Newport Zoning Board approves variances for 144 Thames Street redevelopment

The Newport Zoning Board of Review voted to grant three variances on March 31, 2025, allowing developer CCB Capital and owner 144 Thames Street LLC to demolish the existing structure at 144–150 Thames Street and build a new mixed-use building containing 14 vacation guest facility units where 11 are permitted, provide 17 on-site parking spaces where 48 are required, and provide zero loading spaces where two are required. The board approved the density variance 4–1 and the parking and loading-space variances unanimously, attaching several conditions to each approval.

The project replaces a largely underused and deteriorating building on a tight downtown lot with a four-story structure that includes about 3,000 square feet of retail and a below-grade/rear parking area. Developer witnesses and experts told the board the new building would reduce lot coverage and height compared with the current structure while adding modern utilities and stormwater controls. Planning consultant Doug McLean said the new building “will have a lot coverage just under 80%,” down from roughly 90% today, and that the reduced height would bring the site closer to code dimensions.

Why it matters: The property sits in a dense commercial district where zoning allows vacation guest facilities but requires substantial on-site parking and loading capacity. Granting the variances lets the owner proceed with a redevelopment proponents say is otherwise not economically viable; opponents say it will increase parking and circulation pressure on nearby residential properties, particularly the Clark School Apartments.

What the board approved and the conditions attached

- Density: The board approved a variance to permit 14 vacation guest facility units instead of the 11 allowed by right. The motion passed 4–1; Commissioner Melissa Patovina was the lone dissent.

- Parking: The board approved a variance allowing 17 on-site parking spaces where the ordinance requires 48. The board attached a condition requiring an annual written lease (to be produced to city staff) securing up to 19 additional off-site spaces within roughly a half-mile of 144 Thames Street; the lease must run with the property and be shown each year to retain the project’s approvals.

- Loading: The board approved a variance to provide zero loading bays rather than the two required. Testimony from the applicant described the site as managed small-unit lodging without restaurants or common areas that would require regular large-truck deliveries.

Other conditions added by the board include: requirements for off-site parking plans and staging during demolition and construction, annual proof of the off-site lease, a goal to improve pedestrian access between the front and rear of the property to the extent feasible, and a formal referral to the city’s interdepartmental traffic committee to review circulation and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts near the Toro Street/Mary Street parking area. The board also required the applicant to begin and substantially complete the project within 24 months of the decision, or obtain an extension from the zoning officer, and to pay all outstanding public-notice fees before the decision is recorded.

What supporters told the board

Attorney Jay Russell Jackson and witnesses for the applicant said the existing building is not viable for reuse and that the project would replace a decayed structure while adding retail and improving utilities and stormwater management. Owner/operator Christopher Michaud provided a pro forma and said the redevelopment is expensive: the applicant described the project as roughly a $15 million undertaking and said the projected cash-on-cash return is about 5%. “This is a project that will yield us about 5% return on our investment,” Michaud said while explaining why the extra units affect the financing.

Traffic engineer Lorenzo Dantes (VHB) testified that, with the proposed on-site spaces, a management plan for overnight parking and the leased off-site spaces, the project would not produce adverse traffic circulation impacts. He told the board his earlier opinion — that the development would not have adverse traffic or circulation impacts — still “does still hold,” based on the proposed parking-management approach.

What opponents said

Neighbors and the Clark School Apartments, a nearby 55+ affordable housing complex, opposed the variances. Clark School community director Betsy Green told the board that on summer weekends the adjacent municipal lots and streets are already crowded and that the additional overnight parking demand would intensify circulation and pedestrian conflicts. “The traffic, it’s just… it’s exploded,” Green said, describing routine conflicts and vehicle circulation through the Clark School access and nearby alleys.

Objector traffic analysis from Bowman Consulting, prepared for Clark School, found the Mary Street municipal lot at near‑capacity during observed summer weekend hours and concluded the lot lacks the overnight capacity needed to absorb the development’s parking demand on peak days. Bowman’s parking-utilization study reported only a handful of available spaces in the Mary Street lot during a Saturday midday peak and warned of increased vehicle–pedestrian conflict at the Toro/Mary Street lot entrances if circulating traffic increases.

Applicant’s mitigation: off-site lease and management

The applicant proposes to lease up to 19 spaces at 364–366 Thames Street (about 0.4 miles, roughly 2,000 feet, from 144 Thames) for overnight overflow and to run a closely managed reservation system that limits how many cars are allowed per booking. Christopher Michaud and his manager described an operational policy that issues two parking passes per unit, uses a gated off-site lot with an attendant, and monitors occupancy in advance so staff can notify guests and coordinate overflow parking. The applicant also provided a sample lease and site plan for the off-site lot; the board made delivery of a current annual lease a condition of approval.

Board’s reasoning and vote

Board members who voted in favor said the site’s physical constraints, the condition of the existing building, and the evidence in the record supported the requested relief as the minimum needed to make a viable redevelopment. Dissenting commissioner Melissa Patovina said she remained concerned about adding units primarily for financial viability and with the shortfall in on-site parking relative to the ordinance standard.

What happens next

The applicant must supply the required off-site lease annually and show the city proof of compliance with the board’s conditions. The city’s technical review and permitting processes still apply for site engineering, building permits, and any required council approvals to use a municipal lot for vehicle access. The board also asked the interdepartmental traffic committee to review circulation and pedestrian/bike safety in the Toro/Mary Street/Clark School area as a follow-up.

Why the public should watch this

The decision lets a major downtown parcel move toward redevelopment, addressing public-safety and utility deficiencies in an aging building. At the same time, it relies on off-site mitigation and management to handle peak parking demand in an already constrained downtown parking environment — a model the board required be enforced annually and monitored by city staff.

(For a full list of motions, vote tallies, and the board’s written conditions see the actions and clarifying details.)