Okay, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm gonna call the order uh this month's um Monday, July 27th, Newport Zoning Board of Review meeting.

Um it is six o'clock, and we've got a busy schedule tonight, so let's get right to it.

Uh let's have a roll call of officers for tonight.

Uh looks like we have uh our five uh voting members uh with us tonight.

Um that would be Nicole Chevry starting from left and coming to right, Dave Riley, our vice chairman, Ross Johnson, our secretary, myself, Wick Rudd, Chairman, Bark Grimes is uh sometime secretary, and uh we would have uh also sitting in the wings as an alternate Melissa Padovina.

Do we have anybody tonight that it needs to recuse themselves for anything?

Or are we all set?

Okay, very good.

Uh moving on to uh so we do have a quorum, clearly.

Uh moving on to the minutes of the June 22nd meeting.

Looks like we're up to speed on that.

Um if anybody has any discussion on that or any points to make.

If not, I'll uh look for a um a motion to accept the draft minutes of June 22nd, 2026.

I make a motion that we accept the draft minutes of the meeting of June 22nd, 2026.

As read.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Uh all in favor, please say aye.

All right.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that's unanimous.

Okay.

Um we have a couple of uh extension requests to go through here uh under the communications.

Um beginning with 17 Bayview Avenue.

There's a request for a 12-month extension.

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

Is that correct?

Um so I'll look for a motion on a 12-month extension for 17 Bayview Avenue.

I make a motion that we uh grant the request for a 12-month extension for 17 Bayview Avenue.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, let's move on to six and a half and eight cross street.

That is a 12-month extension as well.

I make a motion to approve the request for a 12-month extension for six and a half and eight cross street.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Yeah, I so haven't any opposed?

None heard.

Okay.

Number three.

Looks like 33 Corn Street, Cornea Street.

I make a motion or request to grant a nine-month extension for 33 Cornet Street.

Yes, thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Nicole.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, we have one more.

I make a motion to grant the request for a 12-month extension on 76 Van Zant Avenue.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Those are all the extensions.

Uh moving on.

We have one withdrawal requests.

Um this one is for 640 Thane Street.

Um trying to do something with that for a while, and so we're gonna take it off the calendar.

So there's a request um to withdraw 640 Thames Street without prejudice.

Do I have a motion to that effect?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to uh grant the request to withdraw without prejudice the petition of 640 Thame Street.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, we are done with that.

Um I know I'm just looking at something here, guys.

Oh, okay.

So we do have an appeal.

I I thought that that came before the summary, but never mind.

We'll get to it when it comes.

Um, so it looks like we have one item under the summary calendar.

If you would, Mr.

Secretary, please read in that uh that petition.

Yes, this is the petition of Alexander and Eleanor Doneland, applicants and owners.

Seven Malbourne Road, tax assessors plat 10, lot five-4 in an R 10 zone for dimensional variants to construct a dormer edition located three feet from the right side property line where 10 feet is required.

Okay.

Uh is there anybody here for that petition?

Are you the owners of Seven Melbone Road?

Okay.

Um you're on the summary calendar, so you don't have to say anything yet.

I have another question.

Is there anybody here that objects to this petition sitting here?

Any objectors?

There were no written objectors, and it looks like nobody's here.

And you are the only summary calendar item.

So we're going to vote on this right now.

If it passes, um, then you're welcome to leave.

That means that your petition has been has been granted.

Okay.

You're welcome to stay too.

Um and we got a busy calendar.

So if you would, uh Mr.

Riley, Mr.

Vice Chairman, if you could put that in the form of a motion.

Um yes, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

I move to place all the matters called as summary on the consent calendar.

As and as to the matters on the consent calendar, I further move to adopt the board's finding of fact, information staff reports, supporting plans and documents, and adopt the board's conclusion of law, the petition has met their burden of proof under the element.

Uh uh under each element under chapter 17.108 of the new board zoning ordinance entitled Variances and modifications.

Each petition be granted on the condition that the project be started and substantially completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration.

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

Great.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Vice Chairman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Nicole.

Uh, everybody that's in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, your petition passes unanimously.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

We appreciate that.

In case there are any questions.

Okay.

Um moving on quickly.

Uh it looks like we have two abbreviated summaries.

Um, and before uh Mr.

Secretary, you read in the first one.

I just had a quick question.

Um so Nick, the first one, the the Egan uh on Ruggles Avenue.

What was that?

That was a uh full uh that was a full petition, right?

Correct.

Uh as we uh described it in the staff report, they made some adjustments for the plan.

They uh took the advice of the zoning board and essentially proposed to remove the deck entirely and make it a raised patio that's under the 32-inch limit.

So it highly reduced their lot coverage uh down to the point where it uh if you look at the revised uh description in the staff report, they're only asking for about a one and a half percent lot coverage variance.

Right.

So essentially what you're saying is they did everything that we asked them to do at the last meeting.

Yep.

Um so you made the attorney is here and could answer any questions uh about the specific changes they made, but we felt it was significant enough that it warranted it.

Right, and because in the interim there were no objectors last month and there were there none appeared anyway this month.

Correct.

So it merits being on the abbreviated summary.

Okay, I just wanted to check with you on that.

Uh is everybody okay with that?

I just have a question because I wasn't here last month.

Should I refrain from voting on this?

Uh that would be a good idea, Melissa.

You were here for that one, right?

Melissa will step in on that one.

Okay.

So we are going to use it tonight, Melissa.

Hallelujah.

Isn't that great?

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Um, okay.

Uh with no objections from the board members.

I will uh entertain a um do you want to read it in first and then I'll entertain a motion?

Yes.

Yeah, that's great.

Thank you.

This is the petition of Dawn M.

Egan, applicant and owner, 153 Ruggles Avenue, tax assessors plat 40 lot 411, and then R10A zone for dimensional variants to add additions to the house, including expansion of the existing garage, rear living room addition, expansion of the rear deck, increasing lock coverage from 23.8% to 29.9%, where 20% is allowed.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Johnson.

If I may uh just figure out the back.

I I know it says 29.9 in some places, it says 24.9 in others.

That's the that's the correct lot coverage percentage we are moving to.

So you you're you're purporting that it's 24.9.

Yeah, that's what the revised staff report or revised product description.

Okay, so what was the discrepancy?

Because I know it was it was that was an earlier when they had the pool some years ago, correct?

Yeah, so the staff report explains that that the um there was a discrepancy in how much coverage the pool area was counting from the previous application, then uh the revision of the deck to a patio change the lot coverage calculation for this proposal down to 24.9.

We only re-avertise and change this project description in the agenda if the relief gets worse.

So the staff report has the corrected project description in that right because the lock coverage is lower, you don't have to re-advertise.

Understood.

Okay.

Um so I think we're good on that.

Um uh I don't it's an abbreviated summary.

I'll ask if there's any discussion, but anybody have any questions or points they want to make?

No.

Okay.

Well, I think the point's been made that the red-in uh lock coverage percentage is actually uh the higher amount.

It's actually um as the attorney stated, 24.9 or whatever it was.

Yep.

Okay.

That's what we're working off of.

Very good.

Um Mr.

Vice Chairman, if you would please put this in the form of a motion.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh on the petition of Born M.

Egan.

Uh I move to adopt the board's finding a fact, information and staff report, applications, supporting plans and documents, testimony of the witnesses, along with representations of council, together with 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 and new pod zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

The petition be granted on the condition the project be started, so basically completed within 12 months of the decision or extension requested to the zoning officer prior to expiration.

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

Great.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have two seconds.

Um so uh I forgot to ask.

Um, is anybody here in in objection to this petition?

I know there were no written letters of objection.

Nobody's here.

I just want to be sure.

That's all.

For the record, please.

Uh so we have a motion that's been made.

We have it uh seconded.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, that's five-nothing.

And if you would, sir, please uh would you write that up for us?

I would appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Parks.

Thank you all.

Good luck to you guys.

Yeah.

Okay.

The crowd's already thinning out.

Um let's move on to petition number two under abbreviated summary, if you would, Mr.

Secretary.

Certainly.

This is the petition of Robert Demenio and Linda Perry Riera, applicants and owners.

Six Tompkins Court, tax assessments plat 25, lot 35, and an R10 zone historic overlay for a dimensional variance to convert an existing two-car garage to a bedroom and construct a new attached one-car garage located 3.07 feet from the front property line where 5.31 feet is required, increasing the lock coverage from 28.7% to 36.7%, where 32.92% is allowed.

Okay, great.

Um, yes, hi, Mr.

Jackson.

Before we begin, um, there were no uh letters of objection uh to this petition that were written.

That's why it's on the abbreviated summary.

Is anybody here that objects to this petition right now?

Okay, hearing none.

Yes, Mr.

Jackson, you're representing the petitioners.

Is that correct?

Yes, good evening, Mr.

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

Happy to answer any questions.

The uh legal notice gives an accurate description of what's taking place here.

Um just quickly, the the existing two-stall garage, which faces Tompins Court, occupies uh approximately half of the footprint of uh this building at the first level, and the current owners wish to convert that to a primary bedroom so that it's easier for them to age in place and um to make sure they have at least one parking space on site that's covered.

They're proposing a single stall garage attaching to the front of the building.

Uh we were in front of the HDC at their last meeting, and the design has been approved by HDC.

Um, so we're here on that lock coverage variance, and I I guess the setback variants.

No, I want to clarify that.

Um, Mr.

Jackson uh emailed me today and made a good point.

The advertisement had gone out for a front your front setback variance of three feet, a little over three feet.

Um, what we didn't take into account when we were advertising was that the neighboring property um to the north has a smaller setback, so they can utilize that setback.

It looks like it's actually 1.1 feet there.

So they are well within the right to be at three feet.

So I would say that's not even a part of this consideration.

It's really just about the okay.

So you're still at three feet, 3.15 feet.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

So that's not an issue then.

No.

Um, we're not voting on that.

Very good.

Um questions for Mr.

Jackson?

Board members.

Anyone?

No, I just have a general comment.

And I'm glad you brought that up.

I was at the site.

I noticed both abutting properties were very close to the street, so I didn't have any issue with um with how that's being brought forward.

So I didn't have any issue with um with how that's being brought forward.

Also, it's a it's a not a full width of the building.

It's it's uh partial uh with that.

So as far as uh effect on the street, I didn't find it was going to have any uh any marginal effect.

So uh I'm in favor of this proposal.

Okay, right.

Uh it's not an issue.

It's not, I don't think it's it's one of the uh variances that needs to be asked for anyway.

Uh, but so be it.

Um okay.

If I don't hear any other questions, I'd be happy to get this put in the form of a motion, uh, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Okay, Ms.

Chairman.

Uh on the petition of Robit, uh Damiano and Linda Perry uh Rayera.

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

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

Great.

Thank you, Dave.

Um, do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, we have a unanimous decision for you, sir.

If you could write that up for us, I think I will.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

I don't think that's all we're gonna see of you tonight from if I understand directly what's happening here.

Um I think that's it for the abbreviated summaries.

Um we do have one appeal that everybody's aware of.

Um, why don't we read that in, Mr.

Johnson, if we could?

Certainly, and then we'll go from there.

This is the appeal of the collection at Barney LLC, appellants and owners, 18 Barney Street and 3 and 4 Barney Court.

Tax Assessors Plat 21, lot 63-4, and an R3 zone historic overlay, appealing the decision of the zoning officer requiring the submission of dimensional variances for construction of two driveways on the property without prior approval, requiring vehicles to reverse onto Barney Court and Russo Court.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Jackson again.

Thank you.

Yeah, I you got a couple of them tonight, I know.

It's all right.

Very uh so again, good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, Jay Rosal Jackson, Miller Sky Holbrook, and Jackson on behalf of the appellant.

In this case, I have with me this evening EJ Laney, who will testify in a moment um in support of this appeal.

Uh just to give a quick and basic overview.

Um, I know board members are familiar with this property because we were here last month uh for a variance in relation to uh a second level deck.

You remember that hearing?

So um adjacent to the area where the deck is uh uh is an open space in between um the buildings that constitute the entire sort of campus of 18 Barney Street.

If you recall, there is a large building with an address of 18 Barney Street, three units in it, and then there's a space, and then behind it is another building with a common wall containing an additional three units.

So it's a six-unit development, the entire property is under renovation and rehabilitation.

The work has been completed on the front building and work is continuing on the uh the rear uh buildings, which constitute three and four Barney Court.

As uh, and just to sort of remind the board as well, this is a that was owned by uh Mr.

Brian Pellateer and his wife before my clients purchased it.

So um I think you'll see both with the evidence that we presented, but also some of the uh photographs that were part of the staff report.

This this was a property that Mr.

Pelleteer had under uh repair and renovation, it seems like for almost the entirety of his uh tenure of ownership, and it also became sort of a collection spot for building materials.

Um with that said, uh as my clients progressed through the renovation of this property, um, they determined that um based upon materials and uh constructed materials in this area, that it was their conclusion that this space between the two buildings, which is an opening that runs from in a north-south direction from Barney Court to Russo Court and back and forth, uh, had been constructed at some point as a driveway.

And that is a conclusion that they reached while they were uh sort of taking control of this property, uh doing demolition work, investigating it uh as they did the renovation.

And so, as part of the renovation, they they as they finished the first building, they did a reconstruction of what they believed to be the driveway.

And after the reconstruction was completed, um, they were essentially notified by the city that there's no record that this was a this was a driveway that they should have pulled permits for curb cuts and saw the variance.

So when those discussions sort of evolved with um the zoning officer, I asked the zoning officer to you know render a formal decisions from which we could take an appeal and we could present evidence that from our perspective, this was at some point constructed as a driveway.

Uh again, based on how Mr.

Pellateer often used his his properties.

Um, we would concede that you're not seeing vehicles in and on a day-to-day basis because he often used the space for other purposes, especially when he was renovating the property.

Uh, but based on other factors um in relation to the site when my clients acquired it, it's their belief that that was constructed as a driveway at some point, and all they intended to do is restore what was already there.

So I will answer any questions that the board may have.

Uh other than that, I'll turn it over to Mr.

Lanny and he can sort of give uh his testimony as to how they reached that conclusion and the actions that they took along the way.

Sure.

So um the obvious first question is is why not just go for variance?

Why are you trying to appeal his decision?

Uh we have we have submitted a uh request for a variance.

Okay.

But frankly, an appeal takes precedence on the agenda.

Filing the appeal as soon as that note that decision was rendered, get this issue in front of you quicker.

And um, to be perfectly honest, we weren't sure what kind of opposition we would get from our friendly neighbors across the street who were here last month objecting to the to the porch.

So uh I wanted to make sure that procedurally my clients had every opportunity to present this first as a as an appeal, and if it was denied, we'd come back as a variance.

