Board approves condenser placement and small lot‑coverage increase for 18 Barney Street project, limits deck access to one unit

The Newport Zoning Board of Review on June 22 granted redevelopment relief the Collection at Barney LLC sought for a six‑unit conversion at 18 Barney Street and adjacent 3–4 Barney Court, approving two variances and attaching a condition aimed at protecting neighbor privacy.

The board voted first to allow AC condensers to be placed about 13.5 feet from Russo Court — closer than the 20‑foot separation that would normally be required for accessory equipment adjacent to a public right of way — on the condition that the units be screened. Vice chairman Dave Riley moved the condenser motion and Melissa Patovina seconded; the vote was unanimous.

Later the board split the remaining request into a separate vote. The applicant asked for a modest 2 percentage‑point increase in lot coverage (from 59% to 61%) to reconstruct and slightly enlarge a second‑floor porch above a rear patio. The board approved that variance as well and added a condition that the second‑floor porch be accessible by only one condominium unit. That motion also passed on a unanimous 5–0 vote.

Developer EJ Lanney told the board the work is part of a historic‑rehabilitation plan to restore three buildings and put six condominiums back on the market. Lanney and his counsel presented historic photographs, existing footings and ledger evidence and a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic District Commission. Lanney said the design restores fabric he and the historic commission found on site while keeping the new deck small (about 96 square feet).

Neighbor Deborah Merrill of Russo Court opposed the upper‑story porch, saying the proposed deck would be approximately 17–20 feet from her bedroom and that an elevated deck projects sound farther than ground‑level patios. “It impacts my privacy as well as sound,” Merrill said during public comment. Neighbor Peter Regan, representing several nearby homeowners, urged the board to deny the second‑floor porch or to add strict limits on use and access.

The applicant disputed the scale of the expected impact. Counsel said the proposed porch is under the size limit the code allows for an upper‑story porch and argued the site’s existing, long‑standing lot‑coverage and the buildings’ arrangement on three frontages make modest relief appropriate. The developer also said condo‑association rules recorded in the condominium documents would limit noise, and that the association requires minimum three‑month tenant terms so transient short‑term rentals are not readily available for the site.

Real‑estate expert testimony in the record argued the increase is de minimis and that nearby properties include high lot‑coverage examples. The board considered noise enforcement tools already in city code and rejected a requested additional curfew condition; commissioners said noise enforcement (decibel readings and police response) and the condominium’s governing rules provide existing remedies.

The board members who voted in favor said they were persuaded by the combination of HDC approval, the small size of the porch, the existing nonconforming lot coverage, and the applicant’s willingness to accept screening and the single‑unit access condition. The board instructed staff to record the decisions and to ensure the screening and access condition are included in the written findings.

Next steps: the applicant will record the decisions and satisfy conditions (screening details and payment of notice invoices) before work proceeds. The board’s action does not change enforcement remedies available to neighbors under the city noise ordinance.