Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held a special meeting on Tuesday, August 6th, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. at the Smithfield Center due to a failure to have a quorum at the July 21st, 2020 meeting. Members Present: Trey Gwaltney - Chairman Julia Hillegass – Vice Chair Gary Hess Ronny Prevatte Russell Hill Justin Hornback Judith Lally Staff members present: John Settle – Community Development & Planning Director Tammie Clary - Planner There were approximately four (4) citizens present. The media was not represented. Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: Mr. Settle welcomed the newest BHAR member; Judith Lally. He reminded all Board members to stay after adjournment for the official 2020/2021 BHAR photograph. He also explained that the Town Manager has secured seven licenses for email addresses. Prior to the next meeting, everyone should come a bit early, the IT Department will get everyone setup with their official Town email addresses. He asked everyone to bring a device that can access the Smithfield Center’s WiFi. Upcoming Meetings and Activities: Tuesday, August 11th – 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, August 18th – 6:30 PM – BHAR Meeting Monday, August 24th – 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meeting Tuesday, August 25th – 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meeting Tuesday, September 1st – 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Tuesday, September 8th – 4:00 PM – Pinewood Heights Management Team Meeting Tuesday, September 8th – 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, September 15th – 7:30 PM – BHAR Meeting Public Comments: There were no signups for public comments. Board Member Comments: Mrs. Hillegass asked the Board members to please let Mr. Settle know if they are unable to attend the meetings so there is not a situation like last month where there was not a quorum. Chairman Gwaltney explained that he was taking the agenda out of order to accommodate the people that attended the meeting. Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 6th, 2020 Window Change – 304 South Church Street – Landmark – Shane & Denise Hamilton, applicants: The Community Development & Planning Director explained that the applicant wishes to replace all of the existing wooden one-over-one double-hung sash windows on the existing single-family dwelling with “Fibrex” composite windows by Andersen, which will be of a like color, style, and configuration as the corresponding existing windows. Fibrex is a composite material that consists of wood and thermoplastic polymer. The replacement windows will be manufactured with a white border, which will be painted “Dark Burgundy” to match the color of the existing windows. All existing windows featuring curved glass in the turret, and all windows featuring stained glass, will be retained. Town staff recommended approval as submitted. Chairman Gwaltney reminded everyone that the BHAR members in attendance last month saw the sample of the product for the windows. The Board members present did not want the representative from the company to have to return for the rescheduled meeting. The applicant was available for any questions. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the windows would be painted. He asked if there was a treatment that needed to be done to get paint to adhere to it. The applicant, Shane Hamilton, stated that the representative stated that the windows do not need to be pre-treated before they are painted. Mr. Hill explained that these windows are made by Mr. Rogers Windows only. It is the same window as a Woodwright window with a different name. Mr. Hill stated that these windows are in several local houses. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the windows as presented. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill abstained, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There was one abstention. The motion passed. Assorted Exterior Changes – 220 Astrid Street – Noncontributing-Mary Donovan, applicant: The Community Development & Planning Director explained that the applicant is seeking approval to construct an eighteen-foot by twenty-three foot “L” shaped wooden deck (approximately three-hundred square feet) to the rear of the primary building. The deck will be bordered by a wooden railing composed of posts joined by horizontally-mounted one-inch by two-inch slats on tight centers to deter climbing. Additionally, the applicant wishes to erect a ten- foot by twelve-foot shed (approximately twelve-feet tall and 120 square feet in area) in the rear yard of the property. The shed will feature a “Croxley” brown-colored six-foot wide, seven-foot tall Clopay short panel tongue-and-groove joint garage door. The roof will be covered by “Hunter Green” colored architectural asphalt shingles to match those present on the primary building. The proposed shed will be sided in two materials. Initially, the shed will be clad in T1- 11 plywood siding that will be painted “Mushroom Bisque” (PPU4-07) to match the color of the primary building. Upon the completion of the installation of the siding on the primary building, 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 6th, 2020 the applicant wishes to cover the T1-11 plywood