Newport Homeowner Alleges Racial Discrimination in Development Controversy

Newport Homeowner Alleges Racial Discrimination in Development Controversy

A couple who moved from Hartford, Connecticut to a family member’s house in Newport, Rhode Island is claiming discrimination, after neighbors contested their plans to demolish the property and construct a new house. 

Avani McHugh, speaking with GoLocalProv.com, said she believes the root of the opposition comes from her being a minority — and her husband is white.

“I think this is discrimination — I do,” said McHugh. “My husband’s not of the same background — just look at the demographics of the area.  I’m not saying that the [zoning] board is taking that in hand.  I just feel that the neighbors are saying if we give them a hard enough time, they’ll move.”

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

McHugh spoke to moving to Rhode Island — saying the couple discovered black mold in the cupboards at the property at 2 Wheatland Court, which had belonged to her husband Andrew’s grandmother, and are seeking to demolish the property and obtain what they believe is a 70-foot variance needed to construct a new house. 

“I used to come here as a child and have nothing but fond memories,” said Andrew McHugh of the house that is a street over from Ocean Drive -- and Bailey’s Beach Club. “I had no idea the neighbors were like this.”

Attempt to Tear Down — and Build — Meets Opposition 

McHugh spoke to getting the permit to demolish last November, but continued delays at the zoning board -- who ultimately rejected their application -- have meant they haven’t gotten the formal denial yet, which they plan to appeal in Superior Court. 

McHugh spoke of the couple’s decision to “build up,” to provide parking, as they are currently required to park on the grass in front of the house

“It’s not in a historic district. We have the smallest lot in the area — we’re just applying for a special use variance,” said McHugh. “The former Mayor [John Trifero] was granted 1000 feet of relief [for new construction]. We’re asking for 70 — and it was deemed excessive.”

On Sunday, Trifero, whose property is next to the McHughs', told GoLocalProv.com that he does not oppose their plans — and that he and his wife support their proposed new house. 

"I wish he would have said that before the zoning board," said McHugh. "I feel that would have made a huge difference."

Neighboring attorney Gregory Lawrence, who lives at 197 Coggeshall Avenue, sent objections to the city’s zoning officer, citing that he is a partner and shareholder Greenberg Traurig, (SEE OBJECTIONS BELOW).

Real Estate Consultant: "It's a Nameless Dread"

At the crux of the dispute is whether a patio on the current property should be counted towards existing lot coverage — or not. 

The McHugh’s real estate consultant, who has represented clients in the city for decades, said the request was a “difficult one” due to the interpretation of the patio. 

“In Newport, there is a regulation that if the patio is raised -- that it counts as lot coverage. If not, if it's flush to the ground, it's considered not lot coverage. Their patio is on top of the ground, but marginally,” said real estate expert Jim Houle. “The Board decided looking at photos it was not raised -- that it was wrong to call it a raised patio -- therein became the issue. Now, the amount they were asking for [for a variance] became fairly substantial.”

“You know, it is so difficult to get into these things, because the board is comprised of people who have their own level of subjectivity. The request is complicated,” said Houle. “But then the neighbors were going into design, which is not allowed in consideration at the board level. I think the design made the board scramble for reasons to turn them down. Is it right? No. Does it happen?  Yes. I think it was a mistake for the board members to bring up design.”

“If you're in Newport, you know what's gone on. We've had a phenomenal amount of zoning petitions of all sorts -- hotels, people are constantly going in front of the board. People in town don't like traffic, they don't like this, doesn't like that -- it's nameless dread until a person comes next to them,” said Houle. “The board has local people -- they get ticked off by the traffic and problems, too."

The McHughs have since painted the house since the zoning board voted to reject their application. 

“They decided to make it a real feud and to tick everyone off — they painted their house in colorful stripes like a box of crayons. Not the best way to get support. I do know that they wanted to ignore the zoning rules about setbacks. This is a very special neighborhood on Coggeshall and we usually are very supportive,” said Robyn Kauffman. “I think we were all stung by the monstrosity at the end of the street. The space ship house. UGLY.”

McHugh said Kauffman is not an abutter in the neighborhood, and questioned why she was copied on Lawrence's email to the zoning board -- and said she took particular affront that neighbors who testified in opposition of the project said they were “friends” of the McHughs.

“I think it’s a race thing — we’re interacial, and the youngest on the street of four houses,” said McHugh. “We’ve had neighbors say we should sell the lot and move.”

McHugh, who had worked as a labor and delivery nurse at Hartford Hospital, says she has to work as a traveling nurse now due to the health concerns in the house. 

Objections

The following were listed in Lawrence's email to the zoning board as his reasons for opposing the project:

* We are not opposed to property improvements or new homes.  We hope that 2 Wheatland Ct. can be improved respecting the zoning code and other applicable rules, which are established in part to preserve the character of specific neighborhoods – here the South End -- and avoid undue impact on neighbors and the environment.
 

* The requested relief appears to exceed by a large amount what is reasonable and appropriate for the replacement of the existing 1.5 story structure, which does not conform the R10A zoning code lot size or other conditions.  The application calls for a 3 story tall box-like structure with open parking underneath and vaguely defined features like exterior stairs and a roof deck, which each seem out of character and scale with the rest of the neighborhood. 
 
* It appears that the McHugh application desires to make the house (which appears to have been an out building or maybe parking for the adjacent house / lot) much larger to be a similar size to other houses.  This ignores that most other houses are on standard or larger lots than 10,000 square foot minimum in the R10A zone requirements. 
 
* The neighbors will be faced with a 30 foot (or more) structure looming above their property lines and the prospect of people on the roof deck looking right down on them and, for my wife and I, directly into our bedroom, kitchen and backyard.    
 
* We have been unable to detect any similar structures (3 story box with open parking underneath as well as an external staircase) or roof decks in this neighborhood.  So this appears to be a first.  This also could set a negative precedent, if allowed to proceed.