Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on Tuesday, April 20th, 2021 at the Smithfield Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Members present: Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Julia Hillegass – Vice Chair Gary Hess Russell Hill Justin Hornback Judith Lally Members absent: Ronny Prevatte Staff present: John Settle – Community Development & Planning Director Tammie Clary - Planner Press: None Citizens: 6 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: Mr. Settle reported that Summit Design & Engineering Services, PLLC, the Town’s consultants for the 2020/2021 Comprehensive Plan update, have developed a website to assist in providing transparency in the comprehensive planning process. The website is accessible via the following link: https://smithfieldvacomprehensiveplan.com/. A draft existing condition report and a draft summary report of the recent citizen survey are accessible via the link. In the interests of reaching a citizen participation threshold of ten percent of the Town’s population, our consultants have created a vision feedback form for continued public input and engagement throughout this process (https://smithfieldvacomprehensiveplan.com/#feedbackform). Town staff are now coordinating with our consultants on the scheduling of a series of virtual and in-person public input sessions. The dates, times, and locations of these sessions will be posted on the website. Mrs. Hillegass asked if there would be an advertisement in the Smithfield Times. Mr. Settle stated that an advertisement could be placed. He was discussing it with the consultants. Chairman Gwaltney asked what the percentage of participation was so far. Mr. Settle stated that it was about 8%. Upcoming Meetings and Activities: Monday, April 26th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, April 27th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, May 4th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Tuesday, May 11th, 4:00 PM – Pinewood Heights Management Team Meeting Tuesday, May 11th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, May 18th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Public Comments: Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 There were no public comments. Board Member Comments: Mrs. Hillegass asked about the Grace Street improvement project. She has had people asking her about it and if there would be a streetscape plan. She is aware that it will not be as much as what was done on Church Street. She is particularly concerned about the yellow handicap ramps that VDOT approved. She would not like to see those on Grace Street. She would not like to see them anywhere ever again. Mr. Settle stated that he personally agreed. He explained that the minimum standard in a beautification district is substandard. He has spoken with the Town Manager and the Director of Public Works concerning that issue. Grace Street, in its entirety, is a VDOT road. VDOT standards are very different from the Town of Smithfield Historic District Design Guidelines. However, during the South Church Street beautification, the Town was able to have input on much of the design largely due to utilizing grant money from another state agency. Conversations will take place with VDOT about any concerns. Mrs. Hillegass asked if there might be additional grant funds available in upcoming budget cycles and a willingness to apply any political pressure. Mr. Settle stated that he was not privy to any of that. However, he would look into it. Assorted Exterior Changes – 114 Thomas Street – Contributing – Curtis & Susan Snyder, applicants: Mr. Settle reported that the applicant is seeking approval for the following improvements: (1) The replacement of the existing vinyl siding with Vortex Extreme commercial-grade vinyl siding, which is an action that would normally be exempt from BHAR review, pursuant to Smithfield Zoning Ordinance Section 3.M.E.5.B(2). However, since the desired siding would be gray in color, BHAR review and decision is required. All trim would remain white in color, and the applicant intends to retain, repair, and/or replace the existing, black-colored operable cantilevered wooden shutters with shutters of a like color, configuration, material, and style. The existing shutter dogs will be retained. (2) The replacement of the existing sheet metal and vinyl-clad fascia boards and soffits with like materials. The fascia boards will be adorned with new white aluminum gutters and downspouts. All existing and proposed materials would remain white in color. This is an action that is exempt from BHAR review, pursuant to SZO Section 3.M.E.5.B(2). (3) The replacement of the existing, white-colored wooden eight-over-eight and six-over-six double-hung sash windows located throughout the building with black-colored vinyl eight-over-one and six-over-one double-hung sash windows. These windows will be PerfeXion Platinum windows by Norandex. The eight-over-one and six-over-one pattern windows will replace the existing windows of their corresponding sizes. The applicant has indicated that they are amenable 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 to eight-over-eight and/or six-over-six pattern windows, as well as white-colored windows. No basement windows will be replaced. (4) The replacement of the existing, white-colored wooden picket fence with a five foot (5’) tall, black-colored commercial-grade aluminum fence in the same footprint as the existing fence. The new fence will simulate a wrought iron fence, and will feature a new four foot (4’) wide gate adjacent to the east corner of the existing detached garage. A new eight foot (8’) wide gate will be located in between the detached garage and the primary building. The replaced section of the existing fence located the closest to North Mason Street will be four feet (4’) tall. (5) The replacement of the existing wooden six foot (6’) tall, dog-eared privacy fence in the northeast side yard of the property with a six foot (6’) tall, dog-eared privacy fence. The fence will either be stained or painted white. Town staff suggested approval under the condition that the proposed replacement windows be substituted with windows of a like material. The applicants, Curtis and Susan Snyder, reside at 114 Thomas Street. Mrs. Snyder stated that she had inadvertently given Mr. Settle the wrong name of the windows. She also stated that the picture of the fence style was incorrect. Mrs. Snyder distributed materials clarifying that the windows were Norandex by Simonton. Chairman Gwaltney suggested that the applicant go through each of the five sections for clarification. Item 1 – Color change for vinyl siding - Chairman Gwaltney asked about item #1 which is the vinyl siding. He explained that the color of the siding is the only part of the discussion. Replacement of the siding is exempt from BHAR review. Mrs. Snyder stated that she searched along Church Street and liked the gray color included in the packet. The Vortex siding calls the color “Pewter.” It is a commercial grade siding and the style matches the current siding. Mr. Hess stated that the normal BHAR policy discourages vinyl siding. However, for the record, he stated that if the property has vinyl siding currently then it can be replaced with vinyl siding. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the BHAR would love to see a different type of siding used. Mrs. Snyder stated she would prefer different siding also. However, many repairs need to be made. Mrs. Hillegass asked if the BHAR should vote on each item individually or as a unit. Chairman Gwaltney stated that they would vote on the individual components of the application. Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to approve the siding color change as presented. Mr. Hornback seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, six members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 Item 2 – Fascia and soffits - Chairman Gwaltney explained that this item does not need any action by the BHAR. The fascia is exempt from BHAR review. Item 3 - Window replacement - Mrs. Snyder explained that she inadvertently used the incorrect name for the windows in the packet information She stated that it is difficult to find wooden windows in an affordable price range. The windows she selected are Norandex by Simonton. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the windows are solid vinyl. The BHAR, typically, is not fond of vinyl windows. Mr. Hill asked if the grids were between the glass or outside of the glass. Mrs. Snyder stated that she believes she has options on the grids. She would like to have the grids between the glass for easier cleaning. Outside grids are also more expensive. She indicated that she would be replacing forty-seven of the house’s fifty-two windows. The basement windows will not be replaced. Mr. Snyder stated that they received one quote for wooden Anderson windows that was $111,000.00. Mrs. Snyder stated that other windows they researched were wood but clad in metal. Mr. Hess asked if the current windows are white. The application states that the applicant wants to switch to black. Mrs. Snyder explained that she thought about black windows but decided to stay with white windows. She likes the look of the black, but they are more expensive. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the applicant from Cedar and Cockes Lane who recently had her windows replaced, opted for aluminum or vinyl. Mr. Snyder indicated his neighbors at 110 did receive approval and installed vinyl windows, but he was not comparing. Chairman Gwaltney asked when those vinyl windows were installed. Mr. Snyder indicated approximately 10 years ago. Mr. Hill asked if the current windows had 1 x 4’s around them. Mrs. Snyder stated that the original windows are in place. Later, storm windows were added. The shutters that should close do not close. She hopes to keep the shutter dogs and to retain the shutters’ operability. The windows were eventually clad in metal. Mrs. Hillegass stated that she does not think the windows have 1 x 4’s around them. Mr. Hill stated that, under the siding, there would be a 1 x 4 around the wooden windows. It would be nice if the 1 x 4 was exposed. The siding would run to the 1 x 4 instead of the edge of the window. It gives it an historic look. Mrs. Snyder had photographs that show the 1 x 4 trim on the windows and said she would retain it for the new windows. She explained that she would like the shutters to be operable also. Mr. Hess explained that he understands about the cost of building materials currently with the pandemic. The BHAR is concerned with maintaining the historic aspects of the Town of Smithfield. If the applicant takes the proper steps, people walking down the street will enjoy a beautiful historic home. At the end of the day, it is what the BHAR wants. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 Chairman Gwaltney stated that the home already has vinyl siding. It will continue to be vinyl. The BHAR does not prefer vinyl siding. He asked if the Town has had a contributing vinyl clad house with an application to install all vinyl windows. Mrs. Hillegass stated that the house has had vinyl siding for a long, long time. She did not believe that the applicant should be penalized for that. Chairman Gwaltney agreed but felt that it sets a precedent. If the BHAR agrees to vinyl windows, then any other house that has vinyl siding can now have vinyl windows. He could not think of an example where a contributing house had all vinyl windows. He was not suggesting mixing vinyl materials with other materials. If we do allow vinyl windows on a house with all vinyl, then we will have to allow vinyl windows for all houses with vinyl. Mr. Hill asked if the applicant would be opposed to going with the Pella clad windows with the wood interior. Mr. Snyder stated