Newport Historic District Commission Meeting Summary - November 10, 2025
Newport Historic District Commission Meeting Summary - November 10, 2025
The Newport Historic District Commission convened on November 10, 2025, to review a presentation on lead paint remediation strategies for historic windows, followed by a review of various Certificate of Appropriateness applications. The meeting addressed the conflict between historic preservation standards and modern building codes, resulting in mixed approvals, denials, and continuances based on material compatibility and site context.
Consent Calendar
- The commission accepted the minutes from the October 14, 2025 meeting.
- The commission accepted the staff's findings of fact for the evening's applications.
- Summary approval was granted for applications at 4 Brenton Road (N6), 53 Bridge Street and 213 (N7), and 1 Doris Terrace (N51).
- The application for 4 Red Cross Avenue, Unit 5 (N8) was approved conditionally; the window selection must be updated and confirmed by the preservation planner.
- Extensions were granted for previously approved plans at 10 Cross Street and 275 Harrison Avenue.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Margaret Back (Newport Restoration Foundation) and Rob Cagnetta (Heritage Restoration) presented findings from a year-long study on lead paint adaptation and remediation for historic wood windows.
- Speaker Positions:
- Margaret Back expressed full support for the adoption of the presented documents to guide homeowners and inspectors, noting that the goal is to alleviate confusion and prevent unnecessary window replacement.
- Rob Cagnetta expressed that it is technically feasible to make historic windows lead-safe through various mitigation strategies (encapsulation, stripping, or making windows inoperable) rather than forced replacement, but emphasized that the burden of proof lies on contractors to demonstrate compliance to inspectors.
- Preservation Planner Jill Chin expressed that the new guidelines are necessary to support the state's enforcement of the Lead Hazard Remediation Act and to assist commissioners in reviewing applications with lead concerns.
- Public Inquiry: Commissioners noted that short-term rentals (under 100 days) create a loophole where lead compliance is not required, potentially displacing residents. The commissioners expressed concern that the current process forces displacement and creates a housing shortage.
- Applicants:
- Gregory Johnick (4 Red Cross Ave) agreed to the condition of updating window selection.
- Mark Rapp (8 Beacon Hill Rd) expressed support for the modified garage design meeting the commission's concerns regarding massing.
- Garrett Conroy (T-Mobile) expressed willingness to adjust antenna colors to match building brick but stated the structural need for specific locations could not be moved.
- Stephanie Windley (37 Sherman St) expressed frustration at the inconsistency of requiring a new window survey after previous phases were approved, arguing that replacement is necessary for aesthetic consistency to avoid a "patchwork doll" appearance.
- Robert Silva (D Gordon LLC/Francis Dubois) expressed that the basketball court construction was done with great care and aesthetic sensitivity to minimize impact on the historic district.
- Rob Stollman (KHP Capital Partners) expressed that the applicant is forced into a "Hobson's choice" because building codes prohibit true divided light windows in this commercial structure, leaving simulated divided light as the only code-compliant option.
- Stephen Santos & Maria Nelson (40 Sherman St) expressed that the closet addition was a good-faith attempt to add functionality without realizing permit requirements were separate from the shingle replacement permit.
- Peter Regan (95 John St.) expressed a willingness to split the application to move forward with approved elements (windows and bump-out) while deferring controversial elements (decks and dormers).
Discussion Items
- Lead Paint Remediation Strategies: Rob Cagnetta detailed that 80+ dust samples were taken; he found that unrestored windows with typical failing paint often had lead in the jam and sill rather than the sash. He expressed that partial restoration (removing only the faces of the sash) is viable if abrasion points are eliminated, though it requires strict verification with lead inspectors. He argued that making certain windows inoperable (sealing them shut) can be a viable lead-safe strategy if egress codes are met elsewhere.
- 8 Beacon Hill Road (Garage): Mark Rapp presented modified renderings. He expressed that the dormer width was reduced and the garage was set back into the rock ledge to minimize massing. Commissioner support was expressed for the scale adjustments, noting the stone foundation and shingle flare matched the context.
- 1 Bellevue Avenue (T-Mobile Antennas): Discussion focused on the visual impact of antennas on the Viking Hotel. The commission expressed opposition to "faux brick" covers, preferring solid colors. Commissioner Kenny Bennell expressed strong opposition to any equipment on the historic balustrade. Commissioner Frank Bala expressed opposition to the faux brick approach. A consensus formed to approve antennas in solid colors matching the brick (not mimicking it) and white on the balustrade.
- 37 Sherman Street (Window Replacement): The applicant requested approval to continue replacing windows based on a previous survey, while staff noted the survey indicated most windows could be repaired. Commissioner Frank Bala expressed that the policy of "repair before replacement" must be upheld. Commissioner Jim Manson expressed concern about the loss of historic fabric. The applicant argued that restoring some and replacing others would create an aesthetically inconsistent facade with mismatched storm windows. Staff expressed a need for updated documentation to determine if the condition has deteriorated since the 2024 survey.