Because again, thankfully, I don't think I don't think the uh the neighbors who had issues with last month's uh application are here this evening, but we weren't sure about that.

Understood.

So you uh effectively this gives you two bites at the apple potentially if we don't approve the appeal.

Um, and then I didn't know that you would also filed a variance, so I wasn't aware of that.

Yeah, it it was filed in the same uh month cycle, but because of how many full hearings we had on this agenda, it couldn't actually get reached on this agenda.

So it would get reached at the next month's uh thus you're thus you're thinking that you wanted to move it up and appeal would be here heard first.

Fair enough.

Understood.

Okay, anybody else?

That extend the one that has the variance is the reason why it's on the full hearing agenda versus like a summary abbreviate, because there is a objection to it already.

No, there's not.

Um at this time there's not.

I just felt that there was probably going to be enough discussion on it that it warranted being on the full hearing agenda.

I just take my best to have it.

I think you guys are gonna want to talk about.

Okay.

So is anybody here besides um these two folks involved in this appeal in one way or the form or the other?

Okay, I didn't think so.

I just wanted to make sure for the record again.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um Nick, I have a question regarding um driveways and and how it's interpreted, whether you know it could have existed, may have existed.

And um, we're using driver, but I'm I'm my head, I'm thinking like a garage.

So if there was a garage there and it was removed, effectively that's no longer uh given for that structure, right?

You'd have to you'd have to apply for uh permit to build the new garage.

You couldn't necessarily put it where the old one was.

There'd be there'd be a process, right?

Yes, but if you know, we oftentimes have driveways that don't go to a garage.

So there's oftentimes just kind of a parking pad area that's accessed off the the city right-of-way.

Um the process of getting a driveway and a curb cut goes through our engineering department through an application.

That process started in the late 90s, and so it's possible that there were driveways here, and that preceded that uh application.

There's no record of an engineering application for a curb cut on either side.

Um there is a continuous gutter line that you can see at the bottom of this image that I've shown the engineering department, and they don't think that that's that necessarily signifies there being an official curb cut with a driveway in that location.

Um the other argument is that there used to be a building here that occupied that space.

So it wasn't originally constructed with the driveway in that location.

Once the building was removed, which I don't even think we have the exact date, it's possible that there was a driveway put in.

I presented some evidence in the staff report that all of the visual evidence I could find didn't point to me that there was a driveway there officially.

Right.

But in the attorney's description of the former owner as sort of uh a collector, to be put it kindly.

Um that very well.

I think some of the pictures may have showed some things on the site.

So it it could have been there, but it could have also just been covered with junk, or you know, he just didn't choose to use it that way, but it it could have technically been correct.

They're all the the street view image I provided from 2012 uh showed, especially on this side of the property, a kind of a vegetative patch in that area that to me signified that that at least wasn't being used as a driveway.

Um we don't have any stake in it.

It was just that our our point of view was that it it hasn't at least been used in years as a driveway, given this is a multifamily property and they're proposing to need to reverse a car both on this side on uh Barney Court and then on Russo Court, reversing it into the right-of-way in order to use these driveways.

Um that's why I felt that it would need an official approval to to operate that.

Okay, thank you very much.

So effectively you you wouldn't be upset if we treated this like a variance almost in in some respects.

I mean, I mean I I think the appeal comes down to whether I made the proper decision in saying that they need to apply for a variance.

That's what their argument is is that they shouldn't need to apply for it.

And if if you uphold their appeal, they can proceed as they they have with treating these as driveways.

If you do not feel there's enough evidence to prove that these were uh original driveways or are they at least for years, then you should deny the variance and allow them to present evidence for the variance at next month's meeting.

Okay.

Okay, very good.

Other questions?

Did you want Mr.

Lanny to testify as well?

If I could, yeah.

And um if there's any questions you have of me before we get started, I'll have Mr.

Laney testify.

Okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Jackson?

Or if I if I could, um I have one exhibit that I'd like to share.

Um this is, you know, at point in fact, this is this is a proposed site plan that's part of the variance application.

And I'm just uh presenting it just strictly for the purpose of illustrating where the how I mean it's I sort of it's sort of intuitive by looking at the site, but this shows where the vehicles would be parked, where the parking spaces are, uh, which would back out onto Barney and Russo Port.

Okay.

So if we could have this identified as applicants exhibit one, please.

Mr.

Jackson, does that show the width of the space between the two buildings on that exhibit you're about to give us?

Yeah, I'll have Mr.

Lenny testify to it, but I mean, I think this was done by the surveyor.

So my understanding is that these colored areas which show which show the proposed parking space are dimensionally correct, nine by eighteen.

No, it's all right.

I get so um while you're passing out one of the issues, at least in my mind is is um is backing out into the right of way on Russo and and Barney Street.

I mean, do you have some kind of traffic study or I mean what it doesn't I mean how how busy is that street?

I don't doesn't appear to be that busy really to me.

So I mean again, this evening's purposes, we're we're not here to establish the elements to satisfy the granting of the variants.

We're here just strictly to argue that um Mr.

Armor rendered the wrong decision and that historically there was a driveway here, and it's it's an existing non-conforming driveway, which all we did was restore it.

And so that's it.

If you decide this evening that the appeal should be denied and you reject our appeal, then we'll be back here next month, and we will have a traffic engineer to discuss traffic volume on those two ports and whether or not backing into the right-of-way presents any type of safety issues.

Right.

I'm just as you if you can understand how I think I'm just thinking trying to find a way where you don't have to come back next month.

Okay.

I I gathered that.

For what for whatever the reason is, you know.

I'll probably be here anyways, but that's not an initial.

Okay, Gary, I'm sorry.

Yes, Mr.

Lanny.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

EJ Lanny.

Okay.

So Mr.

Lanny, I know boards familiar with you.

Um we're just here last month on this same project.

Why don't you just give a quick um background of you, your involvement in Zelden project in Newport and partnered in Calcasia as well?

Sure.

Uh myself, Lou, we've been in business for 10 years together, and we've been doing it collectively for uh 50 years jointly um in construction and development.

We've done multiple restoration historic projects around Newport, condominium development, subdivisions, uh restoration of historic homes, and uh we purchased this uh collection at Barney approximately one year ago.

Uh and as uh attorney Jackson stated, there are six units uh in this development.

All right, why don't you could um describe the conditions of the property when we purchase it.

The um this was a photo taken about a year ago in July, um, just before we purchased it, and there's a few others in the record that show um the condition of the space.

The green building was in relatively good shape.

Um the yellow and the brown buildings were in disrepair and required quite a bit of work.

Uh the photo that you're looking at now is the driveway that previously was to Barney Court.

Um went to Barney Court, which is no longer there.

The yellow building is three Barney Court, and the brown is four Barney Court.

We have photos.

I you know, went to the Historic Society.

There are photos from the 50s showing uh two Barney Court, and our guesstimate um was that it was removed sometime in the 70s.

Uh when we purchased it, it looked exactly like this.

There was a cobblestone gutter that had been uh in existence prior uh for some years, noting the vegetative growth around it.

There was um on this Barney Court side of the driveway, there was um essentially paved with uh old bricks and cobbles underneath that plywood is essentially a driveway of cobblestones.

As you get further down that driveway and you get to the Russo Port side, uh it was much more vegetative.

There were sort of weeds that had grown into trees.

There was the massive pile of bricks, if you recall from uh last month's hearing that um just occupied that space.

It was overgrown, um, but there was a curb cut.

There is an existing historic stone wall that ends at the edge of the green building, and there was the foundation for the deck uh that began at the back of the yellow building.

So the entire width of this driveway that you see there, it's approximately I think it's 16 or 18 feet.

Um it's it is on the survey, but um there's plenty of room for a vehicle and door openings and sort of walking around.

So you know, since the time that we purchased, we never really assumed that it wasn't a driveway.

And we see this often in Newport, there not every single house has a curb cut application and something on record and land evidence for a driveway.

So Mr.

Laney, let's let's sort of after that summary, let's start with this photograph and sort of we'll walk in order through the area.

First thing of note that I want you to sort of go through is that cobblestone uh apron or gutter, which runs the length of this driveway area.

Why don't you describe that?

Because it actually runs the entire length of the property, doesn't it?

Yes, this gutter extends from the very corner of 18 Barney, um starting at Barney Street, and it goes all the way into Barney Court past all of our properties.

Um it is sort of concave in nature and collects rainwater that is sheep flowing from Barney Court and runs it out to Barney Street.

That's been there for at least a couple decades.

Right.

And so again, it runs in front of the two buildings, which literally require curb cuts, there's garage doors here, right?

And based on your uh knowledge of the property and the information you've gathered, your understanding is that the previous owner Brian Pelletier constructed that, correct?

Yes.

So he treated the area in front of what what you have determined to be a driveway.

He has treated that area no different than the area in front of the two garage doors with the buildings of three and four Barney port, correct?

Correct.

So as you as you sort of go through this driveway area from Barney Fort through and forward port, again, describe it to the board what the materials are and how far they extended that you discovered as you sort of unearthed them here.

There was quite a lot of junk in the driveway, old windows, old boards, and as we started to remove those layers, we got down to basically a cobblestone, you know, patio driveway base.

It was a surfacing for what we always thought was a driveway.

It's brick, brick, and cobblestones.

Um the left hand side of the green building, you can see a door.

Uh, we assume that door did not exist when two Barney Court uh did exist, and that was installed along with some of the windows that you see.

Um at that door on the left, the white door, there is a small two-step um you know, Belgian block or um granite block, if you will.

Okay.

Um other point as well.

Yeah, um so we we purchased this in you know, end of July last year, approximately a year ago.

In November of last year, the city um thankfully these roads, Russo Court, Barney Court, Barney Street were on the paving program.

So the city repaved all of these roads.

The city engineers came out and they reviewed this gutter, this cobblestone gutter, and it was essentially deemed existing to remain.

So they paved up to that gutter, they did not remove it, uh albeit removing some other historic or older um river rock paving things on Barney Court.

So my point is is that someone looked at it, said this should stay here, and then they paved up to it, they didn't remove it.

So as you progress towards um Russo Court, the uh back or nick scroll down and it's probably a few photographs, and we should have something on the other side, maybe.

All right, well, that's a good card.

So as you described, that's a that's a pretty good uh view of the stones that were installed throughout the what you determined for the driveway area, brick.

That's correct.

Yeah, we have brick, we have Belgian block cobblestones and you know, granite pieces sort of mismatched together and pasted into what we always thought was a driveway.

So and so from this perspective, this picture would have been taken if you're standing on Russo Court looking back towards the driveway and the building uh at 18 Barney Street, correct?

Correct.

We scroll down a little bit more.

You can go back up to the next one.

Sorry.

All right, so this is this is obviously the Russo Court side.

Um this is the overgrowth you described that eventually looks like it grew into a tree.

Um again, that whole area with the materials underneath, correct?

Yeah, again, you know, sort of weeds that grew into trees, um, building materials, rocks, cobblestones, um, and then you know, layers of just building debris, wood, and and piles of brick and and other building materials that were sort of piled on top of um what we thought was essentially an abandoned driveway or unused driveway.

Um importantly on this side, um the natural grade of that driveway area sloped down towards two field port, correct?

Yes, and it ended at a you know what I would loosely describe as a curb cut between the historic stone wall on Russo Court that extends from Russo Street down to this point at the bottom right-hand side of the photo to uh approximately 16 to 18 feet to that concrete bollard or column that you see behind the shaggy tree there.

Um I thought you just scrolled down to the bottom.

I think the last photo is a good shot of the wall.

Yeah.

So this can you describe this?

Because I I think this would be essentially standing in the driveway area, correct?

And describe what's in this picture.

So on the right hand side at the tree line, you'll see uh what I call the historic stone wall that holds up the bank and the yard of 18 Barney Street.

Uh at the you know, small bush on the right hand side, that stone wall ends, and there's a clear curb cut, if you would, that you could drive a vehicle in or a piece of equipment that you know we essentially used in that fashion for the better part of the year.

Okay, so to be clear, you didn't alter that wall.

That that wall terminated as depicted in this photograph, right?

Correct.

Yeah, the end of the wall aligns with the end of the green building, and the the start of the foundation on the other side starts with the beginning of the yellow building.

So they align.

And then just um quickly, you have one other photograph that you sort of dug up uh when you realized this was going to be an issue with the zoning department, correct?

It was an aerial photograph.

Uh and it was it was included in what we submitted it.

The this is an aerial photo, I think from maybe 2018 that I dug up from the archives um DEM.

And it's not super high resolution, but if you zoom in far enough, there's clear evidence to me that there's a blue car in the driveway, there's an outline of a windshield, uh, and it you know sort of fits perfectly in a dimensional shape.

I do have a printed blow-up of this that I think is slightly easier to see, but I'm happy to distribute a few folks would like to look at it.

It was in the packet, I think.

Yeah.

You guys had this listed as 2008.

Yeah.

2008, okay.

All right, then lastly, um, if you don't mind if we have a couple photographs of what the driveway area looks like after the renovation was done, and then you later notify that the permits for it.

So why don't you describe what's in this these series of photographs in terms of uh the conditions as a presentation?

Certainly.

So what we did in the driveway was you know, we essentially repurposed a lot of the brick that was on site under the deck, that massive pile uh that Brian had sort of left us there, in addition to the cobblestones, we reused everything that was there.

We stockpiled it, we put it on pallets, we organized it, we cleaned it, we regraded um to you know, kind of get old boulders out and um and we restored everything.

We put in you know, six-foot aprons of cobblestone on both the Barney court and the Russo court side.

We checked all our dimensions, um, ensure that we have adequate size for two vehicles.

Uh and I mean yeah, so again, this photograph that that's up there right now, the you can see now clearly, excuse me, that's um sort of swale or a cobblestone gutter that was constructed by Mr.

Pelletier, correct?

Yes, and then right behind it, you've got a cobblestone apron apron and then bricks for a driveway, right?

Yes.

And the you didn't have to really do any kind of regrading or anything.

The the apron that you you reinstalled met met up with what was already there.

Yeah, because the you know, essentially the grades matched on both the front and the back side of Barney Court and the barn and the Russo Court side.

So, you know, it was very minor regrading.

Okay, and then on um any other the other photographs that are associated with this is the Russo Court side.

Again, um this slopes down towards Russo Court, correct?

That slopes down towards Russo Court, and you can also see in this photo, there's a you know, just in front of the two orange cones is a very dark line of black, sort of newer hot patch asphalt that we did.

Uh and you can see the line that where the city stopped their paving, the lighter gray or asphalt was done in November, and then that patch was done a month or two ago.

But here you can even uh in even more resolution and very clearly see that the existing historic stone wall which runs from the corner of uh Barney Street up Russo Court, right?

