Newport Board Denies Byron Earhart's Special Use Permit for Rooftop Deck
January 01, 2025 | Newport, Providence County, Rhode Island
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Newport City Zoning Board of Review convened on January 1, 2025, to discuss a petition submitted by Byron Earhart, Trustee, regarding a special use permit for a property in a limited business zone. The meeting focused on the potential impacts of the proposed project, particularly concerning noise and neighborhood character.
During the proceedings, concerns were raised about possible noise disturbances from the development. However, board members emphasized that noise enforcement issues fall outside their jurisdiction, suggesting that the city has mechanisms to address such complaints if they arise. It was noted that no additional testimonies from neighborhood residents were presented, aside from those from Ms. Burke and Mr. Carroll, who had not formally objected to the petition prior to the meeting.
Mr. Daddario, representing the petitioner, argued that the project met all zoning requirements and would not alter the character of the surrounding area. He highlighted that the property was situated to minimize impact on abutters and that the concerns about noise were speculative. He urged the board to focus on whether the petition met the necessary criteria for approval.
The board then moved to discuss the specifics of the petition. Mr. Riley proposed a motion to grant the special use permit, contingent upon the project being initiated within 12 months and the completion of soundproofing measures as requested by the abutters. This motion was seconded by Ms. Cherry.
However, board member Mr. Grimes expressed reservations about the height of the proposed structure, which he felt would dwarf surrounding homes and create visual nonconformity. He suggested that the petitioner consider a design that would better align with the neighborhood's character, ultimately voting to deny the petition as presented.
The meeting concluded with a clear division among board members regarding the project's implications for the neighborhood, highlighting the ongoing challenges of balancing development with community concerns. The board's decision will require the petitioner to reassess their plans in light of the feedback received.
During the proceedings, concerns were raised about possible noise disturbances from the development. However, board members emphasized that noise enforcement issues fall outside their jurisdiction, suggesting that the city has mechanisms to address such complaints if they arise. It was noted that no additional testimonies from neighborhood residents were presented, aside from those from Ms. Burke and Mr. Carroll, who had not formally objected to the petition prior to the meeting.
Mr. Daddario, representing the petitioner, argued that the project met all zoning requirements and would not alter the character of the surrounding area. He highlighted that the property was situated to minimize impact on abutters and that the concerns about noise were speculative. He urged the board to focus on whether the petition met the necessary criteria for approval.
The board then moved to discuss the specifics of the petition. Mr. Riley proposed a motion to grant the special use permit, contingent upon the project being initiated within 12 months and the completion of soundproofing measures as requested by the abutters. This motion was seconded by Ms. Cherry.
However, board member Mr. Grimes expressed reservations about the height of the proposed structure, which he felt would dwarf surrounding homes and create visual nonconformity. He suggested that the petitioner consider a design that would better align with the neighborhood's character, ultimately voting to deny the petition as presented.
The meeting concluded with a clear division among board members regarding the project's implications for the neighborhood, highlighting the ongoing challenges of balancing development with community concerns. The board's decision will require the petitioner to reassess their plans in light of the feedback received.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting