Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking And Guest Houses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board continues 640 Thames guest-house application, seeks confirmed parking leases and on-site manager agreement
Summary
The Newport Zoning Board of Review continued a contested proposal to convert an upstairs unit at 640 Thames Street into a five‑bedroom guest house, saying the applicant must return with confirmed parking leases and a written on‑site manager agreement before the board will decide.
The Newport Zoning Board of Review on Feb. 24 continued, by unanimous vote, a petition from 640 Thames Street LLC to convert a second‑floor five‑bedroom apartment into a guest house, citing unresolved parking arrangements.
Board members said they were not prepared to rule without evidence that the property will have reliable off‑street parking for guests and a signed agreement spelling out the duties and compensation for an on‑site manager. Joshua Parks, counsel for the applicant, asked the board to allow the application to proceed with the manager in place and the parking arranged; the board declined and set the matter for the March 24, 2025 meeting.
“This approval, the ultimate renting, short term renting of the property only happens once that parking lease is in place,” Parks said, describing the applicant’s plan to secure leased spaces within walking distance and to provide an on‑site manager. The board’s zoning officer and members said they wanted to see executed or demonstrably committed leases before issuing a final vote.
James Houle, who reviewed the application and prepared a staff report, told the board the property is a long‑standing mixed‑use building on the corner of Thames and Narragansett that currently has only three on‑site nose‑in spaces and that the requested change in use generated the need for four additional off‑street spaces. Houle recommended that, if the board were to approve the use, approval be conditioned on demonstrated parking leases and an on‑site manager arrangement.
Board members discussed specifics they would need when the case returns, including whether parking must be within a set walking distance. Several members said a quarter‑mile radius (roughly a five‑minute walk) is commonly used but that the board could set a different radius; members also sought a sample manager lease covering duties and compensation.
Chairing members voiced consistent concern about approving a change of use on a contingency that the applicants were not yet able to document. Mr. Johnson made a motion to continue the item to the March 24, 2025 meeting; the board approved the continuance unanimously.
The board instructed staff to make clear to the applicants that the continued hearing should include: (1) signed or demonstrably committed leases for the required off‑street parking spaces and (2) a written on‑site manager agreement describing duties and compensation. The board said it would review those materials at the continued hearing and expects executed leases rather than unconfirmed, hypothetical arrangements.
The petitioner may present leases and the manager agreement to the zoning office prior to the March 24 meeting for staff review; the board indicated it might accept the documentation as part of the record at the continued hearing but will make a final decision when the entire record is before it.
The continuance maintains the petition’s active status; no vote on the special‑use permit or parking variance was taken on Feb. 24.