Yes, and you did not alter where that wall terminates, correct?

No, that wall aligns with the edge of the green building.

Yeah, so from your perspective, when you purchase the property after doing the investigation of what's there, you reviewed the materials that were on site, you looked at the dimensions, you looked at the openings, and you concluded that this was a driveway that was created by likely Mr.

Pellet here at some point in the past, correct?

Yes, and you simply restored what was there, yes.

Um question.

So um what is your perception of how this would actually work in, you know, in fact, right?

So you've got a uh a driveway that goes all the way through from one street to another, right?

From Barney Street to Russo Court on all the way out.

So would you have it be one way where if you're the first one and you go all the way to the Russo Court end and then come out that way?

Or how you have two cars backing in Russo and two cars back or backing out coming in and then two cars coming in Barney.

How many cars could fit there if it was full?

J just two cars in total.

So there would only be one car per side.

One would be deeded to the Russo court side, just one car for one unit, and another car would be deeded to the Barney court side, one car and one unit.

So it it's not a tandem situation where people are trading keys, it's one owner, and you just pull out.

And you know, in terms of turn radius, and uh, I know that you know, we're not getting into this now, but it's it operates just fine, just like all the other driveways of Barney Court and Russo Court.

Are they courts?

Yes, are they narrow streets?

Yes, they're only 14, 15 feet wide, but it from an operational standpoint, it totally works.

And we're trying to simplify this.

You know, this this development is six units.

We have two garage spaces, and if granted, we'll have two driveway spaces.

Those are four vehicles that were taking off the city streets and and essentially giving up, you know, this could be a this could be a patio.

This could be a um, you know, a seating area.

We're trying to take cars off the street and you know, just use it the way that we always believe Brian had intended it for.

So, you know, we totally respect the process that that uh occurs here.

We just feel like if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you know, it's a driveway that meets the dimensional criteria.

We have only one car that we're dealing with.

There's no real traffic here.

You're talking about a couple trips per day.

You know, we've restored the driveway to something that has historical character, we're using all the same building materials, the cobbles and bricks, um, in addition to restoring, you know, essentially what was three rundown.

We have the support of all the neighbors.

Uh, we have letters that you've got you you have seen uh last month from all the surrounding neighbors that um absolutely support this.

The gentleman that lives directly next door that this driveway opposes has written actually two letters of support in our favor.

Um and I understand that this is a multi-family, this is a six unit development, but if you dial it in and dig down into this driveway, it really operates as a single family house.

It's one unit and one car.

That spot is deeded to one condominium unit, and that's it.

This is not uh multiple people get to park in this as a guest space.

It's not that yeah, I was wondering if you had any uh estimate as to when the last time anyone lived in that uh beige or yellow house, or any not the greenhouse that faces uh the other one.

When's the last time anyone lived in there and paid a rent?

Decades.

The so what we determined was the greenhouse had was fully occupied, all three floors.

Yeah, yeah.

The yellow house, there was when we purchased it, it was basically a uh a storage unit.

There was evidence of um residential um living.

There was a kitchen, there were kitchen cabinets, there was bathrooms and toilets, but it was essentially completely filled.

We do not know the last time.

I don't know if in that had that was that was that yellow building was the one that Brian Pelleteer was reconstructing the roof for a decade, yeah, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So there was also, you know, he had installed some vinyl windows, and we were under by or he was under violation from the HDC.

So those were recently replaced with you know approved wood windows.

There were tenants in the four court.

So this one was the one that was the subject of Mr.

Pellateer's uh renovation focus during the last 10 years of his life.

So I was just gonna ask that.

Are you able to talk to the previous owner or anyone that knew him to get like lay statements of what this may have been used for?

The um when my clients first purchased this, there was with the zoning officer a question of how many dwelling units actually existed here because Mr.

Pelleteer, especially this yellow building had been working on this yellow building for so long.

So we did take an appeal of the original decision in terms of how many units, but we were able to acquire enough evidence that satisfied Mr.

Armor.

And so that's why you never heard that appeal.

But during the collection of evidence, we were able to get the spouse of Mr.

Pelleteer, the widow to give us an affidavit verifying that yes, there were six dwelling units, and yes, it was always the never the intent to abandon them, and he was renovating.

When we went back to the well a second time, she kind of didn't want to be involved anymore in what was going on with the property.

She was happy to see it was getting renovated, but she wasn't interested in providing another affidavit.

So I don't know, we don't have any answers in that regard.

Okay.

Have you talked to the neighbors at all that may have no?

I think I don't know that there's any neighbors that free date Mr.

Pelleteer in his long quest to renovate the yellow building.

There's a gentleman that lives across the street on Barney Port that I chatted with who did know Brian.

And when I asked him about the driveway, you know, he kind of threw his hands up and said it's been used for just about everything, like cars, equipment, um, dumpsters, you know, building materials.

I think over the years there's just been, you know, it was probably used as you know, almost a workshop.

Okay.

So do you um try to bring it back to what we're what we're here about, which is the is the driveway.

Um you filed your building permit.

Did your plan show a driveway on the on the building permit?

The was there any discussion with the building department or anybody about finishes, impervious surfaces, anything like that, which would typically be a discussion if you were putting down an impervious service.

You didn't have brick or semi-impervious.

But was there any discussion about that?

We we did have discussions with the building official, absolutely.

Um, and we decided with his um council to essentially separate the building permits by structure.

He wanted each of the structures to have their own building permit because they were going to be happening on different terms.

Uh nothing was really on the building permit did not cover the driveway, but we did submit um you know the certified survey from East Greenwich Land Surveyors that did show exactly what Mr.

Jackson had handed out.

Uh we further refined that survey to include these, you know, pink boxes, if you will, that show the size of a vehicle uh in addition to some other things that met uh additional dimensions.

Um we had to do additional research for the deck portion that we had submitted last month uh here in this forum.

So there was no discussion to answer your question uh with the building official about pervious surfaces or about this driveway.

We were to be completely honest, shocked that anybody was even questioning it because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

We never even thought that someone's really gonna question if this is a driveway or not.

I don't know.

Yeah, and and uh I would think typically that would have shown up on his on a plan.

It's too many.

You typically submit a site plan which would have shown the buildings, she would have shown parking, would have been.

It did show on that.

We absolutely did.

Okay, so yeah, that site plan was submitted.

It just doesn't make itself onto a building permit because that essentially deals with the structure more so that you weren't doing the work at the site.

Yeah.

Um from our standpoint, it was okay, let's remove the cobbles and the brick and reorganize them and put them back down in uh an organized fashion and cut the weeds.

Yeah.

Well, I I think we've made a lot of discussion here that would be more relevant to a variance request than to what we're talking about here for the appeal, uh, which is strictly whether indeed there was uh an existing uh driveway to speak of.

So that's where I was just trying to hone down back on.

Do you have any feedback on the photos and the staff surgery uh report?

I I did review them.

Um I think the zoning officer did a great job in you know, and and tracking those down and and I did the same.

I mean, I went through every satellite photo that DEM has going back to the 40s and 50s.

I mean, you know, can you find a photo with a car?

Yes, I did.

Can you find a photo, an aerial without a car?

Yes, you can.

So you know, there's a space between two buildings that is the perfect size for two vehicles.

It was paved with cobbles and bricks.

We removed those materials and we put them back.

There were curb cuts on both sides.

The city engineering department just came in and paved the whole neighborhood and they didn't touch them.

They stopped right where the curb cuts were.

There was an existing cobblestone gutter that is existing to remain.

Nobody touched it.

They paved up to it.

Um again, it's more shocked.

I'm more shocked that we're here to argue this point than I think it's necessary.

But yeah, we're just in terms to the photographs that are in the staff court, they're reflected by Mr.

Armour.

Um, they sort of reflect what we've testified to in the sense that there were times when there was activity by Mr.

Pellateer, like that photograph right there.

You can tell the roof is under construction, right?

The half of the roof that faces 18 Barney Street, the Green Building, right?

And so maybe there's no vehicles there, but you've got materials, you've got containers for something.

Um there's other photographs where there's overgrowth where I don't know what Mr.

Pellateer was doing.

You know what I mean?

So it's it is we acknowledge that there's evidence here of uh maybe you know not finding vehicles parked there on a consistent basis.

But again, I think we've presented sufficient evidence to establish the physical characteristics that existed with this site, the materials that were in what we believe to be the originally constructed driveway, likely by Mr.

Pellateer with materials he had collected, the swale, the slope of the ground towards Russo Court, the ending of the wall, they all indicate that these were these were intended to be used as a driveway and were likely at some point fashion, but again, um this being a property that Mr.

Pellateer seemed to be focused on and in terms of renovating and rehabilitating that yellow building.

Um we can't speak to what he did over the years, but yeah, we acknowledge that his activities probably limited the use of this as an actual driveway for the tenants front building.

Yeah, just the reason why I bring up the staff photo is because you have your aerial photo from 2008 that shows a car in there.

I think there's also a photo of the sidewalk that shows a car in there from 2008 as well.

Okay, any more questions?

Have we beaten this horse enough yet?

Hearing none, let's proceed to a uh a motion on this.

If we could and uh the motion will be to um sustain this appeal, correct?

Nick.

So if we're voting yes on this, that means we're voting for the uh petitioners here for their for their position that it is a driveway and that um we are um uh sustaining the appeal, which means that we're uh turning down uh Nick's um rejection of the uh of the uh uh the petition.

Okay, okay, Miss Chairman, you all said ready to go.

I move to sustain the appeal of the appellant the collection at Bonnie LLC as outlined in the appeal dated 5 27 uh 2026 that the zoning officer eroded in his determination that the restoration of an historical existing driveway requires dimensional variances from the Newport Zoning Board of Review.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Sherry.

Um anybody like to go?

Wait, you want to start?

Yeah, may I?

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Grimes.

This I hope I get right.

Uh I'm going to vote uh uh on behalf of the appellant to uh to uh grant the appeal uh and and or to override the decision of the uh zoning officer of the city of Newport.

Uh let me just make a couple comments here.

Uh uh first of all I want to say I was very impressed with Mr.

Lenny's uh testimony.

Uh he had done his research and had done his due diligence.

Uh and I found them to be very uh believable in his uh presentation.

Uh I think there's sufficient evidence that uh there was existing non-conforming driveway or curb cuts.

It wasn't always clear, but uh you have an open mind.

You can see that there was most likely a uh curb cuts and driveway.

Um and we saw some photos from the 50s and the 70s, which would suggest that there uh that uh that there was a driveway there.

Uh there for far as I know, there are no objections to this request.

Um the uh I I think overall we're looking at uh uh some properties where you're gonna have significant improvements.

Uh I was impressed by one statement Mr.

Lennon just made and said, we're gonna get some cars off the street here too.

He's got a place to park.

Um so anyway, uh as far as I'm concerned, all signs suggest that there was uh existing non-conforming use.

So once again, I am going to vote to grant the appeal or sustain the appeal or say when anyway you want.

You know where I'm gonna sustain the appeal.

Very good.

Thank you.

Okay, so why don't we just move it this way and I'll go um quickly.

Um I'm gonna vote to sustain the appeal as well.

Uh I echo my uh fellow board member, Mr.

Grimes, uh, Mr.

Lanny's testimony was very credible.

Um, and I'll add a couple of points uh to this that at times the way that Mr.

Pelletier operated, that would be a perfect place to stage a redoing of a roof or to renovate the interior.

You know, in the middle of the two houses, you would be setting up saw horses and you know, cutting material and doing stuff there.

So it wouldn't necessarily be a driveway all the time, but it could be for different uses.

Um the fact that the uh that there were curb cuts, um, the fact that there are uh the copper gutters, uh that testimony was very credible and and believable.

Uh, and then the walls coming in on the Russo court side as well.

So did it have to be a driveway the whole time?

Um, not in my opinion.

And uh quite frankly, it is taking cars off the street uh in a pl in a town that's you know begging for parking.

Uh so for all those reasons, and by the way, I don't want to have to come and revisit this with the variants.

Okay, that's the other reason.

So let's just get it done right now.

That's my that's my feeling.

So I will be voting to sustain this appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I uh I take these appeals very seriously, and I I respect our uh zoning officer's opinion, and I know he does uh does a lot of work in uh in putting his research together and and uh really does a fine job giving us the information we need uh to to hear and and make a decision on these.

Um that being said, I'm uh I'm also gonna sustain the appeal, not not so much because I I don't disagree with Mr.

Romra.

I think that um it's difficult to clearly say that there was uh absolutely a driveway or parking for that there, but I I also feel it isn't clear that there wasn't either.

I think that that the uh um testimony given um did clearly show materials, did clearly show um, as was previously discussed that there were curb cuts.

Not that that's not a normal procedure to to respect an existing curb cut, but um the the cobblestone uh catchway that uh was taking the water away.

There were just uh a number of things that made me feel like there was uh there was use of a driveway at some point in this property's uh career.

So um again, while I um I respect our uh zoning board's uh and zoning chairman's uh decision and his reasoning, uh I feel that uh it was a compelling argument to uh sustain sustain their appeal, and that's what I'm gonna do.

Great.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll also be voting to sustain the appeal.

Um if there if there could have been a closer um uh uh decision as to whose evidence was right and whose evidence was not right.

I haven't seen one here on the zoning board in a long time.

Nick's evidence he presented, the petitioners' evidence they presented, supported both of their thoughts as to what was what that alleyway was.

Um I believe it was uh in fact a driveway at some time.

It could have been in the the 30s or the 40s or whenever.

You know, I I uh I would share Mr.

Johnson's opinion that I don't like when I see that the zoning officer error, I don't think there was any error on anyone's part here.

It was just a difference of opinion as to as to what that was.

No one, there was no clear evidence one way or the other, but there was enough to push me over to say that that there was a good chance at some point in time it was in fact a driveway.

And um, so I'll sustain the appeal.

Right.

Thank you, Ms.

Sherry.

I will also be voting to sustain the appeal.

I want to echo the sentiments of my fellow uh board members.

Um I feel like this was very close.

Um I would say based on the evidence of the record, is more likely than not that there was a driveway here.

Um and so as Mr.

Riley already mentioned by the narrowest of margins.

Uh that is why I'm supporting this appeal.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Um, everyone.

Uh so um all those in favor of sustaining this appeal, and uh as the motion was stated, please signify by saying aye.

I are any but opposed.

Hearing none, that's unanimous.

If you could write that up, Mr.

Jackson, that'd be thank you very much.

And again, if I can stay for the record, no disrespect to our uh our zoning officer on this one.

It's very close.

Untaken.

Um it really is, and I mean, I think you did what you had to do.

So I think that that that makes sense.

But um, we will move on and we don't have to consider this one again.

Five minute break, but you you want to break?

