Newport Historic District Commission Meeting – April 14, 2026

The Newport Historic District Commission met on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, beginning at 11:30 AM (the transcript refers to “this evening,” but the agenda date is fixed). The meeting was chaired by the Madam Chair (Deanna Amarillo) with Vice Chair Jim Madsen and Commissioners Kelly Moran, Frank Bala, Ray Goddard, Bill Finley, Ben Willet, and Jen Deontremont present. Commissioner Brooke Richter was absent. Two new alternates observed but did not vote. The City Solicitor’s Office was represented by Kevin Gavin. The commission reviewed multiple applications, including a consent calendar, several full presentations, and administrative matters. Votes were recorded for each item.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes of the March 10, 2026 meeting were approved as presented.
• A motion to accept all staff findings of fact as the commission’s own was approved unanimously.
• Application N7 (25 Ocean Heights Road, Plat 41, Lot 328): Summary approval for an unspecified project, citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80, 060B1 and 2. No public comment. Approved unanimously.
• Application N4 (51 Lawrence Avenue, Plat 36, Lot 067): Abbreviated summary approval for Salve Regina University to remove a fabric awning, add accessible walkways/ramps, install an accessible door, and add elevated pavers. The applicant clarified that the front entrance doors are being added (not replaced) and will be custom all-wood. Approved unanimously with a slight amendment, citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80 060 A1,2,3,4,5,7.

Discussion Items

C1 – 30 Poplar Street (Plat 16, Lot 21-4) – Matthew Feeney

• Proposal: Construct a 250‑sq‑ft east addition to the contributing house. The applicant stated the addition would improve livability and safety, and that the house would not be raised. He had previously engaged with the staff and adjusted the design to stay under the 50% threshold.
• Commissioner Bala suggested differentiating the original and new structure through siding material (e.g., clapboard) so the historic portion remains identifiable. The applicant agreed.
• Discussion about setback: Several commissioners asked if the addition could maintain the existing T‑shaped setback to preserve the house’s character. The applicant preferred not to move the addition further back because the rear yard is small; he wanted to use the front yard space. The commission ultimately accepted the applicant’s willingness to differentiate materials.
• Outcome: Approved with a condition to differentiate the original and new structure via material, to be reviewed by the preservation planner. Citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80 060 A1,2,4,5,7. (Commissioner Madsen recused himself.)

C2 – 27-31.5 Franklin Street (Plat 27, Lot 072) – Rhode Island Property Wire LLC

• Proposal: Add a rear shed dormer and rearrange fenestration. The applicant (Attorney Aaron Weissman and Cameron Smith) presented revised plans after a design review committee meeting.
• Windows: Three changes: (1) swapping two existing windows on the rear elevation to maintain egress; (2) adding a new window on the west elevation (second floor) – concerns were raised about proportion and symmetry; the applicant agreed to adjust dimensions and follow preservation planner’s review; (3) adding a new window on the east elevation (first floor) – similar concerns about size and placement. The commission also confirmed that the existing three‑bay window on the south elevation would be restored in kind.
• Dormer: The applicant proposed a smaller dormer (3 ft from chimney on each side). Multiple commissioners (Bala, Goddard, Moran, Amarillo) expressed opposition, stating the dormer would harm the historic character of the 1700s building, especially given its central location. The majority cited Standards A1 and A7.
• The application was split into two parts: Dormer (Part A) and Windows (Part B).
• Outcome – Part A (Dormer): Motion to approve the dormer failed (no votes in favor). The dormer was denied under Standards A1 and A7.
• Outcome – Part B (Windows): Approved with conditions that the new windows on the east and west elevations be proportionally revised and placed symmetrically, as reviewed by the preservation planner. The window swap on the south elevation was approved. Citing Standards A1,4,5,7.

C3 – 5 Sunshine Court (Plat 12, Lot 010) – Susan Pedro

• Proposal: Replace 15 windows and repair rotted window framing. The existing windows are a mix of true divided light and simulated divided light; the applicant proposed simulated divided light (Marvin) windows for cost reasons.
• The preservation planner’s recommendation was for true divided light wood windows to match the historic character of the contributing house (c. 1870s). The commission agreed, noting that simulated divided light is not appropriate for a contributing structure.
• The applicant cited cost concerns but the commission stated that cost is not a criterion under the standards.
• Outcome: Approved with a condition that all replacement windows be true divided light wood windows with matching muntin profiles, to be approved by the preservation planner. Citing Standards A1,3,4,5,7.

C5 – 1 Cottage Street (Plat 25, Lot 064) – Fleury Properties LLC

• Proposal: Install an in‑ground pool (reduced from 12×24 to 10×22) and relocate the previously approved garage slightly. The applicant (Attorney Russell Jackson) presented revised renderings and testimony from Prof. Ronald Honorado, an architectural historian, who opined that the pool is compatible with the historic district and not visible from the public right‑of‑way. He noted that other pools exist in the neighborhood.
• Commissioners Bala and Goddard opposed, citing incompatibility and harm to the historic site under Standards A1, A7, and C1. Commissioners Finley, Moran, and Madsen supported the pool, noting the modifications and expert testimony. The chair voted in favor.
• Outcome: Approved (5-2) with Standards A1, A7, and C1 cited by the majority. The commission clarified that the pool is an appurtenance to a contributing structure, not new construction.