siding on the shed with the same Mushroom Bisque-colored Allura fiber cement simulated cedar shake shingle siding that is being used on the primary building. The applicant desires approval for both materials at this time. Lastly, the applicant wishes to amend their prior BHAR approval from Tuesday, May 15th, 2018 to update the color of the front door of the primary building from “Croxley” black to “Croxley” brown. This will cause the front door color and the proposed garage door color to match. Town staff recommended approval as submitted. The applicant, Mary Donovan, was available if the Board had any questions. Mr. Hornback asked why she was using T1-11 siding that she planned to replace later. Mr. Settle explained that the T1-11 would become sheathing under the final siding application. With no further comments, Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Amendment of Prior Approval – 200 Washington Street – Unclassified – BMC Contracting, Inc. c/o Kenneth Coleman, applicant: The Community Development & Planning Director reported that at its May 21st, 2019 meeting, the applicant received an approval for the following. The applicant wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling on the property. The house will be covered by a black architectural asphalt shingle roof, preceded by “Bracken Cream” (CW-105) colored Hardie board eaves (soffit and fascia). The walls of the house will be covered in “Timson Green” (CW-470) colored Hardie board siding with Bracken Cream colored Hardie board trim. The house will rest on a concrete block foundation, which will be clad in white stucco. The primary façade of the building will be adorned by a single-story front porch covered by a hipped roof, supported by square wooden columns, resting on a red brick-clad concrete block foundation, accessed by brick steps, floored in cement, and surrounded by almond-colored aluminum railings. The house will be accessed by a Bracken Cream colored steel door featuring a rounded window and rounded panels. The house will be fenestrated by white vinyl two-over-two double-hung sash windows. All windows will be bordered by Bracken Cream colored Hardie board trim and inoperable two-panel Hardie board shutters of the same color. The house will feature a forward-gable massing. The gable will be separated from the rest of the primary façade by a pine cornice matching the color of the remaining eaves on the home, and embellished by a white fan-shaped attic vent. A deck will be constructed to the rear of the home, composed of treated lumber. A concrete driveway and parking area will connect the backyard of the home to First Street, and a concrete walkway will connect the front steps to Washington Street. The applicant is now seeking approval to amend their previous approval in the following manner: (1) The omission of the inoperable two-panel Bracken Cream colored Hardie board shutters. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 6th, 2020 (2) The omission of the white fan-shaped attic vent on the front gable. (3) The use of wooden simulated board-and-batten siding on the front gable instead of Hardie board siding. (4) The retention of the factory black color of the aluminum railings surrounding the front porch. (5) The use of a black colored standing seam metal roof on the decorative cornice separating the front gable from the rest of the primary façade. (6) The painting of the stucco cladding the concrete block foundation with a red color to match the color of the bricks used for the front porch. Approval is sought for the items above in addition to the retention of the prior approval from 2019 in the event that circumstances change for the owner or applicant. Town staff recommended approval as submitted. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the applicant was not present. Mr. Settle explained that he had the applicant’s phone number if the Board needed to call him for any questions. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that the omission of the fan shaped attic vent and the inoperable shutters are after-the-fact because they have already been done. Mr. Settle stated that the continuous cornice was also capped with standing seam metal instead of the asphalt shingles. The railing has not been painted yet and is aluminum. The applicant wants to leave it black as it is already. Mrs. Lally stated that she went by the property and the foundation had already been painted red. Vice Chair Hillegass asked what was being done with the front posts on the front steps. Mr. Settle stated that the posts will be painted the same color as the posts supporting the front porch roof. Railings of the same material and color as the porch will be added. Chairman Gwaltney stated that it is a new structure. The BHAR likes for new dwellings to blend with what is in the area. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that it is an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Settle reminded the BHAR members that the Town still retains the Certificate of Occupancy for the house. He explained that after-the-fact applications are being documented by Town staff and brought back to the Board. A Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued in this particular case without compliance with the BHAR’s decision. Mr. Hess made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Assorted Exterior Changes – 212 Cary Street- Noncontributing – JPS Properties, LLC, c/o Jason Seward, applicant: The Community Development & Planning Director explained that the applicant wishes to 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 6th, 2020 make the following changes to the exterior of the existing single-family dwelling and to the rear yard of the property: (1) The replacement of the existing wooden horizontally-lapped weatherboard siding and wood panels beneath the windows with vinyl siding of a like color. (2) The cladding of all door trim, window trim, soffits, fascia boards, etc. in white aluminum coil stock. (3) The erection of a ten foot by ten foot metal shed on an existing concrete pad located behind the house. The shed will be painted yellow, white, and black in a manner that will emulate the colors of the siding, trim, and roof present on the primary building. Additionally, the applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for the following items: (4) The painting of the decking boards of the existing front porch a white color. (5) The replacement of the front door with a brown door featuring an elliptical window. Town staff recommended approval under the condition that the front door is painted green to match the color of the existing shutters. The applicant did not attend the meeting. Mr. Settle stated he could call him if there were any questions from the BHAR. Mr. Hess was concerned about the vinyl siding. Mr. Hill stated that the BHAR turned down another applicant four houses down from 212 Cary Street for vinyl siding. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out that this property is a noncontributing property. The other one was a contributing property. Mr. Hess stated that there is a need for a clearer policy on whether vinyl siding is or is not acceptable in the historic district. Mr. Hill stated that even with new construction the Board required Hardie board; not vinyl siding. He explained that the houses he does on Washington Street all have Hardie board and they are noncontributing homes. Chairman Gwaltney stated that 212 Cary Street was built in 1967 [Town staff later double-checked the County’s data and found that the construction year of 1973 is given] when aluminum siding was popular. The proximity of the house to other houses that are contributing or landmarks should figure into the decision. Mr. Hess stated that every time the BHAR says “yes” it makes it more difficult to say “no” for a home that really matters. He asked if there were other options for the applicant. Mr. Hill stated he could put Allura siding on it because it is less expensive than Hardie board. It would not last as long. He explained that it is, basically, a piece of ¼” plywood sprayed with a stucco finish. It is not a true cement board. Chairman Gwaltney suggested the BHAR members look at the other requests in the application. He asked about the aluminum coil stock trim. Mr. Hill stated his vote would be “no” on that as well. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she does not believe the shed is appropriate. Chairman Gwaltney stated that a metal shed raises more concerns for him than the siding. They blow over in a 20 mph wind. Chairman Gwaltney asked about the deck boards that were painted white already. Vice Chair Hillegass asked what color the porch was originally. Mr. Settle stated that the deck boards were unfinished but everything else was white. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 6th, 2020 Chairman Gwaltney asked about the front door color. The applicant asked for brown but Town staff recommended that it be painted green. Mr. Settle explained that was so it would match the color of the shutters. In the past, the Town has historically asked for the door to match the shutters. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he believes a different door color can work in some cases. Chairman Gwaltney asked for a vote on the after-the-fact items in the application. Items 4 and 5 are the white deck boards and the front door color. Mr. Hess made a motion to accept items 4 and 5 as an after-the-fact approval with white deck boards and a brown front door. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney asked for a motion on the siding, trim, and the shed, which are items 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Hess made a motion to approve under the condition that: (a) the existing siding be repaired or replaced with siding of a like color and material, or replaced with fiber cement siding of a like color, (b) the existing door trim, window trim, soffits, fascia boards, etc. be repaired or replaced with trim of a like color and material, or replaced with a fiber cement material of a like color, and (c) the proposed shed be constructed of wood, and roofed, sided, and painted so that the materials and color of the proposed shed emulate the appearance of the primary building. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Vice Chair Hillegass asked what happens if the applicant does not want to fix the recommended items. Mr. Settle stated that he would have to submit a new application to amend his prior approval. Inversely, he could appeal the decision of the BHAR. Color & Material Change – 224 Cary Street – Contributing – Beth Haywood, applicant: The Community Development & Planning Director reported that the applicant wishes to replace the wooden trim around the doors, windows, and eaves of the existing detached garage with wood wrapped in aluminum coil stock. The color of the coil stock will be either white or blue to match the color of the trim on the existing primary building. The applicant is seeking approval for both colors at this time. The applicant has a recurring squirrel problem and would rather use aluminum coil stock instead of wood. Town staff recommends approval as submitted. The applicant did not attend the meeting; however, Mr. Settle stated that he can call her if the Board has questions. Mr. Hornback stated that the BHAR just set a precedent with the previous vote. This application is one house over from the previous application. Mr. Hill stated that squirrels cannot eat Hardie board. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 6th, 2020 Mr. Settle pointed out that the key difference between the previous application and this application is that this home and the detached garage have vinyl siding. The application is for an accessory building. Accessory buildings should emulate the style of the primary building. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve as submitted based on the fact that the garage and primary building are already clad in vinyl and because the garage is not easily visible from the street. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Amendment of Prior Approval – 233 Cary Street – Noncontributing – Joseph Vuono & Susan Patchell, applicants: The Community Development & Planning Director reported that at its May meeting, the property’s previous owner received an approval from the BHAR to erect an eight foot by ten foot shed in the rear yard at 233 Cary Street. They now wish to move this shed from the left side of the rear yard to the right side of the rear yard, behind the primary structure, and five feet from any lot line. The exterior of the shed is to remain unchanged. Town staff recommended approval as submitted. Mr. Hess stated that the previous approval was given only because it was not visible from the street. With this application, it will be visible from the street. Chairman Gwaltney stated that these are new owners. Approval was granted to the previous owners. He explained that it is a plastic shed. One of the reasons the BHAR passed it was because the house was vinyl also. It worked with the house. The previous applicants planned to put it in a location that would be out of sight. Mr. Settle stated that he had the applicants’ phone numbers if they had questions for them. He explained that approval can be given with the condition that the shed is not visible from the street. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve under the condition that the proposed shed be relocated to any position in the rear yard of the property where it is not visible from the public right-of-way, behind the primary structure, and no less than five feet from any lot line. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Assorted Exterior Changes – 338 South Church Street – Landmark – Lloyd Franques, applicant: The Community Development & Planning Director reported that the applicant wishes to undertake several changes to the property: (1) The installation of a black sixty-inch tall aluminum fence in the rear yard of the property, which will be traversed by two four-foot wide arched gates. Town staff 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 6th, 2020 authorized the installation of this fence last month as, given the time of the year, it is not visible from the public right-of-way, but may become visible as the seasons change. (2) The applicant also wishes to paint the front yard fence posts, the front gate, and the front door “Limousine Leather” (#MQ5-05). (3) Finally, the applicant is seeking approval for the installation of a custom wooden front storm door featuring six tempered glass panes and painted Limousine Leather to match the front door. The six panes on the new storm door will be placed in identical positions to the panels present on the original front door. The storm door would be custom made to show off the original front door that it will protect. Town staff recommended approval as submitted. Mr. Settle stated that he could call the applicant if the BHAR had any questions. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Settle why the fence being visible was a concern to Town staff. Mr. Settle explained that if an improvement is not visible from the public right-of-way, Town staff can authorize it administratively. The property owner has dogs and he wanted to have a place to keep them. Chairman Gwaltney stated that 338 South Church Street is a landmark property. He questioned two styles of fencing around the house. Mr. Hill stated that he had done a lot of work on the property. He does not think anyone will see the fence. The rear yard is twenty feet lower than the road. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Approval of the Tuesday, June 16th, 2020 Meeting Minutes: Mr. Hess made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Approval of the Tuesday, July 21st, 2020 Minutes: Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. 8