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um it's been asked that we have a break.

Let's have a break for five minutes.

We'll be back and we'll start the uh full uh hearing petitions.

Yeah, we looked at a house in parking.

I guess that's a next time.

Okay, took a route.

No, it made sense.

I was back on record.

Sorry.

Because okay, it was never mind.

Was the last one on the continued petitions?

Okay, we're back in action here.

Uh, we're gonna move on to the uh full hearing petitions that we're gonna be considering tonight.

Um we'll try to get through as much as we can.

Um, and but we're gonna go one at a time.

We're gonna start with um the first one.

Looks like that was a withdrawal request.

Yep.

Do you want us to uh uh so we already did that, did we not?

Yeah, we're good.

That was the last one we did.

Okay.

So if we could uh Mr.

Johnson move to the number two on the full hearing petitions.

Yes, this is the amended application and petition of Samuel Hallwell, Hallwell, applicant and owner, five Tyler Street, tax assessors platin 19, lot 106 in an R10 zone for a retroactive dimensional variance to permit a parking space adjacent and parallel to the sidewalk with a dimension of seven feet, 7.5 feet wide by 18 feet long, nine feet wide by 18 feet long required, and variances to allow for second driveway and curb cut on a property 45 feet wide where 100 flot width is required, and without providing 35 feet between driveways.

Okay.

You must be Mr.

Hallowell.

I am good.

We remember you.

Please raise your right hand.

You swear to tell the truth the whole it's nothing but the truth in his proceeding.

Please state your name for the record.

Sam Hallowell.

Okay.

And uh you're gonna represent yourself here tonight again.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Would you raise a mic a bit, please?

Thank you.

Okay, so we're gonna get to some questions for you at some point.

Did you want to make a presentation beforehand, or what what how do how would you like to proceed?

Yeah, I've made some a few changes that you asked me to make since the last time I saw you two months ago.

Um I submitted this plan um and it just has a it modifies the current curb cut that was um originally there, it makes it a little bit wider than it was.

I think it's 10 feet before, and now it's 12.

And then I added a an additional 12 foot curb cut to the end of the newly proposed driveway.

Um so you can drive in and drive out on the same street, which is what we spoke about the last time.

Right, right.

So I'm getting confused because there's another Tyler one coming up.

Um is this the one where he's backing into his spot?

That's the next one.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Never mind.

Um, we'll get to that later.

So um I I'm I I guess what I'm gonna do is uh we do remember you being here a couple of months ago, and we did make some suggestions to you.

Um does anybody have any questions for Mr.

Hallowell of the board members.

Um, I I too am a little bit little bit confused on what we're looking at here.

So if you wouldn't mind, I know you had an existing curb cut that you were using to come in, but then you were potentially driving over the curb to go out or backing up, whatever you're doing.

So what did you do?

What did what have you proposed that changes how you'll access go in and out of that spot?

Yeah, it originally I would pull in and then out of the current curb cut.

Uh what's changed is now there is a additional curb cut.

Um that you can you can see uh right where your cursor is now.

Um there's an additional curb cut there, so you can drive out of the parking space.

So it is that curb cut is there's no curb cut there.

That's a brand new curb cut.

And it's 12 feet wide as proposed, yes.

Okay, and on the other side of your property, there'll be another 12-foot curb cut.

Yeah, there's currently a curb cut.

I I can't see the numbers here, but I think it's I think it's 10 feet, and I'm proposing that we uh lengthen that to 12 feet.

Um that current curb cut goes to the existing driveway that is on uh the north side of my property.

Um and I've been using that to get to the driveway that I've been using for a few years uh on the front side of my house, and that's what is the new proposed driveway.

Yeah, if you can refresh my memory on how old that parking spot is.

As old as I um as old as I I mean, I think as old as the house is.

I know I have a neighbor who lives just well, how old is the house?

1910.

Okay.

I have a neighbor who grew up in the house that is just to the north of me.

I share a property line with him, and he says that has always been used for parking.

Um another neighbor across the street who's a little bit younger than him, but he he also grew up in that house and said that's also you know used this parking for as long as he can remember.

So um before I forget again, um, I keep doing this.

I know that there was an objector, there was a letter of objection that we had on this property, and he said he was going to be here tonight.

Is there anybody here objecting to this on Five Tyler Street?

So we have that on record, right?

His letter of objection.

Correct.

Correct.

Um, but he said he was gonna be here tonight, he's not here.

Okay, very good.

So we can continue on.

Um I can also uh just reply to Mr.

Riley.

I was able to find an aerial view from 2004.

It was the clearest going backwards in time, and there actually was a car in this space of the aerial view.

You know, again, it's kind of one of those things of was it a legal space to exist with the dimensions as they are?

Uh, but there is evidence, at least from an aerial view from 2004, that there wasn't a vehicle there in that location.

Right.

So this is the one that's seven and a half feet wide, right?

Correct.

Okay.

So which means the car, when it's parked adjacent to the house, part of the car will be on the sidewalk, right?

Depending on the width of the vehicle, it's possible that the car could overhang.

And that that's why my staff report still took a negative recommendation because I think that uh given most modern vehicles are wider than this, that it would be very difficult to maintain the car entirely on the subject property and not overhanging the sidewalk, which had been one of the original complaints and why this got here was that we were given evidence that the the truck that was there was effectively on the sidewalk or overhanging into the sidewalk from the parking space.

Right.

Okay.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Barthely um no, I just want I just I just wanted about cars sitting on sidewalks and creating a precedence.

I mean, this is we know about there's another case coming up this uh shortly.

Um we know there's parking problems in Newport, but I'm not sure we're gonna resolve them by creating parking uh you know, adjacent and parallel to the house.

Anyway, with that said, besides that, you're looking to to create a curb cut to create more parking on the side of the house.

Is that a uh just in front of the house?

Just in front, I'm the current driveway uh on the side of the house.

That's already a curb.

There's already a driveway inside.

Yeah, you can see it there.

It's a it's very narrow, isn't it?

That driveway.

Sorry.

That that driveway is very narrow, isn't it?

It's quite narrow, yeah.

Can you get a car in there?

Yeah.

Not a Ford F 150, but you can get a small car in there.

Yeah, I mean, you can get, I mean, I can park the Ford F 150 there, but it is a little tight.

Some of our neighbor's side, which we deal with, and it's without those, it would be a lot easier, but so I'm sorry, did you have more questions?

Go ahead.

Go ahead, Rick.

So my question is um you've got that curb cut going in, and we've got another driveway going in on the other side of the house, correct?

Yes.

So no?

There's not another driveway going out on the other side of the house.

So it's just a curb cut.

Is there room for another driveway on the other side of the house?

No.

I don't know which other side you're speaking of.

Well, your stairs are.

No, there's no so if we could put that picture back up again.

I'm I'm sorry, I might be getting confused with the other one.

Okay, yeah, that's where the stairs are.

There's no room though, there's nothing there.

Okay.

And how many?

So the driveway um to the other side of the house that fits one car?

It's one car comfortably, I would say.

Um it's a two-unit house, so it's two parking spaces.

Okay.

So could can it fit two cars?

I mean, can they can you stack two cars in that driveway?

On the side?

Yes.

Yeah, you could.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um so for the two units, you would want to have obviously uh uh you want to have a parking space for each unit, correct?

That's correct.

And so you use you're using the one that's out in front.

That's the one that you want to use.

That's the one I use.

And your tenant would use the uh the other one.

Yeah, they have a side entrance on that side of the house, and so it's just more convenient for them to use that one.

Okay.

Other questions?

Yeah, um the the sticking point is obviously the width of your car and the width of this parking area and how you pull into that.

I am not uh you know interested in uh backing in or anything else, but how you pull into that spot and completely get your car off the side the sidewalk because it can't be on the sidewalk.

That's against the ordinance, you can't get a variance.

This variance is not gonna allow you to park half your wheel on the sidewalk.

It's just not gonna you're still gonna get a fine.

And uh I don't know who started this whole thing, but if there's a wheel on there, the police will come and issue a citation for that.

Just like if I left a little bit of the back of my car out extending onto a sidewalk, it's a violation.

So explain to me how you'll how you get that car, your car, completely off the sidewalk.

Okay, well, to start, I I fully agree with your concerns.

Anyone should be parking on the sidewalk, and I believe if my car is or anyone's car is parked on the sidewalk that you're subject to getting a ticket, whatever it may be.

I see how I would get in and out is just through the original curb cut that I might.

Um if I make that two feet wider, uh my surveyor here who did this do that so a car could you know by extending that curb cut two feet, would be able to get in, and then having another 12-foot curb cut at the other end of the parking space, you'd be able to get out and effectively not drive over the sidewalk.

So that is how we we drew that plan.

So but on the width of your car, once you pull on to the gray, the gray space there, how do you open your door?

Do you get out?

There's enough space.

There's enough space with with a large vehicle, it's not gonna lie, it's it's a little, I mean, it's not you can't swing your door all the way open, but you can get out of it.

I get out of my car at the game as a when I'm parking there.

If you have a sedan, it's I mean, you can almost open your door.

So that's so if I remember correctly, this all started because your neighbor um got upset about your car being parked on the sidewalk and and coming over curb cuts or leaving over uh excuse me, leaving over the curb.

Um and uh so um you got tattled on from what I I can I can best discern.

Um so if we get to to Mr.

Riley's point, it's a very good point.

If we give you this variance to be able to do all this stuff, and you're still parking on the sidewalk, you're gonna get sighted.

And you're also gonna have somebody who's looking at it, you know, and and uh uh who's gonna be um you know calling the police and saying he's on a sidewalk again.

Uh yeah, I am prepared for that.

And I you know if this is a significant amount of work that I'm gonna have to bear the cost of end.

So I will be expecting scrutiny.

And you'll be ready for it.

I'll be ready.

Okay.

That's good.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I had uh I had uh cobbled together a condition that that would further reinforce if in fact it was the pleasure of the board to do something with his variance request that the condition would be in granting the variance, we are not granting any relief to park any part of the vehicle on a public sidewalk.

Right.

That would be that would be an additional part of uh in granting the variance that that would be made part and permanent because once you get a variance, you want to stand it it's uh it's forever.

You pass it to the next owner and so forth and so on.

That makes sense, Nick.

Absolutely make make it make it uh you know completely uh transparent to everybody that that's what it is.

I mean, it's probably understood to be the case anyway, right?

But I would say um maybe one additional uh condition, which is just to obtain the physical alteration permit from the engineering department that is required to conduct these changes to the property into the sidewalk.

Uh i.e.

the curb cut, basically.

Correct.

Okay.

What kind of permit is that?

It's called a physical alteration permit.

Essentially, the Mr.

Hallowell will have to work with the engineering department to properly engineer the sidewalk areas where the driveway is being created on the south side of the property.

Um the issue ends up being that a normal sidewalk is not engineered to hold the weight of a car going over it repeatedly.

So when a curb cut is put in, the area underneath the sidewalk is reinforced so that it can take the weight of a vehicle going over it every day.

That's what you know will need to happen.

Both it'll be probably a driveway curb cut application and a physical alteration permit.

You could say condition that they obtain the proper permits through the engineering department.

I think that sounds better.

Proper engineering permits through proper chair.

Um Nick, um is it legal to drive over a sidewalk under any condition?

No.

So how can we grant uh relief?

Essentially it would be illegal, right?

Well, no, because what the proposal is right now is to add another driveway and curb cut, so every pretty much every driveway, at least every way that's on a property that has a sidewalk has to have a curb cut with a driveway apron that allows a car to go over the portion of the sidewalk that is in front of the driveway.

Okay, that section is reinforced using engineering standards.

So the proposal here um, because of the comments you had made at the last meeting were to create a new driveway so that he can both enter the property going forward and exit the property going forward, um, as opposed to right now the condition lens to him having to drive off of a curb of a sidewalk that is not intended to be used as such.

So you you would be allowing the second driveway, which is what one of the variances is asking for.

Um and normally we require 35 feet between driveways, but the conversation that was had at the last meeting is that there's no parking on this side of the street.

The 35 feet we in put into the code was intended to allow the retention of an on-street parking space between the two driveways, but that's not necessary on this side of the street because there is no parking on this side of the street.

So that's why from that standpoint, we're in favor of the less than 35 feet separation between the two driveways, and this would allow him to exit the property on a proper driveway going forward.

Okay.

Got it.

Nick, does the parking ordinance address or consider um parking parallel to the front of your building or parallel?

There's nothing in the code that says that a space must be you know perpendicular to the street.

Um we've actually you have granted a previous um uh six-inch variants on a parallel parking space like this.

Um I think the the real issue had been called out was both that the tire was overhanging onto the sidewalk and that he was exiting the property over a curb as opposed to over a driveway uh in a curb cut that's properly done.

So there's nothing that says a space must be you know in a driveway that goes parallel to the house and perpendicular to the street.

So there he's allowed to propose this.

It's just that the dimensions don't technically meet the nine by eighteen requirement.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Hearing nothing, let's have a motion.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

Um the petition of uh Senu Hollow.

Um I move to adopt the board's finding of facts, the information staff reports, clickable supporting documents, the testimony of witnesses, together with the comments 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 new board zoning office ordinance entitled Variances and modifications.

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

The following additional conditions will be added.

Uh one in granting this variance.

Uh we are not granting any relief to park any part of a vehicle on a public sidewalk.

Number one, and number two, that uh the petition obtained proper engineering permits um from the city of Newport to execute these variances.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Chevry.

Um I don't know.

Why don't we start down with you again?

I will be voting to approve this variance.

I think you listened to our feedback uh the last time you were here.

Um I appreciate you going to the engineering department and you came back with a parking survey about how this would work objectively.

Um and I think you have met the burden of proof here for approval um to show that it's not going to be injured to the neighborhood.

And um I appreciate that you are getting one car off the street.

Um I am satisfied that you'll be parking in this spot and not um going over the sidewalk because as we've already noted, um there will be enforcement and eyes on that.

Um and so just um I'll be voting to approve this.

Great.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Riley.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Um as far as a hardship goes, this is a uh this is a small lot preventing adding any more off-street parking.

Um it is a two-family, so we have um multiple cars to get off uh a very very narrow one-way street.

Um so I think you've met the hardship uh bar.

I don't believe this hardship uh was a result uh uh of uh prior actions of you.

Uh uh you testified that this uh this parking space could have been there for over 50 years.

Um uh the variance has requested will not alter, I don't believe the character of the neighborhood.

Uh the requested variance meets the length requirements uh uh and is uh uh uh slightly short of the width requirements, but you've testified that you'd be able to park a vehicle there, uh, get it completely off uh off the sidewalk and uh and use that spot in a legal way.

Um I believe that the relief sought is minimal for reasonable enjoyment of a permitted use and also complies with the comprehensive plan to sort of take care of getting vehicles off uh crowded streets.

