8 that we're at today.

But but we don't definitively know.

No.

So we need to know.

So we need to know.

Okay, so I I I I take what you're saying, Nick.

So I think what we're gonna do is we're gonna give you some suggestions in terms of what you might be able to do to, you know, I understand five.

I'm one of five kids, by the way.

So just you know just fine.

Yep, you're up.

Well, that's not Newport.

That's 10, 15, whatever, sixteen.

Um so uh uh I think what we'd like to do is give you some suggestions in terms of how you might bring some of these numbers down a little bit that wouldn't necessarily um impinge on the actual living space, if you will, right?

You know, bedrooms and things like that.

And then you can go back and reconnoiter with Nick, get the real lot coverage that we're dealing with, and maybe uh take into account some of our suggestions.

That would that would be my I think that's where we're going.

Is that right?

Yeah, I think it could be beneficial actually if we nail that down and then maybe like like uh our chairman was saying, you look at some of the things like the deck, either perhaps uh making it smaller or bringing it into uh the realm of uh not being uh coming into the calculation because it's a patio versus a deck.

I don't know, you seem to maybe have some hesitancy that the land may not accommodate that.

I don't know, but maybe it gives you another month or so to kind of uh sort that out because you can hear you've heard it from everyone that we're concerned about lock coverage uh with a a conforming lot.

Um I'm appreciative of the commentary because I'm not gonna do this, but that's it, so um you know I have to my friend, and and we don't want to do that either.

Yeah, that's why we're making the suggestions.

But if if if you might allow me to just very briefly sure of course.

I just kind of want to say something.

Is it good back?

What's the copy of the standard?

Oh we just lost a chair.

I don't usually have that we do.

That's good to say that.

Right.

Same thing I bought for it.

Yeah.

Yesterday didn't come past my willing to recognize it to the last company.

Sure.

I'll see do you want to have Mr.

Hole testify as well in terms of I I certainly will.

Would you like to hear from him tonight?

Yeah why don't we do that and then after he's done we can talk about how we're going to proceed.

Okay perfect.

Does the board have any more uh questions for Mr.

Armor, or I call Mr.

Hole?

I I don't, but I know Mr.

Park mentioned that um you had some argument for the hardship that I think for me that's something I would really want to hear.

Sure.

I mean I can I will certainly um it sounds like we'll we're very likely to be coming back again next month so I will push it out then I'm happy to give you that's great a preview now if you want um no no I just wanted to I just wanted to add that to I really want to certainly obviously I want to really be certain of what the hardship is aware of the standards I have to hit.

Yeah okay I will I will do that okay.

So why don't we hear from Mr Wool because I think he's gonna have some basic testimony of what you know what the neighborhood looks like and things like that.

So that'd be fine.

And I just I uh I'm certain you will but I would just ask that he be recognized as an external yes um we we already did tonight so you're you're c you continue to be an expert tonight right I appreciate that so you know I think that there's a couple of really important things one is and and I really believe the hardship is this pool.

I mean the fact that the pool exists and it's essentially the entire lot coverage that would be allowed you know with the additions that are being the additions are even if it's five hundred some odd square feet we're only talking the diminished amount because it's about just over six hundred square feet of total increase and live cover.

So there's the the pool is really the problem they installed the pool but they installed it 13 years.

The average amount of time that a property is owned is is only in Rhode Island is 11 years.

And that's only increased to eleven years over the last couple of years.

It used to be between seven and eight years.

So the why do people change their property they change a property because they have life changes they they have a job or they add extra children or you know whatever.

And the reality is that's exactly the situation you have people that are uh owners of this property who are converting the use of the barfing from a summer home and they're expanding their family at the same time so they have a need for different house typically in in the way life goes, they would have sold this and bought another piece of property that better satisfied their needs.

But as Don already testified, they really like the neighborhood they wanted to look at this neighborhood and I think that that's you know very much in line with the complaints in terms of encouraging year round people in so when I look at this, I look at the pool as the problem.

Is there really being the hardship that they never expected would have become the hardship?

And when I look at the lot coverage, you have the pool and you have the pool in decking is all really, you know, not very adding nothing to mass.

You know, the the pool itself, regardless, again, whether it's 600 square feet or 800, is at grade.

You're not ruining any views, you're not doing anything along that line.

And a lot of the decking between the decking and the existing pool, you're at about a thousand square feet, which is exactly the difference between the 20% and the 30% that's being requested.

So when I look at it, I look at you don't have any massing, the even the additions to the house are on the first level, so we only have massing at a low level of a single level.