- 47 & 45 Bridge Street (Sports Court): The expert witness, Frederick Statura, expressed that the basketball court is compatible based on its location at the edge of the historic district, the use of permeable materials, and screening. However, Commissioner Jim Manson expressed that the property is not on the "edge" to the extent Statura claimed and that sports courts are incompatible with the Point neighborhood's character. Commissioner Frank Bala expressed that the construction without permits and the scale of the court made it inappropriate. The commission expressed that the lack of permits and the nature of the structure as a "facility" made it non-compatible.
- 1 Bellevue Avenue (Hotel Window Replacement): The applicant presented Pella Reserve all-wood windows with simulated divided lights (SDL) and impact ratings. The commission discussed the conflict between historic appearance (true divided light) and building code requirements (impact resistance). Commissioner Frank Bala expressed reservations about setting a precedent for SDL replacement. Commissioner Kathy Moran expressed that the true divided light option was a necessary compromise to maintain craftsmanship display. The commission accepted that the building code prohibits true divided light impact windows, and the SDL option is the next best compatible solution for this commercial structure.
- 40 Sherman Street (Closet Addition): The applicant presented an addition with vinyl windows and a flat roof. The commission expressed that the addition as designed is incompatible due to the vinyl materials and lack of differentiation from the original structure. Commissioner Jim Manson expressed that the addition looks like a "massive wall" in photos. The commission expressed a need to see updated designs with wood materials and a roofline that differentiates the new addition from the historic structure.
- 95 John Street (Window Restoration & Roof Decks): The applicant proposed moving original windows to the front facade and replacing non-original ones with Colby windows. The commission expressed support for the window changes. Regarding the rear dormer and decks, Commissioner Kathy Moran expressed that the dormer is too large and exposed on Memorial Boulevard. Commissioner Frank Bala expressed opposition to the decks and railings on the rear elevation, viewing them as modern additions that do not fit the historic character.
Key Outcomes
- Lead Paint Documents: The commission expressed support for adopting the lead paint mitigation manual and user guide at the December meeting. Future actions include updating the Window and Door Guidance document to include lead mitigation strategies.
- Approved Applications:
- 4 Brenton Road (Summary Approval)
- 53 Bridge Street and 213 (Summary Approval)
- 1 Doris Terrace (Summary Approval)
- 4 Red Cross Avenue, Unit 5 (Conditional Approval: Window selection update required)
- 10 Cross Street (Extension Approved)
- 275 Harrison Avenue (Extension Approved)
- 8 Beacon Hill Road (Approval: Modified garage design)
- 1 Bellevue Avenue (Approval: T-Mobile antennas in solid colors and white on balustrade)
- 1 Bellevue Avenue (Approval: Hotel Windows - Pella Reserve SDL Impact Rated Windows)
- 95 John Street (Part 1 Approval: Window restoration and second-floor bump-out; Part 2 Continued)
- Denied Applications:
- 47 Bridge Street (Denial: Basketball court incompatible with historic district; voted against by all commissioners on compatibility standards).
- 45 Bridge Street (Denial: Basketball court incompatible; voted against by all commissioners on compatibility standards).
- Continued Applications:
- 37 Sherman Street: Continued to December 9, 2025, pending an updated window survey and interior photos to verify repairability vs. replacement needs.
- 40 Sherman Street: Continued to December 9, 2025, pending revised architectural elevations to ensure compatibility (wood materials, differentiated roofline).
- 95 John Street (Part 2): Continued to December 9, 2025, to address the scale of the third-floor dormer, proposed decks, and railings.
- Policy Directives: The commission directed staff to coordinate with the Building Official to manage conflicts between historic standards and building codes for impact-resistant windows in future commercial applications.
Meeting Transcript
Yeah, that should be that's what it's under. Okay. Okay, guys, thank you and welcome to the lead paint adaptation and remediation strategies for historic windows presentation. Today we are joined by our partners in preservation, the Newport Restoration Foundation and Heritage Restoration, our lovely expert in windows. So without further ado, take it away. Thank you, Jill. Good evening, everyone. My name is Margaret Back. I'm the preservation projects manager at the Newport Restoration Foundation. And I'm here tonight with our project name, Rob from Heritage Restoration, to present our findings to you all for over a year of work that our team's been working on this project for our lead paint adaptation remediation strategies for historic wood windows. So thank you all, first of all, for coming in an hour and a half early for what I'm sure is already gonna be a long night of applications. But we really appreciate getting your feedback tonight on these documents. We're just gonna go through a quick agenda this evening. I'm really mostly gonna turn it over to Rob to speak about the findings and the manual that he and his team put together. But uh we really hope that these documents uh are gonna be useful resources, not only to homeowners and to um property owners as well, but to you all as commissioners. That's really the goal of these documents. So we'd love to hear your feedback at the end of this and really have more of a discussion about how these documents are going to serve you and be helpful to you when you're receiving and go talking through applications uh about window replacement and any lead hazards that an applicant is concerned about. Uh so I just want to start by thanking our project team and our project funders. So, of course, we have the lovely looking right at me, Jill, the lovely Jill Chin, our preservation planner. Um, we've also had really great input from from Kelly Moran and Deanna Amarello, um, some early drafts of the project from NRF, it's myself and our director of preservation, um, Alyssa Lozipon is here tonight. And then, of course, our our fearless contractor and consultant, uh Rob Cagnetta from Heritage Restoration, and quite a few members of Rob's team, including Jackie Salvas and Marguerite Keys. Um, and of course, we want to thank our our project funders as well. So, um, as a certified local government, uh, the city of Newport is able to apply for this really excellent grant funding every year, um, which is a really great way to um really forward different preservation priorities in the city. Um, so we're really thankful to the Rhode Island SHIPO for um sponsor you know, funding this project, uh reviewing this project with us, offering really helpful feedback as well. Um, and we hope to continue to do these types of really great collaborations between the city of Newport and you know our uh nonprofit preservation player NRF to work and collaborate to really advance these types of preservation opportunities in the city. And of course, thanks to the National Trust of Historic Preservation for additionally funding this project. Uh just to let you know sort of where we are in the whole process, as I mentioned, um, we've been over a year that we've been putting these documents together, so we're really thrilled to present them to you tonight. Um, as many of you know, this this project really came out of the 2023 expansion of the Red Rhode Island Lead Hazard Remediation Act and the uh subsequent enforcement policies that were going into place last year. Um so we really jumped as a team from the city perspective and from NRF's perspective to have a response to the confusion and the concern from a lot of different homeowners reaching out to all of us about what to do with lead hazard wood windows and how to pass a Rhode Island lead inspection with a historic property. Um so we've been really spending the majority of this year putting it together. Rob quickly jumped on board presenting to you tonight, and we hope to have this uh these documents adopted by you all at your next meeting in December. As many of you know, the background of this project again uh really dates back to a law that's over 20 years old here in Rhode Island, the Lead Hazard Mitigation Act, which really takes into account that buildings built before 1978 are likely to have the presence of lead paint in them, a hazards when ingested, um, and that the since 2002 um homeowners' parental properties need to have a certificate of lead conformance, a CLC from a licensed lead inspector for their properties. Um and the important thing to know about a CLC is it's not lead-free. It's really an understanding between the homeowner and the inspector that there is lead paint present at their property, but that it's properly encapsulated or mitigated in such a way that it doesn't uh pose any harm to anyone living in the property. And that's why these certificates are updated every two years to understand that there's a level of maintenance going on and the homeowner is taking care of their property and any lead hazards. And where we've all really come into this again is in the last two years with the expansion of these laws, the introduction of a rental registry. So now all homeowners who rent their properties or landlords who rent their properties have to have their properties uh listed if they have a CLC or not, and of course, there are fines that are associated with this if they don't have a CLC in hand. So very quickly we began to get feedback from Jill from people calling NRF as well, with just confusion over these laws, a lot of it misinformation as well about the lead inspection process, what the timeline for that looks like, where are there lead hazards in my home? And then there's this extra layer of well, I live in a historic district and I have this extra application uh review that I need to go through. So what are some steps that I can take as a as a landlord? Um we've also been receiving a lot of feedback about inspectors that are more reluctant to even test wood windows if they are painted in pre-1978, sometimes this assumption that there may be lead paint on those windows. Um overall, I think we've been sensing that the confusion and really uncertainty about these laws has led to really an uptick of people just being frustrated by the process and probably just wanting to replace their windows and not even deal with having to go through the lead inspection process. Um that's really where we came together and put together uh these resources today. Um we have we decided to break them up into two different documents. One is quite shorter, it's a user guide, which is meant to be much more friendly to homeowners and to landlords to really understand what are the Rhode Island lead laws, how they affect you as a property owner, um, and as a as someone who rents your property, um, understanding where lead hazards might exist in your home, and then what are the different options to safely remediate lead hazards from your uh wood windows, and then also to understand the lead inspection process generally and also the contractor selection process, which as a homeowner, you do have a certain role to play in. And then the second document that is really going to take up um the crux of Rob's comments tonight is the manual, which is a much longer document. And this is really meant to be a more technical how-to guide that you would hand off to your contractor who's actually doing the lead remediation work on those windows. Um, and this again covers about 10 different types of windows and how you can safely mitigate and targeted remediation to each of those different lead hazard windows and how that work can be done. So I'm gonna hand it off to Rob now to go into the specifics of that and some of his findings from the study. Thank you, Margaret.
openpublica.com