Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waite Wharf Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues Waite's Wharf hearing after debate over traffic, emergency access and neighborhood scale
Summary
After testimony from the applicant, traffic and planning experts, and multiple neighbors, the planning board voted to continue the Waite's Wharf redevelopment public hearing to the June meeting amid contested expert opinions about traffic safety, emergency access and whether the project fits the city's comprehensive plan.
The Newport Planning Board continued the public hearing on the Waite's Wharf redevelopment after more than three hours of testimony and neighborhood comment.
Applicant counsel Jay Russell Jackson told the board the team had submitted two exhibits — correspondence preserving a legal issue and an occupancy memo verified with the Newport Fire Department — and argued the revised plan reduces peak on‑site person counts. "On an average summer, busy Saturday, there's probably going to be about 350 people less," Jackson said, citing conservative assumptions in the project's occupancy analysis.
Opponents presented expert critiques that focused on safe access and neighborhood impacts. Traffic expert Ken Grama said the applicant relied on older count data and had not provided new intersection capacity analyses or sufficient operational detail for proposed valet parking and a shared‑street design on Waite's Wharf. "The proposal does not promote safe and efficient pedestrian and traffic circulation patterns," he told the board, citing narrow roadway widths and concerns about emergency vehicle swept paths.
Planning expert Doug McLean told the board the project's four‑story multifamily buildings and site layout are out of scale with the adjacent smaller residential properties and that the proposal, as submitted, "is not consistent with the city's comprehensive plan." He flagged loading and parking locations that he said conflict with circulation and the plan's preference for smaller lot, water‑dependent uses.
Neighbors told the board the neighborhood already suffers from narrow streets, limited sidewalks and delivery trucks blocking passage; several speakers said a residential gate that would allow one apartment building to exit onto Coddington Wharf presents a risk of event traffic spilling into residential streets if the gate is opened or bypassed. "If that gate malfunctioned or wasn't working... it would present the kind of problem we raised at the zoning hearing," said Mike Maroney, a long‑time resident.
After the testimony the board voted to continue the hearing to its June meeting to allow rebuttal witnesses and closing statements. The board then adjourned the session at 10:14 p.m.