And I just don't think that um except for the garage, the garage is the only part that's added on, but the other additions are all at one at one level.

You know, the I don't think it changed the character of the neighborhood.

You're bordered on three sides by the city on the street, the access to the land in the back, and then the land in the back is all city owned property, so you don't you you're not impacting any neighbors by adding on, and you have the situation that just a quick look at the neighborhood, because this is a less densely populated neighborhood.

You don't have a lot of houses that exceed the lot coverage, but with I I did a quick look, and I was surprised to find how many houses that were close by, had um, you know, fairly high lot you know, and so it's 10.

Thank you.

No, page nine.

Page 10 has a diagram that shows that all the city property, but I did have another page on the sorry, I'm getting a bunch of guys, I don't know if I saw it.

No, I don't see something like that.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to supplement.

You had the chart with the city property, that's right.

I was surprised to find how um, yeah, I don't have it in here, I'm sorry, but I was surprised to find there were several uh houses in the neighborhood that had greater lot coverage than the 30 percent being requesting.

Yeah, I'm sorry I don't have it in here.

They do anyway.

The point is the range of lot coverage in the neighborhood is is actually over 30% of both, about 16 to about 35%.

So it's not unusual to have this kind of lot coverage in the area.

Again, like I said, it's bordered, and a lot of the lot coverage is a grade or near a grade, so I don't really see it being impactful to go to a 30% lot coverage in this particular situation, and I do think the hardship is pre-existing coverage from the pool, as ironic that sounds your question, the question.

Any questions from the board?

No, but I would uh as we're preparing for another meeting, going to continue this.

If you could conclude that, yeah, I'll definitely do that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think that's a good point.

Yeah, that'd be helpful to us.

See that.

I'm really sorry, I don't know why it isn's any.

I like the way you did it with the numbers right on the uh the actual rather than reading a chart.

You know, I did one for this property, and for whatever reason I just didn't stick it in.

Sorry, yeah, but I actually did it.

That's all right.

We're aware of your report.

We've got your testimony, so if you could put that in.

I will.

And then we'll be back again.

But I do think I don't think this is as outrageous a request as it might sound when you first look at the lot because of the nature of the lot of it.

And the fact that you know the hardship is the existing.

Questions?

Anybody else?

No.

Okay.

Nope.

I think we're good.

Thank you.

And so we've I think we've given you some parameters, no, in terms of what uh yes, yes.

No, I've certainly uh been listening to the comments from the board, and we you know we will certainly take those into account.

Um, you know, if there's anything else the board wants to share, I'm of course happy to happy to listen.

Well, I I I think just in general, the two things that uh that I'm hearing and that I concur with is what as well are massing, you know, just in terms of what was there to what's gonna be there.

Um it's different.

And uh and also the lot coverage, so just in terms of either a explaining it or B and or B, um, you know, putting in some mitigations that might help us get to where we want to be.

Yep.

Okay.

Great.

Is that makes sense?

We also discussed compatible, you know, compatible with the neighborhood, and so what the what they're doing, what architects doing is you know, really uh uh expanding the front usage with the dormers and and all that.

So it would be helpful if you could bring in if that's happening in the neighborhood as well.

I I can think of a couple of instances, but it would be it would be good to know that as well because it's a lot of just ranches there as well.

So we look at you know, does that does the amount of massing uh fit in with uh with the neighbor?

Are there other examples of what you're you're looking to do?

Certainly.

Okay, I like here.

I think do we need a motion to continue?

Okay, can I get somebody to do it?

I would say to the next meeting.

I think um most likely the way I see this going is potential decrease in lot coverage, which means we would not need to readvertise the application.

Oh, I can bring back would be I certainly want to increase.

Perfect.

Uh so I'd make a motion to continue uh the petition of 153 Ruggles Avenue to the July 27 27th, 2026 meeting.

Right.

Do I have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

No opposed.

So we shall.

Thanks for your time.

Okay, we'll see you all next month.

I also make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Last is for the adjournment.

We need an official uh continuum or thirty to base side, which we kind of stated, but we need to officially.

Second by Melissa, all in favor?

I suppose motion to close.

Motion to close.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, we're done.

Thank you.

I like I like doing that.

You like doing that?

I like that.

I had my moment, I never took it out of the draw when I was the one that I order, ordered this core.

That's bad, but uh that one.

Yeah.

But what you surprised the they didn't say the total living space.

Yeah, yeah.

So uh, footprint, yeah.

Yeah, but then they got the two thousand and six.

The pictures.

They are scene.

Bigger