Listen to this articleWhen the Newport Historic District Commission denied an application for a certificate of suitability, the commission's conclusions that a new house proposed by the applicants was inconsistent with the surrounding historic area and that the house did not exhibit a thoughtful and thoughtful architectural design were supported by substantial evidence, thus reversing a decision by the Newport Zoning Board of Review to rescind the commission should be done.
“Before this Court are the appeals of Mark and Ida Aramli and Edward James Streator III and Kathryn Streator from the decision of the Newport Zoning Board of Review (the Board) affirming the Aramlis' appeal of the Newport Historic District Commission's (the Commission's) denial of the Aramlis' application for a certificate of appropriateness. …
“The Aramlis and the Streators challenge the Board's decision to remand the application to the Commission. The Aramlis own property at 54 Hammersmith Road in Newport, Rhode Island. The property is located in the Newport Historic District and the National Register of Historic Places Ocean Drive Historic District. …
“On March 16, 2021, the Aramlis submitted their application to the Commission requesting approval for five projects: (1) construction of a new two-and-a-half-story single-family home, (2) modification of a historic stone wall for entry, (3) repair of damaged portions of the historic stone wall, (4) modification of the stone wall by adding stone caps, and (5) modification of the stone wall by embedding Decorative fences in the new stone caps. …
“In relation to §17.80.060(C)(1) [of the Newport Historic District Zoning Ordinance]the commission found that the application was incompatible with the surrounding historic area. The commission quoted [John] Tschirch's statement, “which he found most convincing.” … The commission also cited “the nomination papers for the National Register of Historic Places Ocean Drive Historic District, which describe the Harrison Ave.-Beacon Hill area where the Aramli property is located as rustic and idyllic, with which the applicants' proposal is inconsistent.” …
“The Commission further applied §17.80.060(C)(2) and found that the proposed house was not of thoughtful and considered architectural design. The Commission relied on Mr. Tschirch's testimony and stated that the applicants' use of architectural prototypes, which were large Neoclassical Bellevue-style houses Avenue or houses right next to Bellevue Avenue is inappropriate because the area in which the Aramli is located. The property features a romantic, picturesque and rustic design approach[.]'…
“The Aramlis appealed the Commission's denial of the application to the Board. The Board granted the appeal, reversed the Commission's denial, and remanded the matter “so that the Commissioners may make more specific findings to support their vote and so that the decision reflects the Commission's findings.” …
“In this case, the Commission discharged its obligations by setting out findings of fact and applying the law in its written decision. …
“Since the Commission did not commit any prejudicial procedural error, pretrial detention is inappropriate and the Court addresses the parties' remaining arguments. …
“The Aramlis claim that the Panel erred by not reversing the Commission's decision because its decision was not supported by the evidentiary weight of the file and the Commission's conclusions were not supported by the reliable, conclusive and substantial evidence throughout the file. They argue that the Commission is “enmeshed in Mr. Tschirch's manifestly erroneous testimony and his “bold, conclusive statements are not supported by the actual evidence presented.”[.]'…
“The Commission heard the testimony, reviewed the evidence, established facts and determined the credibility and weight of the evidence, applied the law and made a decision. In reviewing the nomination papers, testimony, exhibits and arguments, the Commission concluded that the proposed house was incompatible with the surrounding historic area because its mass and size, given the historic location, Location and materials are too big. In reviewing the entire file, the court finds that there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the application was inconsistent with the surrounding historic area. …
“In summary, Mr. Tschirch attempted to distinguish the comparable homes offered by Aramlis from the proposed home, opining that the proposed home was inconsistent with the surrounding historic area and not of thoughtful and thoughtful architectural design. Based on the testimony and the exhibits, the Court concludes that the Commission's conclusions that the proposed home is inconsistent with the surrounding historic area.” area and that the house was not of thoughtful and considered architectural design were supported by substantial evidence. …
“The Court's review of the entire record revealed that the Commission's rejection of the application was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this Court affirms the Commission's decision. …
“For the reasons stated above, Aramlis's appeal is denied, Streators' appeal is allowed, and the Board's decision reversing the Commission's rejection of the application is reversed. The Newport Historic District Commission's decision denying the application is affirmed. The Zoning Board of Review's order remanding it to the Newport Historic District Commission is lifted.”
Aramli et al. v. City of Newport Zoning Board of Review et al.; Streator et al. v. City of Newport Zoning Board of Review, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 61-075-25) (22 pages) (Lanphear, J.) (Newport Superior Court) (CA Nos. NC-2024-0163 and NC-2024-0164 (Oct. 6, 2025).
Click here to read the full text of the statement.