Uh so I'll be supporting the petition.

Great.

Thank you, Dave.

Rush.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I will echo the comments of my uh fellow uh board members regarding this petition, except for the last one that Mr.

Riley just made.

Um my feeling is that uh this will have a uh it will affect and I think negatively affect the general characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and area.

And I I think that I just feel overall in general, I I don't feel like this is a good look for uh for the city.

Uh and while it is allowed, um or not prevented.

Um I just feel uh in this particular case um that it is it is going to be uh a negative on the on the neighborhood.

Uh I appreciate all you did.

You listened to what we asked you to do, and you and you did the survey, you did all that work.

Um this is uh and I appreciate you doing that.

And uh I know it's an expense in time in that, but um my my feeling is is not changed by that.

I I again I'm I'm uh I'm not satisfied that this is the minimal uh amount required or that this is not gonna have an uh an impact on the on the neighborhood, the community.

So I'm gonna uh vote to deny this uh this request.

Okay.

Go ahead, wait.

Okay.

Um so uh appreciate all the comments by our by my fellow board members.

Uh I'm gonna vote to uh uh in favor of this uh petition.

Um mostly because uh you were here a couple of months ago.

Um you listened to our our um uh constructive criticisms and you went and you did what we asked you to do.

So um for those reasons, just apart from everything else, I think that's uh you know, you did what we asked you to do.

So I feel like we owe you something for that.

Not everything.

Um, but uh I think that um given uh the constraints of that neighborhood and particularly that street in terms of parking, the idea that you're gonna be taking a car off the roadway and and and it's gonna be on your property, and it's gonna be on your property at your um at your risk, if you will, in the sense that you know you're gonna need to park it legally because we have those two conditions in there, as you know, and you're gonna have at least one neighbor who is gonna be you know watching you on this and waiting for you to you know have your wheels on the on the sidewalk.

Um but for those reasons and also I I think it does meet all of my findings of fact.

I I don't think it's injurious to the neighborhood.

I don't think it's not harm, I think it's harmonious with the neighborhood in that we're also gonna be here in another one.

So I think there are other cars that are gonna be doing this in that neighborhood.

It's a narrow street.

Um, and you know they're very the properties are just uh you know really, really closely uh put together.

So parking is at a premium there, which is why you're trying to do that in the first place.

So it meets my findings of fact, and because you did listen to us, and at your own expense, you went and put the curb cuts in, and you're gonna go put the other one in for another two feet on the other side of the property.

For all those reasons, I'm gonna vote to approve this petition.

So thank you.

Um I'm gonna take a little different approach here.

I'm going to vote to approve this reluctantly.

But I am going to prove it, and I'll tell you why I'm reluctant.

Um, I think you've you've you've demonstrated uh a good faith effort to listen to us.

Um I uh like Mr.

Johnson said, you know, I don't like the look.

I don't, you know, and in the density, there's an awful lot going on there.

However, the living on Tyler Street is a hardship.

I can tell because I try to drive and look at the property.

I can't park anywhere near the place.

I get to go to the I have to go to the hospital.

Um so parking is is a huge um uh hardship that you really can't remedy, and I think you're you're making a good effort to do what you can to remedy it.

But getting back to the look, I I don't like cars off sidewalks, uh, you know, but I don't know what else you can do uh on that property.

Um the other thing is you've got a multifamily here.

You and and there's no off-street parking.

So um and and you know, the character.

I was thinking about the character.

You know, I heard someone say, oh, it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and I heard others say, no, that's out of it's both.

It's it's both.

Um and uh but I guess it can be both.

It it the um I think I think it it'll affect the character in some ways negatively and in other ways it's kind of deals with it's kind of like what the density.

Braunge so okay we're gonna poll everybody uh on this if we can um starting with you Ms.

Sherry how do you vote on this petition Ms.

Chevry I Mr.

Riley Mr.

Riley I Mr Johnson nay Mr.

Rudd is I Mr.

Grimes and aye.

So that's four to one in your favor Mr.

Hollowell your motion passes uh but please bear in mind that um people are going to be watching right so you know and there are things you're gonna need to pay attention to but good luck to you thank you appreciate it okay uh okay good we're moving on to equity investment group is that right that's correct this is the petition of equity investment group LLC applicant and owner 32 Bayside Avenue tax assessors plat nine lot two nine nine and an R 10 zone for dimensional variances to construct a rear addition expansion of a rear deck with a pergola structure over the north side of the deck located one foot from the north side property line where 5.76 feet is required and construction of a 393 square foot second floor roof deck 100 square feet allowed increasing the lock coverage from 29.8% to 36.9 percent where 28.48% is allowed okay very good and Mr.

Jackson once again good evening Mr.

Chairman member for the board J.

Russell Jackson Miller Scott Holbrook and Jackson on behalf of the applicant like me to get started or you're going to canvas the uh yeah I there are objectors here so um I know that we had uh thank you for that I know that we had a number of letters of support and also a number of letters of objection to this petition um who who is here I know that um who's here in objection to this uh petition okay and uh Mr.

Hogan you wrote a letter and you've wrote written a couple of letters as well is that correct and you're here to testify in person we will we will give you that opportunity of course uh is there anybody else here in objection to this petition is there anybody here in support of this petition okay we have one person here in support of the petition I'll leave that up to you Mr.

Jackson uh what you want to do um but good so now that we have the parameters set here of course we're going to take into account all the letters that we received um but uh with with special emphasis on people who took the time to show up uh to show both their support and their objections okay all right thank you mr chairman uh I'll give a brief overview and then we'll get started with the witnesses um the witnesses that will be testifying this evening are uh the applicant Richard Berlinski who is the principal of equity investment LLC uh the uh designer uh who'll speak to the plans that have been proposed uh David uh Rick Nancy and our real estate expert Mr.

James Hole um so again just briefly I'll give an overview uh and discuss some recent changes that have been proposed in relation to the plan so um as you know from the application this property is a non-conforming lot of record containing five thousand seven hundred and sixty one square feet of land it's also unique um in that it has two frontages if you will uh the front door faces Bayside Avenue and what really is the backyard of this property which looks out over the bay um actually fronts uh the north extension of Washington Street this is a a unique little neighborhood it's a collection of homes that are on the north side of the bridge um it's not in the historic district it's arguably disconnected from the point neighborhood and it's sort of uh a little isolated pocket of residential properties in between the bridge ramp and uh the navy hospital property um so what exists there now is uh a relatively small uh capecod style residence and what's being proposed is again what we believe to be a modest addition on the rear of this uh of the first floor and the intent is to expand the first floor enough so that there can be um a modification of the existing kitchen uh to give some additional living space and flow to the first floor by expanding the first floor of the residence to the west uh we're also proposing that we push the existing ground level deck to the west as well um so the combination of

Um what exists there now is uh a relatively small uh Cape Cod style residence, and what's being proposed is again what we believe to be a modest addition on the rear of this uh of the first floor, and the intent is to expand the first floor enough so that there can be um a modification of the existing kitchen uh to give some additional living space and flow to the first floor by expanding the first floor of the residence to the west.

Uh, we're also proposing that we push the existing ground level deck to the west as well.

Um so the combination of the addition and the um deck results in an expansion of the overall footprint, increasing lock coverage as indicated.

Um in the description of the project, which brings lock coverage up to 36.9 percent.

The existing deck is one foot from the north property line.

And after these modifications are completed, the proposed distance of the new ground level deck will be still be one foot from the north property line, which although it encroaches into the existing setback, it does not intensify any encroachment, and is in fact when you look at neighborhood and the survey that was provided as part of this application, you can see that it's consistent with this area given uh the houses are are really densely developed in this sort of pocket.

There's very little setback between all the residences.

Uh, as far as the other element of this project, the applicant originally proposed to construct uh uh a second floor deck above the new addition and stretch it out to the west, um an additional length, which would have resulted in the square footage as originally proposed at 396 square feet after seeing the objections from a few of his neighbors after sort of reviewing this and getting some feedback, Mr.

Armour.

Um the applicant went back to the drawing board with his designer, and the size of the deck has been reduced substantially, and now what's being proposed is a deck which is 231 square feet, which does spill over a little bit beyond the proposed first floor addition, but again, it primarily sits on top of the new first floor addition, um, with a little uh with an additional four feet, which extends to the west.

And so you'll hear testimony from Mr.

Belinsky as to uh why that is proposed.

Um he'll discuss uh obviously nature of the neighborhood, some of some of the characteristics of the surrounding properties.

The designer will go through um you know the dimensions of everything that's being proposed, and um Mr.

Who will discuss the application as well and offer his testimony that in his opinion, as uh real estate expert recognized by this board, the application, especially as amended meets all the elements for the granting of the dimensional variances being requested.

That's a brief sort of overview of the project itself.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

If none, we can get started with Mr.

Balinski.

Questions from the board?

Mr.

Axel.

Hearing none?

Thanks, Mr.

Yes, sir.

Please raise your right hand.

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

Please state your name for the record.

Richard Berlinski.

Very good.

So Mr.

Balinski, just um if you could confirm you are principal and a member of Equity Investment LLC, is that right?

That's correct.

All right, and that's the owner of this property, correct?

That's correct.

So, how long has uh equity investment owned this property?

Uh just shy of 10 years.

Okay.

And uh use the property since the time required.

So when I first acquired, I always I bought the property, I kind of stumbled upon it and fell in love with it immediately and decided that's where I want to retire.

But I was raising my family over North Kingston, so it took a while to get over here.

So I primarily rented it to Naval officers for three to four months a year.

Then it sat mostly vacant.

Uh, about four, maybe five years ago, I started using it off and on on the weekends and then moved in permanently two years ago.

Okay.

So, what is the plan for the property now?

What's the reason behind these proposed modifications?

So when I I wanted to live in it for a while before I uh designed the plan, I'm in construction.

I'm a firm believer you should get to know a property before you before you start switching things around.

I'm glad I did because there are a lot of functional problems with the home, uh, mainly the kitchen.

Uh it's basically a galley kitchen with all the cabinets on the water side of the house.

So it kind of defeats the purpose of why I bought it.

Um the sun blears into the backyard all day long.

So you basically need sunglasses to stand in the kitchen itself.

There are no closets on the entire first floor, so you can't hang a coat up or put your shoes away when you walk in.

And the center beam of the house chops it up into little rooms with kind of mouse hut entryways that go nowhere.

So we're taking the center beam out to open the floor plan up.

Okay, and I mean all these things are being done because after spending some time in it on weekends that just as you testified, now you're ready to make renovations and move in here, and this would be your primary residence.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

So it essentially already is your primary residence, right?

It has been for two years.

Um, why don't you describe sort of some of the characters that you talked about the first floor?

Why don't you describe some of the other characteristics of your property and talk about the ceramic area?

So the the bump out on the left is basically a sunroom coffee room, then the kitchen is pushed way back.

The right part of the house, there's a bathroom on the deck side, which is very uncomfortable, and you're entertaining guests.

It's just and the best view in the house is the worst room in the house.

So we want to move that around, make it more functional, pull that levet on the deck side to the front of the den and make it a full bath so that we could age in place who wants to still have the rooms on the second floor.

Um so that room on the right was uh uh converted garage that doesn't really have any insulation or it's got carpet on concrete.

So that's how it's gonna be changed.

And and describe the parcel itself, if you will.

So our block has four properties on it.

The house to the left is a multi-family, the house, the back right on the water side is a multi-family.

I'm a single family in the middle, and the house to the right of me is being used as a single family now, but used to be a B.

So I'm the only true single family property on the street, and I'm engulfed by these massive houses.

I mean, if you looked at the aerial photography, you can see it right here.

They just dwarf my property.

And so, and so what were the uh some of the issues that you were dealing with and and how you had to overcome those when you came up with this design plan to push out the west a little bit.

Well, that makes the most sense because I've got the I'm the only property on the neighborhood that has a backyard to expand into.

I wasn't gonna, I can't go out to the sides, I can't go forward, so that's the only place I could go out.

The addition we're proposing is extremely modest.

If you look at the sunroom on the left back part, we're just extending out four feet over and crossing it over.

So it's it's like 200 square feet, so living airway gaining, it's not a whole lot.

Okay, and the uh the idea is it's been important to you to maintain this structure, right?

And the street seemingly creates like the cake.

Yeah.

Well, when I first walked into it, I just fell on.

I'm in construction, I love architecture.

It's just a real cool house.

And I found out after about a year living in it that it was built by the Manuel brothers for moving company.

They collected um remnants from the mansions and put this house together.

So it's got you know some cool history to it that I wanted to preserve.

But I mean, the reality is I could knock this house down by rights.

I could center it in the middle of the lot, conform better to zoning, block everybody's view.

I could have two cars below, off-street parking, and everything I want in a house, but I rather preserve what I've got because I think it's important and it's cool.

All right, and that's a big part of what resulted in you coming up with this renovation plan versus uh demolition and coming up with deconstruction plans, correct?

Correct.

Why don't you?

I mean, you gave a little bit of information about a butters that are directly around you, but why don't you could just drive an overall neighborhood that is in it's mostly multi-family.

Um, it's bordered by the bridge to our left and uh War College to the right, so it's pretty pretty isolated.

Um mostly larger homes, and I think I'm the smallest on the entire block.

That definitely are four houses.

And did you uh in coming up with the design discussed with your designer um something that you believe fit within the context of the river?

I did.

I drove them crazy for two years.

And did you discuss this plan with neighbors?

I did with uh two of the three.

Okay, and then I approached the third, but that didn't go far.

So the uh the trans or the back right on the water side, and the beans on the left side of the water side.

Okay, so the the two neighbors to the north and to the south on the water side are the ones that you discuss this plan with primarily what was their response to your plans.

They both won't let us uh in favor of ones here to speak for it as well, all right.

And the area where you're proposing the first floor addition and the pushing out of your first floor deck and the second floor deck, that new construction, that new lifting space would impact primarily the neighbors to the north and south, correct?

So then so they can see it, right?

Correct.

They can see it from the side of their buildings, right?

Right, and and they're supportive of the plan.

Correct.

Um so quickly, um why don't you discuss the north property line of this property?

In other words, your existing garage, which has was converted at some point to pass the living space, that's right on the property, right?

Correct.

And the existing brown level deck is only one foot away from the property line, right?

That's correct.

So your proposal to sort of push the deck to the west is going to maintain that same relationship with the north boundary, it's gonna be one foot away.

Right, won't change at all.

Okay.

You've got you're gonna put a curl over a portion of the deck, right?

Correct.

But again, that doesn't that is only one level, it's no taller than your existing garage.

True.

Okay, given given it's adjacent to the back of the converted garage, from your perspective, it doesn't obstruct anybody's uh air, light, view, anything like that, the purple itself.