C6 – 719 Bellevue Avenue (Plat 38, Lot 020) – Ross Campbell (Inchiquin Estate)

• Proposal: Enclose a large three‑story deck and construct a new roof over the rear addition. The applicant presented three alternatives: (A) stone veneer, (B) shingle, (C) panelized with sawn balusters. The roof needed elevation to fix drainage issues.
• The commission strongly favored option C (panelized). Concerns were raised about the mass of enclosing the decks; several commissioners (Bala, Goddard, Moran, Amarillo) preferred not to enclose the decks at all, as that would add bulk and set a precedent. The applicant agreed to split the application into two parts: roof elevation and deck enclosure.
• Outcome – Part 1 (Roof elevation): Approved to allow the roof to be raised 12 inches and re‑pitched for repair, with gutters and downspouts. Citing Standards A1,2,3,4,7.
• Outcome – Part 2 (Deck enclosure): Continued to the May 12, 2026 meeting to allow the applicant to reconsider the design or return with a revised proposal. (Commissioner Moran recused herself.)

C7 – 152 Harrison Avenue (Plat 41, Lot 405) – Melissa Conlin and Chris Cody

• Proposal: Convert three of six existing garage bays into habitable living space (two bedrooms, one bathroom) by installing windows and a door. The building (c. 1914) had been altered over time; the existing doors are non‑original overhead garage doors.
• Commissioners Bala, Moran, and Madsen suggested that the new fenestration should reference the original carriage‑door character (e.g., board‑and‑batten detailing) so it reads as a door with windows, not just a wall. The applicant was amenable.
• Outcome: Approved with a condition that the three bays be designed with architectural details (e.g., trim, board‑and‑batten) that reflect the original doors, to be reviewed by the preservation planner. Citing Standards A1,2,3,4,5,7.

C8 – 40 Sherman Street (Plat 21, Lot 117) – Charles Saunder (for owners)

• Proposal: Construct a 4×6 closet addition (reduced from a previously denied 10×4 addition). The applicant argued the changes (size, roof profile, removal of windows) were substantial.
• The commission unanimously found the changes not substantial enough to reconsider. The denial from the prior application stands.
• Outcome: Motion to accept changes as substantially different failed. The application was denied again. The applicant may reapply with a substantially different design.

C9 – 90 Rhode Island Avenue (Plat 23, Lot 019) – Ms. Moore (Condominium Association)

• Proposal: Replace the street‑facing red slate roof with red asphalt shingles due to cost. The building is a contributing structure (c. 1900) in the Catherine‑K district. The applicant noted that the carriage house behind was approved for asphalt shingles, and that other homes in the area have asphalt. The preservation planner and commission cited the city’s roofing guidance, which requires replacement in kind for contributing buildings.
• The commission stated that cost is not a factor and that the roof must be replaced with slate or a slate‑like material (e.g., “ready slate”). The applicant was encouraged to seek financial incentives through city staff.
• Outcome: Approved with a condition that the roof be replaced with true slate or ready slate (a manufactured slate product). Citing Newport Standards and the city’s roofing repair/replacement guidance. (Standards A1,2,4,5,7.)

N5 – 186-202 Bellevue Avenue (Plat 29, Lot 052) – International Tennis Hall of Fame

• Proposal: Remove five sets of cement stairs on a horseshoe deck and replace with wood in the same design. No applicant appeared.
• Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice.

N6 – 128-130 Prospect Hill Street (Plat 28, Lot 017) – Leslie Matthew Hogan

• Proposal: Replace existing windows with true divided light insulated windows; replace wood front double doors (amended to replacement in kind); replace roof with cedar shingles (front) and asphalt (rear, with option to upgrade to cedar). The building is a 1750s colonial that underwent major reconstruction in the 1970s. The applicant agreed to replace all windows with all‑wood true divided light windows, and to keep the double doors in kind.
• The commission supported the plan, noting that the windows should be true divided light to match the historic character. The applicant may administratively switch the rear roof to cedar shingles later.
• Outcome: Approved with conditions: (1) all windows to be true divided light wood, specs to be reviewed by preservation planner; (2) front doors replaced in kind; (3) the rear roof upgrade to cedar can be handled administratively. Citing Standards A1,2,3,4,5,7.

N8 – 452 Bellevue Avenue (Plat 36, Lot 015) – Jacob Trent

• Proposal: Demolish an existing pool house (built 2001) and construct a new, slightly taller pool house with pergola corners. The new structure is similar in footprint but taller. The commission found the new design compatible with the contributing mansion.
• Outcome (Demolition): Approved under Standards D1 and D2.
• Outcome (New Construction): Initially cited Standards B1,2; corrected to C1–3. Approved.

N9 – 81 Ocean Avenue (Plat 41, Lot 072) – Paul Weber (non‑contributing property)

• Proposal: Demolish an existing pool house and construct a new pool house and garage. The new building is about 35–40% larger, with a tall garage bay for car stacking, stucco to match the main house, and an asphalt roof. The commission found the design compatible and appropriate for the site.
• Outcome (Demolition): Approved under Standards D1,2.
• Outcome (New Construction): Approved under Standards C1–3.

Key Outcomes

• All consent calendar items approved unanimously.
• Applications C1, C3, C5, C7, C9, N6, N8, N9, and the window portion of C2 were approved with conditions.
• The dormer portion of C2 was denied.
• Application C8 was denied as not substantially different from a previously denied proposal.
• Application C6 was split: roof elevation approved, deck enclosure continued to May 12, 2026.
• Application N5 was dismissed without prejudice due to applicant absence.
• The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2026. Vice Chair Jim Madsen will serve as Chair, and Commissioner Frank Bala as Vice Chair, in the absence of Chair Deanna Amarillo.
• All certificates of appropriateness issued are valid for one year from the date of approval.