Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the 8 Peckham Conversion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board approves conversion at 8 Peckham Ave to three units over neighbor objections, 4–1

Newport Zoning Board of Review · September 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board granted variances and a special‑use permit allowing 8 Peckham Ave to change from two to three dwelling units, including dormer work and a height variance, after testimony on parking, density and neighborhood character. The vote was 4–1.

The Newport Zoning Board of Review voted 4–1 on Sept. 22 to grant variances and a special‑use permit that allow 8 Peckham Ave to be renovated from a two‑family into a three‑unit multifamily property.

Attorney David Marlin and principal Tucker Holmes said the project lifts dormers to create usable third‑floor space, addresses stormwater and provides six off‑street parking spaces. Holmes said the renovation will remove lead paint, add insulation and central air, and that his intent is "to rent yearly" to working families and young professionals rather than operate seasonal or short‑term rentals.

Neighbors urged caution. Darren Torren, who lives at 6 Peckham Ave, asked the board to deny the application and argued that repeated conversions by developers had harmed street character and property values: "Please don't approve this renovation," he told the board. Another neighbor, Jim Sullivan, disputed the applicant’s claim about the number of existing multifamily units on the street. Supporters of the proposal — including Jerry Dakotis, who sold the house to the applicant and submitted a written letter — urged the board to approve the plan and praised the applicant’s renovation approach.

The petition requested relief from the R‑10 lot‑area requirement for a three‑unit configuration, a 2.7‑foot side‑yard setback where five feet is required, and a height variance allowing dormer work to use the existing 35‑foot ridge. Board members split on the housing‑density question: one member said the application did not demonstrate a hardship for density relief, while others said the physical constraints of the existing building and the added on‑site parking supported relief. The board attached standard conditions (12‑month start/complete, payment of public‑notice invoices) before approving the petition.