My neighbors, yeah, the north.

It physically can't, and there are the hedges that are going to be higher than that, and it's on the first floor level, so it's physically impossible.

So along that same along the same lines, the portion of uh the addition along the back of your house again, it's primarily to center into the south, right?

That's correct, it's gonna be one level, right?

And that addition is going to have a flag room, and then you're proposing now a 231 square foot deck above that, right?

That's correct.

Okay, what is the visual relationship in terms of that deck versus some of your neighbors?

It's yeah, if you looked at the neighborhood of uh the photographs provided, I think it conforms nicely within the neighborhood.

It's will be the second smallest deck, I believe, out of my four.

Okay, so when I talk about visualizes, it's the second level deck itself has no mass, right?

No, so it's only gonna be a little bit higher than the flat room from your first level addition, correct?

Right.

So visually, is there anything that can be obstructing airlight views any of your neighbors from the UK's that second floor there?

No, in fact, we had um strong photography that shot laser beam directors, and it's it that shows that's not not happening.

Okay, and in terms of consistency with the neighborhood that's around you, there were a number of photographs that were provided in the application itself and through Mr.

Poole's report, which illustrated uh the decks that exist on the properties around you that right?

Correct.

While Nick's pulling those up, why don't you just describe what you're seeing um in terms of the properties close to you in terms of decks?

So the house directly to the left of me um on the south side has two decks stacked on top of each other, both oversized.

The house to the right of me on the water size has two oversized decks stacked.

The one house behind me has one third floor size.

Okay, so why don't we um Nick, if you don't mind one, just roll through a few of them and I'll let Richard describe.

So that photograph um photograph of one that was up a second ago.

Why don't you describe the perspective?

So this is if you see the two boxes on the left and right of the back of my house.

We're basically coming out four feet and connecting those two.

That's where the kitchen is gonna bump out.

And then the house behind me is my the butting house on the right of my street.

So in the up on the upper portion of this photograph, the white house is Mr.

Holy's house, correct?

Correct.

And the front right in front of it is the back part of the trans house, the top of the garage.

Right.

That flat roof is their garage.

Correct.

And those roof lines actually overlap if you walk by it.

They I've never seen anything like it.

They crisscross.

So there's like no side.

Correct.

All right, what's this perspective?

That is coming over the house from the north.

So you're coming over the trans uh garage, looking straight at my house in the middle.

Okay.

And again, the flat room is what's the name of the owner?

Tran.

Okay.

And again, they're supportive of this application.

Yes, they are.

And then to the left in this sort of graph is the Hogan's presence, right?

Right.

That's the house with the third floor deck to the left of the garage.

This is a similar perspective.

Yes.

So this perspective would be from the east looking to the west towards water, correct?

Break.

So this this addition, the first floor addition and the second level deck, and the first level deck, the that will all be essentially directly behind these construction, correct?

Entirely.

So from your perspective, or the perspective of being on base and looking to the west, you won't be able to see any of this new construction there, right?

That's correct.

All right, here's a similar look with a more bird's eye view.

All right, and here's a little bit of a perspective of the decks you were talking about, right?

So in other words, the properties on either side of you had substantial decks on the west side of your residences, correct?

That's correct.

Made sense because that's open view to the band, right?

Correct.

All right, so um again, based on some objections that were filed, and some feedback you got from the zombie opposite, right?

Yes.

We can reduce the size of the second floor back, correct?

Yes.

Part of the modifications from the original plan is you can fold it in from the north side.

Yes.

Correct.

You've also hold it back from the west side.

Hold it back from the west side.

Correct.

And change with the change of the change of this plan, is it your uh belief that now what you're asking for here is uh the minimum belief for the reasonable use of this property.

I do, and if I can explain one of the reasons why we went for the big ask originally, is the whole flat area is gonna be a flat roof above the addition.

So that's gonna be there no matter what.

So it's gonna be rubber roofing, which requires a lot of maintenance.

Um I'm gonna have to uh power brush it to keep the vegetation off it.

You get ice dams, leaks, so the more area I could cover with a hard surface, the better off would be construction-wise.

I'm also gonna have to walk if you allow 10 feet or 30 feet off the house, whatever the board deems uh appropriate.

I'm gonna still have to walk out on the flat rubber roof to maintain it.

The sun's gonna be beating down on it all summer.

It's just not a great scenario.

So I wanted to cover it as much as possible with a hard surface for those reasons.

So let me just fall up on one other thing too.

Again, this is your primary residence, single family property, correct?

Correct.

And the addition and the second floor deck, it's not that's not changing the usage property, correct?

Correct.

So this application doesn't create a use which generates more parking, does it?

It doesn't.

And it's not generating any additional noise than would otherwise occur with single family residence, right?

This is gonna be used 99.9% of the time with me and my living girlfriend of 10 years.

Um my part it is long behind me.

This is for us to go out in a glass of wine and maybe all the cigar out there.

That's a so it's it's you from your perspective.

This plan is only use for the neighborhood, is that third setting?

I I think it improves the neighborhood, but from what's existing there now, yes.

And you've done everything you can to make sure that you're mitigating your any impacts to any of the that's correct.

I have another question, Mr.

Yaron.

Sure.

Um questions from the board uh from Mr.

Belinsky.

Yeah, Nick, could you throw that picture up?

The one you had up just before this, chose the bat.

So I I just want to uh I just want to be sure I understand what uh what your proposal is.

I'm just gonna point out this picture.

You're basically saying you're extending this out and this out four feet, and then just bringing it together.

You have correct the what with the part of the top with the flat rubber roof, yeah.

Yeah, so I'm going from that from that wall over for come out four feet from that wall.

This way, and then yes, then square it off, and then come straight across like that for the addition or for the deck?

The addition.

No, um if you come, you throw there's another as uh an architectural drawing of the house.

I think the back one, the not last one you just passed.

Yeah, so the addition is coming out.

You can see the pergola on the top left where the pergolus stops to the right.

Keep going, yeah, the right there.

That starts the addition.

Right.

The parts of the left is existing and remaining the same.

Yeah, so Mr.

John, there's no addition being proposed in the back side of that garage structure.

The admin starts directly behind the house.

Right, so it'll just be an open per with open space below it, basically.

Correct.

On that garage part.

Behind the garage.

I got you.

I originally wanted a um deck above that because that's one of our main living spaces, but in order to keep keep it as small as I could and appease the neighbors.

I went for a further, which allows some shade, but at least gives us something.

So the perglars on the first floor, uh Richard.

Okay.

Um so and you testified that the pergola wouldn't rise above the hedges on the property line.

That's correct.

So it's it would be in your opinion, unobtrusive.

Yeah.

That's correct.

Okay.

Questions for Mr.

Belinsky?

Other questions?

Actually, my question's for Mr.

Jackson.

Uh, I just want to go back to the lot coverage matter.

Um I I believe you said the his existing lot coverage was about 29%.

And then I think his proposed is 36.9.

And do I get that right?

Correct.

This thing is 29.8 and proposed 36.9.

Okay.

And and and and what is allowable by ordinance?

28.5.

28.5.

Okay.

Let me ask uh this other question.

Um significant lot coverage increase by about nine percent.

Um is there anywhere you can carve off some space?

I mean, uh on this project.

Um, I know a great deal of the issues are related to the deck on the second floor, but is there any other anything we can do in the footprint?

Again, you're asking for almost 37% uh lot on the lot coverage, which you only allow 28, 28 and a half.

Is there anything else uh in this project that could be carved back?

I can speak to Mr.

Belinsky.

Um maybe keeping it moving.

We we if you have any other questions, we'll answer them and we can bring up the designer while he's testifying in chat.

Okay, that's a good idea.

Yeah, I'll do that.

So um before you go, I have quick quick question or point to make.

Um it I was a little confused, but I think I've got it ultimately.

Um so the entrance to the deck on the second floor, uh, that's coming down a central hallway, or it's not coming off the master bedroom.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

I generally speaking, I'd be more comfortable if it was coming off the master bedroom, but yeah.

Uh that it just it physically wouldn't work because that's farther over to the right side than left side of the house.

So it wouldn't line up with the dish.

It would be over like by the garage.

Okay.

And that would require another variance because I'd be closing the lot line over there.

Okay.

And to be clear, the second floor is all bedroom, right?

Again, this could be an architect question or discussion, but I I think to follow up on Mr.

Grimes's uh question on the north side where that first floor deck is mirroring the building.

Is there any way of stepping that in so you're not asking for that relief at one foot relief, but maybe get it back to whatever that side five point six point seven six feet is required.

Um can bring that back.

It it doesn't seem like that whole first floor is all deck.

So it it doesn't seem like uh you could you could move that in a little bit, shrink your pergolar a little bit.

Uh you wouldn't have to move the door necessarily, the slider or a French door, but um we'd ask uh I would ask, you know, following up on Mr.

Grimes's point, that would help with some uh percentage of reduction of lot coverage and also move you off that one foot line.

Uh and because of the use of that deck, uh you're it's effectively all one level, and uh uh I'd ask you to consider that.

I don't know what the pleasure of the board is.

I mean, with a couple of requests can take us a few minutes to sort of talk through that.

I don't know if you had another break scheduled for a few minutes, or I don't know if you want to uh we we well we can do that.

I mean, we're generally take one break.

It's um it's about 8 15 right now.

Usually this is when our break is is around eight o'clock.

Um but uh you're gonna want to hear testimony of the other people you have, obviously.

So you can't be talking with Mr.

Belinski and then listening to test.

The purpose of my request.

Yeah, okay.

So why don't we take a what five, ten minutes?

Okay, so why don't we take another five minute break?

And um I uh Nick, are we gonna get to everybody tonight?

What do you think?

I don't know at this point.

I don't know about the last one that we have.

I don't want to keep them here if we're not gonna get to it.

So yeah, we'll be back in five minutes.

Okay, thanks.

So Alm got Almogetition of Matthew Feeney.

You think we're gonna get to that?

Yeah.

I just don't want to keep you, Mr.

Feeney, if we're not gonna get to it.

I don't know, I don't see why you need something.

But the second floor deck does not constitute any lot coverage because it's over the first floor.

So um the only real issue with the second floor deck in my mind was whether or not it blocked anybody's view, which I don't think it will.

Um the hardship is not a result of any prior action, the lot size, the existing house have nothing to do with any prior action.

The granting of the various requests are not altered the general character neighborhood.

Now I truly do not believe that it will be impacting the the neighborhood when you when you realize that all uh the additions are being centered in the back of the house, any of the houses that would be to the east from Bayside Avenue to the end, are not going to be even seeing any of this addition.

No impact at all that I can find from any other part of the neighborhood.

And as I said, the orientation of the houses to the north and the south is beyond this house to the water.

Um, and when you look at some of the photographs, you realize as Mr.

Belinski already testified, the house to the north has a third floor deck uh and has multi-level deck uh on the west side, and the house to the south has a multi-level deck that is right on the water side.

Um, and Mr.

Hogan's house has a third floor deck that looks out um that is I believe larger than a hundred square feet.

Um I then looked at the lot coverage.

If you go to page 12, um the lot coverage, I looked at all the lot coverages for the neighborhood, and the three the five properties, the three closest properties actually have 46%, 45 and a half percent, and 72.7% lot cover.

If you take in all five that surround um the two that are on Bayside Avenue have 33 and 30.

And the ones in the back are all over lot coverage with a minimum being 25.

So if you take the five properties, the closest of the subject, the app lie average lot coverage is 45 and a half percent.

Um if you look at all eight properties, it's 38.4 percent.

So you have um the subject request was 36.9, it was already lower than the neighborhood average, but with the reduction, it's now going to be close to some of the the really right in the mid-range of the of the of the houses that are in that neighborhood in the media.

So um I looked at it as though it's very much in harmony and come you know, uh conformity with the neighborhood.

Then looked at the granting the dimensional variance where there would be more than a mere inconvenience, considering all the characteristics of the neighborhood, considering the fact that it really is not going to be all that high or all that far away from the house, and and considering the fact that it will cure some of the functional issues with the house.

Um, I think that it really would be more than a mere inconvenience if it was denied.

And there it goes.

So again, just to conclude, as far as the dimensional requests here, um you believe in terms of the request for a variance in relation to lock coverage.

Now uh the applicant's seeking 33.8 percent, the application meets all the standards that even the application amended and lot coverage reduced you're testimony that needs all the standards for the range of the bearing.

So yeah, I mean I think it it matched for the reduction, but with the reduction enhances.

And the same with the north side setback previously it was going to be one feet, now it's going to be four feet or five week feeding fire.

The same reason you believe that request meets all the requirements.

Is that fair to say?

Yes, again, the one foot is behind the garage of the property to the north, so I didn't see it as having substantial impact, but clearly bringing it in again makes it enhances it.

Questions from Mr.

Wool from the board?

Uh yeah, Matt Chim.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Mr.

Who on the Progola, um, there was testimony given earlier by Mr.

Belinsky that the pergolar is really uh gonna be hidden by uh the current garage as well as uh as well as uh vegetation and so forth.

So it's not it's not going to be seen by neighbors.

No, that's correct.

The the I think it's really important to keep in mind that this area where the addition is going to be all the way across, is really directly behind the garage, but there is there are plantings also that are high, and they're gonna buffer it further.

And um if a pergler is not on a deck, but it just on land, just on your land is not it does that count that doesn't even count for uh uh I I want Nick's opinion on that.

Yeah, we have specifically in the code that open air percolates are not lot coverage, but they do count for accessory structure setbacks or or because it's connected to the house would be the main structure setbacks, okay, but not lot coverage.

So the only thing really affecting the side setback is the deck itself, really.

Well, again, and the pergolus structure because it's still a structure because it's connected to the house, it would take on the setback requirement of the main house, which is five point six.

Yeah, and there's some posts that are involved with that.

That's what you're alluding to, I think.

But but not lock coverage if it was a standalone part of it.

Correct.

Thank you.

That's all.

Other questions for Mr.

Who?

Anybody?

Uh yeah.

Um Mr.

Who, I can't put my fingers on it right now, but I I read a lot of um feedback from our butters.

And one issue that I wrote here that was a common theme was uh obstructing views.

Now we talked about the deck and and all that business, but are there any other views we're talking about that uh and I'm sure Mr.

Hogan might talk about it, but uh from your perspective, uh are you uh certain of uh know of any other obstructions of views from neighbors?

No, they they really I mean look, the Navy hospital is to the north, so you know um that in and onto itself, you have the highway on the other side going to the south.

The the only real view corridor that has any desirability or marketability or or you know, any particular reason for being is directly to the west.

Okay.

Right.

Exactly.

Mr.

