Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Protective Club expansion on Thames Street approved with conditions after neighbors press parking, noise concerns
Summary
The Zoning Board approved a small rear addition and a one‑bedroom unit at 594–596 Thames St., granting variances for lot coverage and parking after the applicant reduced window area, added a stacked parking space, and agreed to conditions including long‑term rentals, bike parking and no outdoor service area.
The Newport Zoning Board voted 5–0 May 18 to grant variances allowing a two‑story rear addition and a new one‑bedroom dwelling at 594–596 Thames St., a site occupied by the Protective Club, after the applicant amended the design to address neighbor concerns about noise and parking.
Attorney J. Russell Jackson told the board the revised plan shaves the rear addition so it no longer encroaches into the public right‑of‑way, reduces first‑floor glazing on the rear elevation and converts a rear double door to a solid emergency egress door. "We've gotten rid of the double door, just leaving a single door without glass in it," architect Chris Fagan said when describing the changes.
Expert testimony supported the request. Real‑estate witness James Houle said the building’s historic layout and an existing high gap between floors make an internal reconfiguration impractical and that the rear expansion is a reasonable response. Traffic consultant Todd Brayton testified the added one on‑site parking space and the low projected trip generation (an estimated six combined entering/exiting trips at peak hour) reduce traffic and safety concerns; he also said the proposed stacked spaces meet dimensional requirements despite requiring coordination between vehicle owners.
Neighbors pressed the board on parking and neighborhood character. Objector Chuck Bolduc said the Lower Thames area has little off‑street parking and warned that expansion will increase demand: "The expansion will require more parking to be put onto the side streets," he told the board. Another neighbor described past disturbances and urged the board to protect the residential character of nearby streets.
To address those concerns, the applicant accepted a set of conditions the board included in its motion: long‑term (not short‑term) rentals for the residential unit, installation of a bicycle rack/space and scooter parking at the rear of the building, and a provision that no outdoor service area may be added without further zoning and council approval. The board also required the usual 12‑month start/substantial completion timeline and payment of public‑notice invoices.
Board members said the changes and conditions persuaded them the project would not alter the neighborhood’s character. Member Mark Grimes, summarizing his view, said he was satisfied the applicant had addressed parking and noise concerns and that the proposal would help keep a long‑standing commercial use viable. The motion to grant, as amended with conditions, passed unanimously.
What happens next: Applicant counsel was asked to prepare the final decision and file the recorded documents; the conditions will be included in the recorded approval.
Provenance: Staff read the petition (SEG 2369–2379). Architect, expert, and traffic testimony occurred in SEG 2769–3230. Public comment from neighbors took place at SEG 3403–3568. The motion with conditions was presented and the board recorded a unanimous vote at SEG 3790–4223.
