Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Coastal Buffer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newport Council Sends Negative Recommendation on 88 Washington St. to CRMC after Contentious Hearing
Summary
The City Council voted to send a negative recommendation to the Coastal Resources Management Council on a proposed single-family home at 88 Washington Street, citing concerns about buffer variances and community impacts; the item prompted lengthy public comment and conflicting legal advice.
The Newport City Council voted to send a negative recommendation to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) on the application for a new single-family home and associated variances at 88 Washington Street.
Neighbors and preservation advocates urged the council to oppose the CRMC variance request, saying the project would intrude into the coastal buffer and alter the streetscape. Peter Denton, who lives at 94 Washington Street, told the council he and other neighbors were “seriously opposed to the construction of this house” and said the application asked CRMC for setbacks far smaller than the regulations require.
The developer’s attorney, Jay Lynch, told the council that the Historic District Commission (HDC) and the Zoning Board had reviewed the proposal and found it appropriate for the site. Lynch warned councilors against trying to “do a backdoor around your Historic District Commission and your zoning board.”
The council debated whether to weigh in while related appeals are pending in Superior Court. Solicitor guidance in the meeting said the council was not required to opine and that CRMC could decide independently, but several councilors and members of the public argued the city should state its view on the buffer variances.
After discussion, the council first voted for a motion of no recommendation; that motion passed. Councilor David Carlin then moved a separate motion to send a formal negative recommendation to CRMC. That motion passed on a subsequent vote.
The council record shows the city asked CRMC to consider whether the requested 22-foot buffer (the applicant’s figure) sufficiently met CRMC’s variance criteria versus the 75-foot buffer cited by opponents. Residents raised additional concerns about loss of waterfront views and potential damage to a large street tree that, they said, sits within the development footprint.
This vote was advisory to CRMC; the state agency will decide whether to grant the variances necessary for the project.
The council’s action reflects continuing local controversy: the project previously received HDC and zoning approvals and is the subject of ongoing litigation in Superior Court, and councilors expressed differing views on whether the city should intervene while the courts consider related appeals.