Hogan's house, because he has a third floor deck, has a wide scope view, and that's why I was really interested to see how far out the house to the south came, because that already is higher higher than this deck will be and so that blocks that cuts that angle of that, it cuts the angle from that third floor deck, yeah.

Yeah, to the south.

Yeah, okay.

When he's finished well, that's it.

So that's why I that's why I was really interested in this sight line, because you can see, and that line is drawn from the second floor.

It's not drawn from the third floor.

You can see that the the third floor will be impacted a little bit by the roof from the south of the house from the south, but it's not gonna there's nothing in the request, everything in the request is basically under that line.

All right, or at that line.

So you're not gonna you you're not blocking views even from the second floor windows as first.

Yeah, you I can tell.

Yeah, you showed that earlier, and I'm I'm with you on that now.

Okay, I got it.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, I can't think of any other view that would be important.

Other questions, I have a couple of things.

Yeah, um, so how big are the decks on the other houses there in that picture?

I don't they're multiple levels, aren't they?

Number one.

They first of all, yeah.

I mean, you can see that they're multiple levels.

Um on the lower end of things, they look like they're huge.

I mean, my I mean, they are they're they're very large.

I didn't I didn't think to measure them only because this is smaller.

I mean, I believe that this is going to be smaller and less impactful than any of the decks that already exist.

But the only people that are gonna really see them are voters.

So you know, I didn't see it as um, I mean, it's pretty obvious when you look that these are massive decks, and the deck coming out will only be a couple of hundred feet.

Um, I don't know how wide I can look it up quickly, but I you know well, no, there were some pictures in the uh in the material that we got, and um I think on one of them, I think there's like a triple there, like three decks on one.

Yeah.

Um that are looking out there.

I'm naturally that actually is 108 second street.

Right.

Okay, that's not in our right.

That's no, that's not in the um, I was talking about the other ones.

They kind of come out, their lower ones are out, second floor is a little further in, then there's someone that has the third floor on there.

Those two right there on the yeah, then the houses to the north, the blue houses to the south, and the the other houses to the north.

And you can see they have, yeah, I mean, particularly in that angle.

But again, they're further west, so that they uh they would be more unobtrusive to the houses that are further on the eastern side of of that of that uh contiguous property.

Well, it yeah, but the the point that I was trying to make earlier is that any house to the east won't see these seditions because they'll only be seen from the west.

No, no, and you showed that slide.

I I got it.

It's in my head with the view line.

I I I understood that uh very well.

Um, I'm just trying to figure that out as well.

So they would probably be a little less obtrusive being further west, but that's okay.

They're huge.

The decks are huge.

The other question I have.

Um there's ambient noise there, isn't there?

From the bridge.

Isn't it?

Oh my god, yeah.

Isn't there white?

Isn't there a white noise that comes from the bridge?

Yeah, it's that's like constant.

I mean, I actually appraise the house to the right, um, which is the house to the south years ago.

And I was amazed at not only, I mean, they get a lot of dust too, but they get a lot of ambient noise.

And there's a din with it, and there's also now with the uh the expansion joints, you hear that noise too.

Trucks and cars coming over those expansion joints, and so like a blah-bump.

You can when I was when I was down viewing the property, you could hear, I mean, and it was in the middle of the day, and uh on a you know, wasn't even midsummer at the time.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Thanks.

That's all we have for our presentation.

So you want to bring up the uh neighbor that was in favor of the uh project.

I figured I figured whenever whenever you're bringing up members of the public, that neighbor would come up and testify.

I wasn't gonna directly examine the neighbor.

Oh, okay.

Oh, fair enough.

Fair enough.

That's fine.

We'll get to you, sir.

Uh, I'm gonna let uh I'm gonna let the objectives go first uh in terms of the neighbors.

Um and that's the end of your testimony.

And we have no representation, is that correct?

Hogan's you're you're representing yourself.

You don't have a lawyer that's representing it.

Okay, so uh so who are the objectives?

Is yep, I got you.

Um, anybody else?

Just you two, right, are here right now.

I know there are other letters that we received.

So come on up.

We're gonna we're gonna swear you in, uh Bill.

You don't mind.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Please state your name for the record.

William J.

Hogan.

Thank you.

Okay, so you wanted to give us some testimony to uh uh to add to the letters that you sent and embellish that.

Please tell us what you wanted.

Well, my name is William Hogan and my wife Barbara Hogan.

Uh we reside at 34 Bayside Avenue, a single family house in an R10 zone located on the northern boundary of the point neighborhood.

We've owned our home since 2013 and are full-time residents of Newport.

Our property directly abuts 32 Bayside Avenue on the north side, making us immediate butters to the uh proposed application for variance.

But before I address the variance request itself, I wanted to point out in the statement that was included in the application.

The application stated that quote that the applicant has spoken to is immediate abutters.

That's not correct.

We are immediate butters, and the applicant never spoke to us prior to submitting the application for variances.

When we read the statement, it implied that at a result as a result of a discussion that there was no objections.

We do object to this application.

As to the uh objections itself, well, the applicant has recently reduced the proposed deck from 393 square feet to 231 square feet.

The revised design still significantly exceeds the city's 100 square foot limit by 130 square feet, more than twice the minimum size permitted.

This reduction does not eliminate the very impacts to our property.

The ordinance was enacted to prevent.

But five of those were from residents, all outside 200 foot radius.

And they won't be impacted whatsoever.

So I hope consideration is given to the three letters of objection, two of which are immediate abutters, and all whom object to the revised design and are located within the radius and subsequent and consequently most impact.

The city council approved in March of 2025, as we all know, the 100 square foot dimensional standard for upper level decks, following the careful digital diligent work by the zoning staff establishing the need for such a limit.

As Mr.

Armour explained during the public hearing process, the new standard was meant to quote create reasonable size limits for upper level decks while preventing noise and privacy impacts on neighboring lots from large elevated decks.

We fully agree with that rationale.

We've talked about the uniqueness of this neighborhood.

You can see from the aerial photos that the lots of 32 Bayside and the abutting properties, we are very close in quarters.

We have small lots.

They range from approximately 2200 square feet to 5600 square feet.

They're in a U-shaped configuration with the homes highly visible from the Newport Bridge in Narragansett Bay and contribute to the unique character of the small distinctive waterfront neighborhood.

The adverse impact of the variances on our property.

The application states, among other things, that one, the requested relief represents a modest variance, that the second level deck provides a reasonable amount of outdoor space, that the pride will not be injurious to abutting property owners, that the requested relief represents the least relief necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property.

A deck more than twice the legal limit is not any of those things.

The proposed deck and furgola would directly affect our property in several ways.

We did talk about the obstruction of views.

And the same thing for from the pergola.

Both would negatively impact the quiet enjoyment of our property and the overall value of our home.

Extending 14 feet out from the existing house, it will cause partial obstruction of our existing views of the bridge and Narragansett Bay.

Do you have, Mr.

Armor?

Do you have that photo that I pull that up for just a second?

I want to show in this photo.

Yeah, there's a good one.

This aerial photo shows how close 32 Bayside is, which is located on the right to our house.

There's no side yard, no trees or open space between them.

That property has 32 Bayside has unobstructed views, and it wouldn't change if it was brought within the dimensional standards.

It would still have unobstructed views.

Off to the left, we talked about one cypress street.

The pergola and it would be going the side of the garage on one Cypress Street.

There wouldn't be any impact of noise with the rear of the garage, I believe the rear is about 25 feet in width, and their living quarters and their outdoor space is well forward of where the proposed deck is.

The same impact, the new dimensional standards were adopted to prevent.

Section six of the staff report states that quote that staff, while uncomfortable recommending approval, felt denial was inappropriate given the similarity to other decks in the neighborhood, close quote.

That reasoning is flawed.

Those neighboring decks, including our own.

Our deck is 160 square feet, it's off of a bedroom.

These were installed decades ago.

So the size of pre-existing decks or the balconies built under different rules, I believe is irrelevant to this application.

Also in section six, the term hardship is used frequently.

The report also asserts that, quote, that granting the requested variants will not impair the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.

On the contrary, granting it would directly undermine the intent of the 100 square foot standard.

Report claims that denial would result in more than a mere inconvenience.

This claim is unsupported.

Denial would in fact constitute nothing more than a mere inconvenience.

Because of the alterations, the applicant is seeking to add now, it's less than 400 square feet of lot coverage, an issue that staff did have noted in their uh in their report.

The applicant has not demonstrated why a significantly smaller deck consistent with the dimensional standards would not provide reasonable outdoor living space.

So why did why is the applicant submit plans that are significantly larger than the standard?

I think part of the answer lies in the applicant's own.

There's a May 5th, 2026 advisory opinion request for the Rhode Island Ethics Commission.

It quote says, quote, the petitioner is currently planning renovations to his home that include the construction of a second floor deck that will extend over an addition and a first floor deck located off the addition.

The petitioner explains that the second floor deck would provide much needed shade to that area of the home.

The lack of shade is it's not a recognized hardship, it's an inconvenience that can easily be solved with an umbrella or an awning.

The applicant's zoning variance application and a July 23rd revision makes no mention of the shade issue at all.

32 Bayside currently has unobstructed views of the water.

A scale-down elevated deck within the dimensional standards would still provide the owner an unobstructed view of the water.

Conversely, if the variance is granted, our current view of the water, I believe, would be obstructed.

That second floor deck is coming out 14 feet.

14 feet is coming out.

But again, our focus, and I said this before uh earlier, that we're concerned about the noise and the privacy impacts from such a large deck.

This is in addition to an expanded deck on the first floor.

In conclusion, the requested relief being sought is substantial.

The sheer scale, the proposed elevated deck, an additional 130 square feet beyond the standard is incompatible with the reasonable dimensional standards the city council established to protect neighboring properties from exactly this type of structure.

The revised plans are still more than twice the maximum permitted and does not eliminate the impacts the ordinance was enacted to prevent.

Granting a variance of this size is going to set a precedent for oversized upper level decks throughout the point neighborhood and all of Newport's neighborhoods, undermining the standards, the ordinance was designed to enforce.

Because the proposed deck and furgle would adversely affect our property and our privacy and our quality of life, we respectfully request that the zoning board review deny the variance requests for the proposed second-level deck in terms.

Questions, Mr.

Jackson?

So Mr.

Holy, you had referenced during your testimony that your third story deck was 160 or 69.

Are you aware that this tax accessor has that at 192 square feet?

But it's a single family residence, right?

It's a single family residence.

Do you use that third level deck responsibly, correct?

You don't do anything to serve your neighbors.

Hope not.

Yeah, there's a presumption that the existence of an upper level deck by Mr.

Belinski served your quiet.

Well, our balcony, it's a balcony off of bed that it's stalled probably 30 years ago.

I'm referring just to the new standards.

I'm referring to quality of life, what impact it may or may not have on neighbors.

And the point I'm making is what's being proposed in terms of use is the same that you enjoy in your property.

Single family residents, two occupants.

Right?

You add you add the expanded deck beyond the hundred foot standard and an expanded first floor.

We are concerned about noise impacts and quality of life.

Questions from the board or Mr.

Hogan?

All right.

Anyone have you had any um any problems with uh Mr.

Balinski as far as uh neighbor?

He's been there for two years, uh, straight up and prior to that on and off.

Have there been any issues?

Did you give me any indication he'd be uh he wouldn't be a uh responsible neighbor?

Define what problems would be.

Well, your concern is that he'd have a lot loud be loud on his deck, or uh he hasn't uh first floor deck now.

So I'm I'm just asking have you had any concerns or any situations where um that was a problem?

I have had no concerns with regard to noise.

Okay.

Have you ever had any uh concerns with noise on any of the neighbors that you have with all those big decks on the on the water down there?

Has there ever been those decks are forward?

You could see I on uh one Cyper Street, those are well forward of uh where we are, and I believe on 1313 Washington Street, um, which is on the south side, uh those decks are well forward of where we are, their outdoor living, they're their outdoor living space.

So let me ask you this then.

Um are there people on those decks often in the summertime?

Do you see people on those decks?

They get used often, they get used, yeah.

Frequently, yeah.

I mean, because I you know well, my own opinions on that, but anyway, okay.

I'll take your word for it.

So you're saying that the that the noise from those decks doesn't travel.

If there is noise, up to your property.

I'm saying right, because they're forward, we don't I haven't had any issues to our record to my recollection.

Um, in the configuration we have here with with the 32 base side, I think we're gonna have noise bouncing off the property, right?

That's right, because as Mr.

Hole said, he's at the top of the horseshoe, basically.

Right, stop the horseshoe is the horseshoe contains the noise.

Right.

Whereas you're saying for those properties down below at the end of the horseshoe, besides it might just go out to the west.

Is that is that is that what I'm understanding?

Right.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Hogan.

Appreciate your testimony.

Yes, sir.

You want to come up and say a couple words?

You don't have to.

I think it's okay.

Just please raise your right hand.

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

Please say your name for the record.

John Keenan.

Hey, John.

Uh I live in I own and live in uh 131-133, which abuts on the on the south side.

Okay.

Um I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this.

In fact, I recommended that Richard knock it down and build the biggest thing you could.

Right.

At the end of the day, it's for me, it's about increasing the aesthetic and increasing the broad property values of the entire neighborhood.

And I believe that's what he's trying to do.

Um I can comment.

I can comment on two things.

Number one, noise.

I own one of those big decks, right?

And bottom line is this the only time anyone spends any time outside on their deck, whether it be me or the trams beyond nine, 930 is for firework a couple of times a year.

Other than that, the wind gets up and it gets cold.

So everybody goes inside.

I can't imagine noise being being an issue.

Uh, as to the livability with the sun coming in, we have the upper deck, which covers the lower our lower unit is so much more livable because the sun gets blocked.

So that overhang, I think is important to the livability.

So I I live upstairs now.

If I had my way, I would live downstairs because the sun gets blocked by the upper deck.

And that's about it.

I think the changes are going to be beautiful.

Uh increase the aesthetic of the entire neighborhood.

We all work very hard uh and spend a lot of money to keep our houses up because of the wind and salt coming off that water.

It's an ongoing process.

I appreciate anybody that wants to improve their property.

Okay.

Questions?

Mr.

King.

Anybody.

Uh yeah, Ms.

Chair, if I could, Ms.

Keene.

Um I wonder if you could speak to the uh the uh the noise from the bridge.

Um how that affects your indoor living.

Um I would uh I would guess I and would ask you that most of the time your windows are uh closed, right?

Most of the time, uh actually during the day we leave uh we leave the sliders open.

Okay, but but in the evening we do shut the slide.

Uh and that's due to dust and noise and I've no I heard dust today.

I never see any of that.

I I never noticed dust, but quite frankly, I almost didn't buy the house because of the noise coming from the bridge is substantial.

