Newport Historic District Commission Meeting December 9, 2025

The Newport Historic District Commission convened on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, to review 11 applications, approve consent calendar items, and address new business regarding the 2026 meeting schedule and updated window guidance. The meeting featured discussions on window restoration versus replacement, new construction on non-contributing sites, and significant exterior alterations to contributing properties. Several applications were approved with conditions, while others were continued for design revisions or dismissed.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes: Approved the minutes from the November 10, 2025 meeting without corrections.
• Staff Findings: Accepted the staff findings of fact for all applications as presented.
• Summary Applications: Approved the following applications unanimously:
  • N7: 103 Mill Street (Plat 25, Lot 109) – Citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80 060, A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.
  • N8: 139-141 Pelham Street (Plat 28, Lot 002) – Citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80 060, A1, 2, 4, and 5.
  • N11: 27 Willow Street (Plat 12, Lot 96) – Citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80 060, A1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Karen Winley (Applicant): Expressed a desire for a cohesive look with all-wood windows but acknowledged staff guidance preferring repair over replacement. The applicant agreed to amend the application to a restoration approach.
• Daniel Petashnick (Applicant): Absent; application rescheduled. No public comment recorded.
• Chris Rousseau (Applicant): Expressed a desire to replace 34 windows with vinyl-clad pine for efficiency and safety but stated willingness to restore windows if the Commission required it based on the evaluation. The applicant agreed to conditions regarding the restoration of wood windows and review of specifications for aluminum basement windows.
• Stephen Santos (Applicant): Expressed frustration and stress regarding the denial of the 40 Sherman Street application, noting prior investments and the lack of alternative locations for a closet addition. Stated that the structure was already in place.
• Peter Regan (Applicant for 95 John Street): Confirmed amendments to remove the second-floor deck and lower rail heights to address Commission concerns.
• Mark Reitman (Applicant for 7 Willow Street): Expressed willingness to modify the design, including dropping the ridgeline, but noted the previous 2014 approval dictated the current massing.
• Elizabeth Galtra (Applicant for 41 Everest Street): Expressed interest in restoring the full exterior in future phases; no opposition to the proposed portico given neighborhood precedent for Queen Anne style.
• Amaral (Applicant for 15 Codington Street): Stated that the condo association requested Hardy Board siding due to durability but acknowledged a potential need to move to wood siding if the Commission required it.
• EJ Lanny (Applicant for 18-23 Barney Street): Expressed intent to restore windows where possible, utilize attic stock, and mechanize the carriage door as an out-swing to retain character.
• Dan Herring Roether (Applicant for 96 Rhode Island Avenue): Confirmed plans to remove stucco due to rot and replace with wood shingles; expressed willingness to document findings as the stucco is removed.
• James Small (Applicant for 104 Mill Street): Acknowledged the building is now a contributing structure; agreed to restore original wood windows where possible and maintain simplified fenestration.
• Mark Horan (Agent for 19 Catherine Street): Acknowledged Commission concerns regarding overdevelopment and the totality of proposed elements; agreed to continue the application for further client discussion.
• John Brundage & Mark Mason (Applicants for 0 Brenton Road): Explained site constraints (wetlands) limiting design options; agreed to a site visit and design review committee to address massing and garage concerns.

