Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 2 Wheatland Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newport approves revised 2 Wheatland Court plan 3–2, limits third-floor living and rooftop decks
Summary
After extensive testimony from applicants, experts and neighbors, the Newport Zoning Board approved the McHughs’ amended plan for 2 Wheatland Court by a 3–2 vote, attaching conditions that the third floor be limited to mechanical/storage and that rooftop decks be prohibited; neighbors had argued the three stacked verandas were excessive.
The Newport Zoning Board on Nov. 25 approved an amended application to demolish and rebuild 2 Wheatland Court and to allow variances that will increase lot coverage to 43% (35.13% permitted), but the decision carried conditions after extended testimony from applicants, their experts and adjoining neighbors.
Attorney Matthew Landry, representing applicants Andrew and Avani McHugh, told the board the project responds to FEMA floodplain requirements that force the building footprint upward and that the modest verandas on each level are necessary to provide outdoor living space and to soften the exterior appearance. "The Third Floor as was agreed to in the previous application is for mechanicals only," Landry said, explaining that the upper level would provide a landing and maintenance access for rooftop equipment and (potential) solar panels.
Neighbors and their counsel strongly opposed the stacked three-level verandas and the resulting scale. "We think that three decks totaling… is excessive and is more than what's reasonably necessary to make full enjoyment of the property," opposition counsel said. Nearby resident Louis Neil Gray, whose property borders the site, testified that the elevated structure created by FEMA-required freeboard "looks like a four-story building" and expressed concerns about proximity (eaves near the property line) and future conversion of upper levels.
The applicants' witnesses — including real-estate expert James Houlton — presented a proportionality analysis (Applicant Exhibit A) comparing lot coverage across the neighborhood and argued the condominium of constraints (very small lot, coastal/flood rules) justifies the relief. Houlton testified that the subject lot is substantially smaller than the R10 standard and that proportionality calculations reduce some dimensional burdens, making the proposed coverage consistent with neighborhood patterns.
Board members split on how to weigh proportionality and neighborhood impacts. Several members noted the hardship posed by the 2,400-square-foot lot and the need to comply with flood-elevation rules that push utilities and mechanicals above base flood elevation. Other board members agreed with neighbors that the three stacked verandas — particularly with the house elevated to provide parking beneath — produce an appearance and a scale that can be intrusive.
After deliberation, the board attached explicit conditions to its approval: the project must begin and be substantially complete within 12 months (or obtain an extension from the zoning officer), all public-notice invoices must be paid before recording, the third floor must be limited to mechanicals and storage and may not be used as living space without returning to the board, and there shall be no rooftop decks. The motion to grant the variance and special-use permits carried on a 3–2 vote. The roll call recorded the following votes: Ross Johnson — aye; Wick Rudd — aye; Nicole Chevrier — aye; Dave Riley — nay; Bart Grimes — nay.
What happens next: The board directed the applicant to record the decision and proceed with building-permit review. Staff noted that compliance with the conditions (for example, marking the third floor as non-livable space on plans and any building-permit documents) will be enforced at the building-permit stage and through standard recording conditions.