Uh but once once you do, uh, if it starts getting by by now it's white noise.

What white noise background, you don't hear it.

Um, but but if you you need to the previous owners did a renovation that I don't know how they start improved my house, but they did a really good job when they shut you can't hear the the road noise at all.

Yeah, you can't hear much noise once once it once everything's shut up.

Right, great.

Thank you.

My pleasure.

Anybody else?

Mr.

Kean.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate your testimony.

Uh Mr.

Jackson, do you want to make some closing comments before we go to a vote?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, just a couple of comments.

Um so again, you've heard testimony from the applicant, his designer, and Mr.

Who you recognize as an expert based on that testimony.

We believe that there is sufficient evidence in the record to satisfy that all the elements have been met for the granting of the variances that are being requested, especially now that the plan has been further modified uh this evening to reduce lot coverage and the setback request, uh, along with the modifications to the second level deck.

You've heard explanations as to why the the extension of the second floor deck is important to the applicant and makes sense, and that was just verified by his neighbor.

These are modest changes.

This is a small house, and I think it's important that you look at this property in the context of the neighborhood where it where it's located.

Uh Mr.

Hogan talked a lot about the new ordinance, which I understand.

Um, and I would venture and I would argue that um the legislative intent, if you will, of that ordinance was to get control of second and third level decks in areas like the yachting village.

Uh that's probably the most important area, another densely packed neighborhoods where these type of issues uh prompted the change in the ordinance.

I'm not suggesting it doesn't apply here, but I am suggesting that you look at it in context.

In other words, this deck will be uh even at 231 square feet, one of the smaller decks in the area.

Look at what it's surrounded by.

Uh, when you look at it in the context of the neighborhood it's it it's in, and you listen to the explanation as to why it's being proposed at its size, it makes sense.

As far as hardships go, we know that the the lot in and of itself creates a hardship.

It creates a hardship for the setbacks, it creates a hardship as in terms of compliance with lot coverage.

You know, the objections are just even the other letters of objection are hard to understand when you look at uh what's being proposed, where it's where it's located, in that really Mr.

Hogan of the objectors is the only one that can see any of these improvements, and he's got a bird's eye view looking down.

Some of the other objections talked about some type of impact to parking and noise.

Again, the use of this property is changing.

And there's no change in the parking requirements, there's no change in uh I don't I don't understand how there could be any change in noise, as Mr.

Johnson pointed out.

There's already outdoor living space and a large deck on the back of the house.

And I there was no articulation as to ongoing problems with noise being generated from this property now.

Granting this variance uh for the deck for the law coverage, it doesn't set a precedence.

You all know that.

Every every application is different, every neighborhood's different, and for this application and this neighborhood, this is a reasonable request, and the elements have been met.

Keep in mind, too, that what we're talking about are rights that Mr.

Balinski is asking to enjoy that are consistent with the rights enjoyed by all of his neighbors.

So this is not something that's inconsistent with the neighborhood.

It's not um, it's in harmony with the surrounding area.

And lastly, we all know what this comes down to.

The Hogans are worried about their view, and I understand that, but you know, the all applicants have an obligation to mitigate the impacts where they can when they're asking for a variance.

But this applicant, like other applicants, has no legal obligation to protect view quarters of abutters.

We just don't.

Without a view easement, that's not something that's obligated to be protected.

So I would argue it's not something that you should be giving consideration to when you're evaluating whether or not this application has met its burden.

Certainly you want to be neighborly, you want to do what you can to mitigate impacts, but there's no legal responsibility to protect views.

So although it may be unfortunate that according to Mr.

Hogan, part of his you will you will be obstructed.

I still don't understand how uh with the second floor deck with no ballusters, wire railing.

I don't know how any of what's proposed interferes with with his view, but if it did, it matters not.

That's not the standard you should be weighing when you're considering this.

And again, uh it's it's interesting because I think what's being proposed is very modest compared to again what could be constructed here by Mr.

Balinski or somebody else if this property was taken down.

It's in a flood zone.

That's something that wasn't discussed previously.

And and Mr.

Balinski, you know, hasn't studied the elevation or the flood elevation at this site.

But I bring it up because as Mr.

Balinski testified, something else could be put up here, centered, wouldn't need lot coverage, wouldn't need setbacks, and it would probably be substantially taller given its location in the flood zone.

I mean, and that again puts in context what's being requested.

A request to make a modest modification on the rear of this house, which will have little to no impact on a butters, and will enable him to enjoy uh a house which, although not in the historic district, is a historic house, given its age, given the um uh you know the family that built it, uh and given its um pleasant impact on the streetscape.

I think this is uh an appropriate way to allow a modification to continue the use of this residence in a way that's consistent with how all of his abutters use their properties.

So for those reasons, I think the applicants met its bird, and I would respectfully request that you approve the application.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Um okay, folks.

Um let's uh fashion a uh a motion if we can in a second, and then we'll have some discussion.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

On the uh petition of equity investment group LLC.

Um I move to adopt the board's finding of facts, information staff report, application, supporting document, testimony of the witnesses, along with the representations of counsel, together with the comments spread on the record by 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 new board zoning ordinance entitled Variances and Modifications.

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

Great.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Sherry.

Okay.

Who wants to uh take this up?

Anybody feeling frisky?

No.

Yeah, I'm happy to get.

You want to start, Dave?

You're sorry, yes.

Um I'll be supporting uh approval of uh this petition with the uh variances included.

Um Mr.

Jackson mentioned uh Mr.

Who mentioned uh the hardship, this is a lot size of 5761 square feet, which is approximately one half of uh of the R10 zone requirement.

The increase in lot coverage by about 250 square feet after they've agreed to some adjustments in um making the deck uh smaller, uh along with uh pulling the deck another three feet off uh three three feet off of the um uh I guess that's the northern property line.

Um reducing the overall lock coverage to 33 um.8 percent is a modest request, and considering the size of the abutting properties, the hardship is not the result of any prior actions of the petitioner, the requested side setback relief does not um is improved that side set back for that particular addition.

Um the the relief sought is minimal to the reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use.

Um Mr.

Hogan mentioned and and uh the term least relief.

Least relief is no longer the the uh condition that you have to meet.

You have to meet the condition that it's minimal, the relief sought for reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use.

Um that's important to consider in this case because it is minimal, uh the requested uh variance he's made.

And granted the variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding neighborhood or impair the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.

Um the neighborhood has many second, third, and even rooftop decks.

The 230 second floor deck uh is small in comparison uh and reasonable for this particular neighborhood.

As you look at the overall renovations, the variances requested seem very reasonable, and the petitioner has presented sufficient evidence that justify the granting of the variances requested.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Riley.

Ms.

Shevury?

All right.

I will be voting to approve the setback and the increase in lot coverage.

I think there is a clear hardship with the lot being undersized and the positioning of the current house and how it's essentially built into the side setbacks already.

Um I think with the reduction in lot coverage to 33.8%, uh that is more consistent with the lock coverage across the neighborhood.

Um there is a significant outlier in lot coverage to the north in the 70% range.

And once you remove that outlier from the other surrounding properties, it is in that 33, 34 percent average across the the houses in that neighborhood.

Um so I think that reduction in lot coverage uh is more consistent with the neighborhood.

Coming into this, my primary concern was the second floor deck.

We have not had many decks come before us that are greater than that 100 square foot.

And so I was really interested in hearing what the hardship is with this deck.

And as the conversation was evolving and the testimony, I think we got to what that hardship was.

And a point, a point that Mr.

Riley just made is the change in zoning criteria for the state.

It's no longer that lease release necessary.

It's that minimal uh for reasonable enjoyment.

And that really kind of changes the threshold of what we are approving and what we're not approving in this forum.

And um I understand the city had a legislative attempt intent to kind of restrict uh the size of the decks uh, particularly as it becomes to privacy and noise.

Um, but what really I focused on was the testimony um that this was a minimal um reasonable enjoyment for the property and and the discussion regarding why the overhang was so crucial because of the western facing sun and uh the sun that you received in the property and how hot it gets inside.

Um and I was satisfied by the testimony and the evidence presented by the applicant that that overhang was necessary for minimal reasonable enjoyment of the property.

And so for that reason, um, I will also be voting to approve the deck as well because of that rationale there.

Um and for those reasons I will be supporting this petition across the board.

So okay.

Yeah.

You'll be supporting the petitioner in general.

Okay, very good.

Sure.

Okay.

Um I have to agree with uh the testimony so far.

Uh I'm sorry, the deliberation of my colleagues here.

Um but you know, I'm uh this will this was really killing me because uh I think Mr.

Hogan really drove home some very, very important points that um we can't we can't look away from.

We can't make excuses for, we can't talk about these theoretical hardships.

Um the fact of the matter, the new standards say you cannot exceed 100 square feet for that uh second floor deck.

Uh Mr.

Bolinski, as he as was noted by Mr.

Hogan has an unobstructed view of that deck.

Uh of the I'm sorry, of the water, uh looking at the the bridge and over toward Jamestown.

Um so those standards are there.

And and I'm sworn to those standards.

And and I and I don't see a hardship.

I think it's it's it would be nice to have a really big deck originally with 391 screens feet.

And I said, Oh, that's really nice.

But you just because it's nice doesn't mean you can have it.

Umce again, there were it's unobstructed.

So I think we need to be compliant with the regulations.

And for that reason, I'm gonna have to deny this application.

Okay.

Oh, sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, so really interesting uh back and forth um and uh a lot of points were brought were brought out uh from both sides, and I appreciate the discussion.

Um I also appreciate the fact that the petitioner uh has made several modifications going into the meeting tonight.

Uh and and several more were made, uh particularly uh to help um with the side setback requirement on the north side and also on the lock coverage.

Um so the willingness uh to uh to work with um work with us and and to try to get the numbers a little tighter um is appreciated.

Also appreciate the fact that um this isn't someone who just bought the property and just is going you know crazy and knocking everything down and and uh um starting new and you know he sat there for two years and figured out what he wanted to do with the property, um, which which means to me he's got a very good idea of what what is going to work on this property is also mentioned several times that this could be this probably could be basically demolished and something larger, uh more obtrusive, perhaps, um not as uh compatible as what is there now, uh could be built there.

Not saying that you do that, that has a cost to it as well.

However, it is an option that was uh uh uh was open uh to the owner.

Um so I I again I appreciate those those modifications.

I think the the real crux of the matter was they're concerned with the with the deck size on the second floor.

And um, you know, it's a fairly fairly new modification.

I think I don't believe there was anything in place prior to uh the decision to bring that to a hundred square feet for a decks uh second floor and above.

Who knows if that's the right number?

Um I I believe that uh I think Mr.

Jackson gave some testimony that um there are situations where that may be more appropriate where there's a more condensed uh uh population houses are closer, tighter, um, more on top of each other.

Um and also I feel like the the breadth and scope of what these renovations are, um I think that you have to take that into consideration when you're sizing things.

And so um the original deck was going to be 390 square feet, it's been brought down to 231 square feet, which I think is appropriate for that particular building in that particular location.

Not to say if it was somewhere else, that wouldn't be appropriate, but I feel like in this case, uh that is um that is the um the right size for for what uh is being proposed and being requested.

So um I I don't feel like these modifications are going to have uh an impact certainly on the neighborhood.

Uh they may uh they may impact the Hogan's a little bit.

I hope it doesn't impact you at all.

Um, but I think that uh the petitioners and the owner have made a uh very in my opinion, they're very deliberate and uh uh solid case to um request these request these uh variances and uh I'm gonna vote to uh approve them.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

So um it it uh devolves to me um the decision has been made, but uh um just a couple of quick points on both sides of the uh of the ledger.

Um you know it it it is a good point.

So for me, thinking about Mr.

Hogan's testimony, um one of the things that that um that affected me was um the fact that uh the city council in March of last year in 2025 uh enacted this 100 square foot deck uh uh size limit.

And um you know say what you will about it.

I mean it's not something that was enacted in 1975, it was done in 2025.

So I get it.

Um and so that has to me that has a little bit more meaning in terms of uh uh in terms of you know how I would look at this.

Um however, uh based upon the fact that uh A, there were a number of uh mitigations offered uh by Mr.

Balinski before this meeting, and and then again during the meeting.

Now, that doesn't in and of itself mean anything because you can start by a really high ask and go, well, we gave all this, but you're still left with a lot.

So I I think it's um a minimal use ultimately.

Uh and again, I the other thing that uh that that hit me was the sight line um uh uh picture that Mr.

Hole had.

So you can see that the sight line coming from the second floor, which would be where you would be getting that that activity in terms of the sight line across the deck, seemed to be really outside of where that deck was gonna be on the side.

Then on the third floor, I didn't think it was, I thought it was gonna be even less of an issue because you're overseeing everything on that as well.

So I'm sympathetic to uh to the neighbors.

Um one thing I don't agree with um that Mr.

Hogan said was uh that doesn't matter how big the decks are that are there.

Um I don't necessarily agree with that.

I think it does, uh, because you can't uh you know, and I know what the I know what the ordinance says now, I know it has says 100 square feet.

So where I was leaning on this was I was leaning to uh to essentially say I agree with everything on the pergola on the on the patio downstairs and those mitigations, but come back to us with a deck that would that was uh smaller size.

Um but having heard the testimony of my colleagues, um uh and understanding you know the give and take of of all these different issues, uh I am also gonna be uh voting to approve this petition.

So I think that uh that does it.

Thank you.

Um so I am gonna do a roll call of officers.

Um why don't we start with you, Mr.

Grimes?

How do you vote on this petition?

Mr.

Grimes, nay.

Uh Mr.

Rudd is an aye.

Mr.

Johnson, aye.

Mr.

Riley, aye.

Ms.

Chevry, aye.

So that's a four to one vote in favor.

The uh the motion passes.

Uh thank you all for your testimony.

Um, both for and against.

And uh, if you could, Mr.

Jackson, uh write up the uh um the petition for us.

That would be great.

Good luck, Mr.

Balinski.

And I hope you guys get along.

We want neighbors to get along.

It's important.

We all know that.

Motion to adjourn.

Um before we do that, uh maybe just a quick exit.

We we have a standard policy that we don't take new applications after 9 30, uh, given our our timing.

Um we would need a motion to continue uh items four and five to the August 24th, 2026 zoning board meeting.

Okay, I make a motion to continue uh petitions uh let's see, four four um Tyler.

Yep, 11 Tyler Street and petition five, 30 Popular Street be continued to the August 24th, 2026 meeting.

Second.

I would not be able to make it okay.

You speak to Nick then and we'll get you on the next one, okay?

Sorry about that.

Second.

Sorry to keep you here, sir.

The suspense.

Do I have a second on that motion?

On the continuance.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Okay.

Nice.

The gavel says it.

I like that.