Discussion Items

• 37 Sherman Street (C2): Applicant requested permission to replace 11 windows. Commission members expressed strong opposition to full replacement based on the heritage restoration report stating most windows are repairable. Commissioner Benell cited the "repair before replace" standard (Standard 8) and the risk of setting a precedent for wholesale replacement. The application was amended to restore nine windows; the other two were already approved. The amended application was approved.
• 21 and 23 Brinley Street (C4): Applicant requested replacement of 34 windows and access doors. Commission members expressed concerns about maintaining historic character. A consensus formed to require the restoration of all wood windows except for four aluminum basement windows which have water infiltration issues. The applicant agreed to a new specification for the basement windows to be reviewed by the planner and to restore the remaining units. Approved with conditions.
• 40 Sherman Street (C6): Application for an illegal closet addition. Commission members expressed strong concern that the addition violates symmetry and historic character standards (A1, A4, A7). Commissioner Bill Finley expressed empathy but noted the need to treat the proposal as if it were not yet built, finding the footprint and massing obstructive. Commissioner Goddard suggested modifications like in-filling columns or differentiating materials, but Commissioner Moran and others felt the design was fundamentally incompatible. The application was denied due to lack of votes for approval with conditions.
• 95 John Street (C7): Application for door/window rearrangement, window restoration, and rear additions. Commission members supported the dormer but expressed concern regarding the second-floor deck and railings. The applicant agreed to remove the deck door, convert it to a window, and install a continuous lower-profile wooden balustrade. Commissioner Moran expressed reservations about the conjectural nature of the railings but agreed to support the amended proposal. Approved with conditions.
• 7 Willow Street (N1): Application for a second-floor addition. Commission members expressed concern that the massing of the addition is too large relative to the original structure, creating a "monolithic" look that contradicts the building's historic nature. Commissioner Goddard and others were not supportive of the current massing. The application was continued to January to allow for a design revision to reduce the scale.
• 41 Everest Street (N3): Application for a new port cochere and various repairs. Commission members supported the removal of non-historic decks and the reuse of existing windows. While acknowledging the lack of specific historical evidence for a port cochere on this exact footprint, Commissioners Finley and Goddard noted that porticos are common in the Queen Anne style and within the neighborhood. The application was approved.
• 15 Codington Street (N5): Application to replace deteriorating siding with Hardy Board. Preservation planner and Commission members expressed strong preference for natural wood materials (cedar) over fiber cement, citing Historic Preservation Standards. The applicant indicated a need to coordinate with the condo association regarding the material change. The application was continued to January for the applicant to secure consent for wood siding or return for administrative approval if amended.
• 18 Barney Street (N9): Application to add windows for symmetry, replace violations, and restore a rear deck. Commission members supported maintaining the unique all-wood cottage window and mechanizing the carriage door as an out-swing. Significant discussion arose regarding the size and location of the proposed second-floor deck; a consensus formed to reduce the deck's depth and width to align with historical evidence (Samborne maps) and reduce visual mass. The application was approved with conditions regarding deck dimensions and railing removal.
• 96 Rhode Island Avenue (N10): Application to remove stucco and replace with wood shingles. Commission members generally supported returning the building to its likely historic shingle appearance, noting the stucco is deteriorating and inconsistent with the style. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of historic photos for shutters and future details, but the application was approved.
• 104 Mill Street (N13): Application to replace roof, remove stucco, and replace windows. Commission members supported the removal of stucco but expressed a strong preference for retaining the existing wood window pattern on the second story rather than doubling up to French doors. The applicant agreed to maintain the simplified window fenestration and restore original windows. Approved with conditions.
• 19 Catherine Street (C5): Application for a pool, spa, outdoor kitchen, and fire pit. Commission members expressed opposition to the totality of the project, feeling it results in overdevelopment that consumes the yard and alters the historic character of the neighborhood, despite complying with zoning setbacks. Commissioner Finley noted the proximity of human activity to the streetscape. The application was continued to January for the applicant to reconsider the scale and placement of elements.
• 0 Brenton Road (N4): Application to construct a new home on the former Underwood School site. Commission members expressed concern regarding the massive scale, the unrelenting eave line, and the three-car garage facing the street. The application was continued, and a motion was approved to schedule a site visit and a Design Review Committee to address massing, roof lines, and garage orientation.

Key Outcomes

• Approvals:
  • 37 Sherman Street (Amended to restore 9 windows).
  • 21/23 Brinley Street (With conditions to restore wood windows and review basement specs).
  • 95 John Street (With conditions to remove deck door and lower railings).
  • 41 Everest Street (Approved as presented).
  • 18 Barney Street (With conditions to reduce deck dimensions and remove railings).
  • 96 Rhode Island Avenue (Approved as presented).
  • 104 Mill Street (With conditions to maintain window fenestration).
• Continuations:
  • 7 Willow Street (To January for massing revision).
  • 15 Codington Street (To January for material change authorization).
  • 19 Catherine Street (To January to reconsider scope).
  • 0 Brenton Road (To January following a scheduled site visit and Design Review Committee).
• Denials:
  • 40 Sherman Street (Denied due to incompatibility with historic character standards).
• Dismissals:
  • 61 Second Street (Dismissed without prejudice due to lack of applicant attendance).
• New Business:
  • Approved the 2026 Historic District Commission meeting schedule (all Tuesdays, with September meeting on the 15th).
  • Approved and adopted the updated guidance for windows, doors, and skylights in collaboration with NRF.