Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board sustains appeal, overturns HDC siting denial for proposed Bellevue Avenue hotel
Summary
The Newport Zoning Board sustained an appeal by an applicant for an 86‑room hotel at 181 Bellevue Avenue and reversed an HDC finding that the project’s siting was incompatible. The board found the HDC decision lacked support in the record and substituted the statutory compatibility standard.
The Newport Zoning Board of Review on May 19 sustained an appeal by 181 Bellevue Avenue Center LLC and reversed an historic‑district commission (HDC) denial that had rejected the proposed siting of an 86‑room hotel at the Bellevue Garden Shopping Plaza.
The HDC had earlier approved most aspects of the hotel—height, setbacks, materials and massing—but, by a narrow 4‑3 vote, found the building’s proposed siting on the plaza incompatible with the surrounding historic area. The developer appealed the siting decision to the zoning board.
At the appeal hearing the applicant’s attorney and two expert witnesses—architect Justin Hetty and preservation scholar Ronald Onorado, both accepted as experts by the HDC—testified and submitted modeled materials showing how the proposed location and design related to nearby buildings, sidewalks and streets. The applicant’s memorandum documented a wide series of site comparisons across Bellevue Avenue, Williams Street, Jones Avenue and Memorial Boulevard.
The zoning board majority concluded the HDC’s siting denial was not supported by the weight of the evidence in the record and that some HDC members had applied a higher design‑preference standard rather than the relevant statutory test: whether the project is “compatible with the surrounding historic area.” The board’s decision cites the principle—articulated by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in prior case law—that the commission may not substitute its subjective design preference for the compatibility standard required by law. Board members said they found the applicant’s expert testimony persuasive and noted the HDC’s in‑house preservation planner had not raised siting objections in staff reports.
On that basis the zoning board voted 5‑0 to sustain the appeal and overturn the HDC’s siting denial. The board instructed counsel to prepare a written decision for the official record. The applicant’s other approvals from the HDC (materials, scale and related matters) remain part of the record; this ruling addresses only the HDC’s siting denial.
The zoning board’s action restores the applicant’s ability to proceed with municipal approvals required to reach building‑permit stage, subject to the formal written decision and any conditions the board includes there.
