Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council overturns two BHAR conditions, allows composite/metal trim on 110 Thomas Street
Summary
Town Council granted an appeal from the Board of Historic and Architectural Review, permitting the owners of 110 Thomas Street to use coated aluminum and non‑composite soffit products on trim and soffits that BHAR had previously conditioned.
Smithfield Town Council granted an appeal by the owners of 110 Thomas Street, allowing them to use alternative, lower‑maintenance exterior materials on some trim and soffit details that the Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) had previously limited.
The homeowners, Joe and Faith Barnes, had sought BHAR approval for several exterior changes. BHAR approved most items conditionally but placed two conditions requiring composite (PVC) materials rather than the metal and polymer products the applicants proposed. The owners appealed that portion of BHAR’s decision to council.
At the council hearing the applicants said the house is roughly 90 years old and that the changes are meant to preserve the building while reducing future maintenance. Owner Joe Barnes said his goal was a “face lift” that will protect the longevity of the dwelling and keep the architectural style intact. Contractor Robert Jones, who presented technical details to council, explained choices aimed at maintaining profile and weather performance: “We picked the best materials we thought would work to correctly show the architecture and provide him with a maintenance‑free exterior.”
BHAR representatives noted the board’s historic‑district guidance tends to discourage vinyl and similar wrapping and that decisions are made case‑by‑case. Russell Hill, a BHAR member and contractor, told council he generally prefers solid PVC materials for durability and historic fidelity, but also explained the board’s approvals can be pragmatic where like‑for‑like conditions already exist.
Council weighed preservation values, the visual visibility of the affected elements from the street and cost and durability considerations for the homeowners. Several council members and speakers urged balancing strict historic replication with practical maintenance needs for homeowners who must shoulder restoration costs.
On a motion to grant the appeal and allow the specific materials requested by the applicant — white mastic coated aluminum for wrapped trims and a B‑board style non‑composite polymer or similar bead soffit — council voted to approve the appeal. The decision means the applicants may proceed using the specified materials; the other BHAR‑approved items were unaffected.
Council members praised the BHAR for its work and urged continued collaboration between the board and property owners. The town attorney noted appeals require council to consult BHAR’s recommendations but that council may exercise discretion based on the evidence presented.
