Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board continues hearing on 144'150 Thames Street redevelopment after multi-hour testimony
Summary
The Newport Zoning Board of Review heard detailed testimony from the applicant, consultants and objectors about a proposed 4-story mixed-use redevelopment at 144'150 Thames Street that seeks variances for three additional vacation-guest units and a large parking shortfall; the hearing was continued to Feb. 24, 2025.
The Newport Zoning Board of Review on a special meeting night heard several hours of testimony on an application by CCB Capital & Real Estate Inc. to demolish the existing structure at 144'150 Thames Street and construct a four-story mixed-use building with two retail units and 14 vacation guest facility units. Attorney J. Russell Jackson summarized the request as two variances: a parking variance and a dimensional (density) variance to allow 14 units where 11 are permitted.
Applicant witness Christopher Bishow, who identified himself as president of CCB Capital and founder of Landings Real Estate Group, testified the existing building is "beyond repair" and that redevelopment is needed to address utilities, stormwater and public-safety risks. Bishow said podium construction and stormwater vaults are necessary because of a grade differential on the site and floodplain considerations; those infrastructure costs, he said, make the extra three units necessary to achieve financial viability. "By demolishing the building, we're gonna have the ability to install underground containment injection pumps," Bishow said in testimony describing the stormwater plan.
A traffic and parking analysis presented by engineer Lorenzo Dantes estimated the development would generate roughly "6 or 7 trips per peak hour on a local network," and recommended a programmatic mitigation approach that relies on two applicant-controlled off-site lots for peak overflow. Planner Doug MacLean argued the reduced building height and coverage would bring the lot into conformance with some code standards and that the requested variances represent minimal relief given the site's constraints.
Objecting attorneys and witnesses pressed the applicant on parking: they questioned the reliability of relying on privately owned nearby lots, the absence of an independent overnight-utilization study for those lots and the lack of a detailed pro forma submitted for board review. Counsel for abutters asked whether the applicant had binding contractual arrangements for the off-site spaces and whether the municipal code's one-space-per-bedroom standard had been properly considered. The board did not vote on the merits; a motion to continue the application to the Feb. 24, 2025 meeting passed by voice vote so objectors can present additional evidence and experts.
