Newport hearing on 144–150 Thames Street redevelopment focuses on parking and unit-count variances

The Newport Zoning Board of Review on Feb. 10 heard testimony on a proposal to demolish the existing structure at 144–150 Thames Street and build a new four‑story mixed-use building with two ground‑floor retail spaces and 14 vacation guest facility units. The applicant, CCB Capital and Real Estate Inc., is seeking two dimensional variances: one to increase the allowed number of vacation guest units from 11 to 14, and a second to reduce the required on‑site parking to 17 spaces where the zoning code indicates 48 spaces would be required for the proposed uses.

The request matters to downtown businesses and neighborhood residents because the project would change the property footprint, add short‑term lodging capacity and rely on a mix of on‑site parking and off‑site mitigation that objectors say could shift parking pressure onto nearby public and private lots. The applicant says the redevelopment will lower building height and lot coverage, add stormwater containment and upgrade utilities along Toro/Clark Street — improvements it says require extra revenue to fund.

The applicant’s attorney, J. Russell Jackson, told the board the application before it is “a significant redevelopment proposal” and that the new building “will be smaller than the existing structure, both in terms of height and footprint.” Applicant principal Christopher Bichaud (doing business as Landings Real Estate Group and president of CCB Capital) described the property as deteriorated and said demolition and construction costs on the sloped site are high. “The minimum we can get by that would generate enough revenue in order for us to afford these extra costs,” Bichaud said, arguing that three additional vacation units are needed to make the project financially viable.

What the plan proposes: The applicant proposes demolishing the current building and constructing a new four‑story structure with approximately two 1,600‑square‑foot retail units fronting Thames Street, 14 vacation guest facility units above, and a 17‑space parking area under the rear two‑thirds of the building accessed through the adjacent Toro/Clark municipal lot. Jackson said the new design will reduce lot coverage to about 79 percent (from roughly 90 percent today) and lower building height by about 15 feet while bringing other dimensions into compliance. The applicant also says the project will install underground stormwater vaults and fund utility upgrades along Toro Street that could help nearby redevelopment efforts, including the Newport Performing Arts Center.

Applicant testimony and evidence: Bichaud, who said his firm operates multiple short‑term rental properties in Newport, testified that the proposal mixes two‑ and three‑bedroom units so that the total bedroom count would be 36; the code’s unit calculations are based on lot area rather than bedrooms, but Jackson highlighted the bedroom total to show the difference versus what a hotel layout could yield. Architect Jake Grover and traffic engineer Lorenzo (Loren) Dantes of VHB testified to site layout and circulation. Dantes reported his traffic analysis concluded the development would generate roughly 6 to 7 additional vehicle trips in the peak hour and would not materially degrade intersection operations studied near Washington Square and the Toro/Spring Street area.

Parking and operations plan: The zoning code parking calculation and the applicant’s operational plan were central issues. Under the code the combined uses would trigger a much larger on‑site parking requirement (the board’s materials cited 48 spaces). The project provides 17 on‑site spaces and the applicant proposes a management approach to limit on‑site assignments and to accommodate overflow with private lots it controls. Bichaud said his company would issue two parking passes per unit (even for three‑bedroom units) and that historical occupancy data from the applicant’s Newport portfolio showed a limited number of days where off‑site overflow would be needed. He told the board he controls or manages nearby lots — including a Swinburne Row parking lot across the street and another property farther down Thames/Bank Street — and said the company would make those spaces available for guests during peak demand.

Objectors and concerns: Several abutters and their attorneys questioned reliance on off‑site parking and the long‑term availability of privately controlled lots. Attorneys for Thames Street Real Estate interests and for Clark School Apartments raised questions about whether relying on private lots across the street or farther away could shift demand onto commercial lots intended for other uses and whether those arrangements could be maintained indefinitely. Christine Dieter (Hinckley Allen), representing Clark School Apartments, asked follow‑up questions about sight lines, sight‑distance issues at the Toro exit, and whether the applicant had performed utilization studies for the Swinburne lot; the traffic engineer said he had reviewed the applicant’s proposed arrangements but had not prepared an independent utilization study of that private lot.

Stormwater, utilities and demolition: The applicant repeatedly cited site‑specific constraints — a severe slope (roughly eight‑ to 11‑foot grade change from Thames to Toro), a structurally deteriorated building that the applicant said is beyond repair, limited space for surface detention, and the need for podium construction and underground stormwater vaults. Bichaud said the demolition must be staged (with a restricted January–May window) and would be expensive, and that the project includes an allowance to pay Rhode Island Energy to relocate or upgrade utility infrastructure. Those measures, the applicant said, are among the reasons additional revenue from the extra units is necessary.

Board process and next steps: After hearing testimony and multiple rounds of questioning from board members and objectors’ counsel, the board voted to continue the hearing. By unanimous vote the board continued the petition to its regular meeting on Feb. 24, 2025; the record shows board members Nicole Chevre, Dave Riley, Bark Limes, Melissa Patovina (sitting as the alternate), and Chair Wick Rudd voted in favor. The board said it expected to hear remaining testimony from objectors and the applicant’s remaining witnesses at that continuation or at a special meeting to be scheduled.

Why it matters: The hearing frames a common downtown planning tradeoff: redevelopment of an aging, privately owned structure and targeted infrastructure improvements versus added short‑term lodging capacity and the loss (or reallocation) of on‑site parking required by code. The board’s decision will affect how the city balances downtown tourism, pedestrian character, and parking pressure in a dense commercial corridor.

Votes at a glance: The board unanimously voted to continue the hearing to Feb. 24, 2025. No final variances were granted at the Feb. 10 session.

Next hearing: Continued to Feb. 24, 2025. Additional testimony expected from objectors’ experts and final rebuttal by the applicant.