that he did not think they could do that. Mrs. Snyder stated that she and her husband both have health issues. The maintenance on the inside with wooden windows would be difficult. They have to be painted and washed. Mr. Hill explained that there are many homes with vinyl clad/wood interior windows. Mr. Hornback stated that the maintenance is the same as a vinyl window. You would not have to repaint the interior unless there was some kind of environmental condition inside the home that would require new paint. Mrs. Snyder explained that she feels like the house is an eyesore with the siding, wooden windows with storm windows, and the fence. To be able to do all of the work at once, they need to cut costs as much as they can. She does not want to sacrifice quality. The Simonton windows are highly rated. Mr. Hill stated that Simonton makes a good window. Chairman Gwaltney asked when the applicants planned to start the project. Mr. Snyder stated that the windows take about six to eight weeks to receive once ordered. The estimated start date would be two months. Mrs. Snyder stated that the fence will be approximately four to six months. She asked if the water improvements on Grace Street would be worse in two months. Mr. Settle stated that the Public Works Department is moving from the intersection of Thomas Street and North Church Street down Grace Street in the direction of Pierceville. As time goes on, the situation is likely to improve near Thomas Street. Mr. Snyder stated that the cost of lumber is extremely high right now. He had just replaced the decking where he found an old oil tank underneath the deck. It was empty and clean. They had a company come and fill it with concrete this week. Mrs. Hillegass asked for clarification on the color of the windows. Mrs. Snyder stated they would be white. Mr. Hess asked if the grids would be on the inside or outside. Mrs. Snyder stated that she would be amenable to exterior grids if this were necessary for the BHAR to approve the application. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 Chairman Gwaltney was concerned that the Board is setting a precedent for vinyl windows. He would like to know how much of a precedent the Board would be setting if it allowed vinyl windows. Others will use it as an example when they want vinyl windows. Mrs. Hillegass stated that she views each property on its own. Each case is different, such as this instance in which the house is already clad in vinyl. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he agrees but wants to be able to justify the decision for this particular home. He suggested that Town staff research other similar properties so that the BHAR can make a decision and give the Board something to justify the decision for vinyl windows. He asked how the Board and the applicant would feel if the Board voted on the other aspects of the application tonight, but tabled the window decision. There could possibly be a special meeting so the applicant would not have to wait another month. Mr. Settle stated that Town staff would rather the application be postponed for a month. There would have to be an advertisement for a special meeting, which would require the use of additional resources. The Town Attorney would have to receive additional compensation for a special meeting. He explained that the BHAR sees more application than any other Board. Other applicants would be requesting special meetings in the event that they could not wait for a regular meeting. Mr. Hornback asked the applicant if they had investigated historic tax credits. The state of Virginia will allow a property owner to offset state income taxes for several years up to 40% of the cost of the project. Mrs. Snyder stated that she did not think about that since their home is not a registered historical building. Mr. Hornback explained that the Snyder home is a contributing home in the Smithfield Historic District which qualifies in certain cases. There are some hurdles to get through. Mr. Settle stated that historic tax credits apply if the property is a contributing property in the National Register Historic District; not the local register. Mr. Settle explained that he is not aware if the Snyder property is a contributing property in the national register district. Mr. Hornback explained that his home is not listed as a landmark property, but it did qualify for the state tax credits. He stated that the applicant could think about it since it requires certain material choices that do not include vinyl. Mrs. Hillegass asked if there would be a negative impact on the applicants if the window issue was tabled. Mr. Snyder said they were not in a hurry. However, their contractor is ready to begin soon. Mrs. Snyder stated that they originally planned to wait another month. Their contractor is doing them a favor and they prefer not to make it harder for him. Chairman Gwaltney explained that the Board does not like to hold anything up but sometimes applications take a bit longer. He suggested that the applicant might need to obtain more quotes and the BHAR could do a bit of research on similar properties. Mr. Settle explained that if the Board tables the window component of the application, the Board has to cite a reason. Mr. Hess stated that he senses the purpose for a potential delay is in large part due to justifying the approval so as to not set a precedent. The applicant has presented their preference. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 The reason for the BHAR to delay a decision would be for research on similar properties. He believes it would be appropriate, for the record, to state that the applicant changed the windows from black to white and agreed to have exterior grids. He explained that he believes the applicant is making good faith efforts to try to maintain some historic perspective. The issue is not what the applicant presented but what the BHAR has approved in the past and whether or not they would be setting a precedent. Mr. Hess asked Mr. Settle if it would be a problem to take some time to consider the window application. Mr. Settle explained that the Board would need to examine window replacement approvals ranging from 2005 until 2021. The reason 2005 is cited is because, prior to then, the Board did not have a set of design standards. Every approval for window replacement between 2005 – 2021 would need to be examined. It would be a daunting task. Mr. Hornback suggested explaining the caveats in the motion. Mr. Hess stated that everyone is dealing with very unusual times due to the cost of building materials. Decisions that might have been considered two years ago are different now. The pandemic has increased cost of materials substantially. The BHAR should take that into consideration as long as the motion provides a context to the property. Mr. Settle stated that it sounds like the Board is leaning towards a conditional approval of Item 3 under the condition that the existing configuration of the trim be retained. Also, the Board would like to make note, for the record, that the approval was given because the property is a vinyl home surrounded by other vinyl houses and material costs associated with the Covid 19 pandemic. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he does not think the property is surrounded by vinyl houses. It is located across the street from The Grove. There is a home nearby that has vinyl windows. The next home down has Hardie board siding. Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to approve Item 3 of the application as amended by the BHAR. Mr. Hornback seconded the motion. Mr. Settle explained that the amendment included the following changes to the application: Simonton white windows with external grids. The condition is that the existing configuration of the trim will be retained. The caveats are that the home is already clad in vinyl adjacent to a vinyl house with a vinyl accessory building and material costs associated with the Covid 19 pandemic are exorbitantly high. Additionally, the external grids will be six-over-six and eight-over-eight. Chairman Gwaltney stated that a motion and a second were on the floor to approve the windows as amended. With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, six members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Item 4 – Wooden picket fence replacement – Mrs. Snyder stated that the layout of the fence would be exactly the same, but the materials would be black aluminum. There are two designs they are considering. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the aluminum fence is represented on the plat by the red and green lines. There is an extra handout with two options circled. The BHAR would be voting to give the applicant the option to choose whichever style they want. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve either of the two fencing options at the discretion of the property owners. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, six members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Item 5 – Dog-eared fence - Mrs. Snyder stated that the packet information for the dog-eared fence is correct. They decided to use the same style of wooden fence. It is currently falling over and needs to be replaced. They intend to either paint the new fence white or stain it. Chairman Gwaltney asked if it would be relocated or replaced in the same area. Mrs. Snyder stated that it would be replaced in the same area. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the dog-eared fence as presented. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, six members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback 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 – 121 South Church Street – Landmark – Timothy & Katherine Mitchem, applicants: Mr. Settle reported that the applicant is seeking approval for the following improvements: (1) The relocation of an existing unpainted four foot (4’) tall wooden dog- eared picket fence (approved by the BHAR at its Tuesday, June 21st, 2016 meeting) to a position approximately four feet (4’) to the east. The relocated fifty-foot (50’) section of fencing will border the adjacent property (123 S Church St, TPIN 21A-01-385). (2) The relocation of an existing set of wooden stairs from the northeastern corner of the property to the northwestern corner of the property. Any damaged portions of the stairs will be repaired and replaced with like materials. (3) The construction of a new retaining wall using the same river red concrete retaining wall blocks that are present on the existing retaining wall. The new retaining wall will be located approximately seven feet (7’) behind the existing retaining wall, resulting in the backfilling of the newly-enclosed area. (4) The widening of the existing paver driveway by anywhere from one-to- four feet (1’-4’) along the section of the property that borders 117 S Church St (TPIN 21A-01-388). The backfilled area resulting from the new retaining wall will also be paved. In both instances, the same square and octagonal pink driveway pavers that currently exist onsite will be utilized as the surface material. (5) The installation of a ten foot (10’) wide, sixteen-foot (16’) deep (approximately 160 square foot) storage shed in the northwest corner of the property. The shed will be attached to a wooden deck or platform sixteen feet (16’) wide and nineteen feet (19’) deep (approximately 304 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 square feet in area), necessitating a three foot (3’) wide wooden catwalk on the sides and rear of the proposed accessory building that will be bordered by the same railings present on the back steps of the primary building. The entire structure will be located no less than seven feet (7’) from the side boundary line, ten feet (10’) from the rear boundary line, and will be approximately twelve feet (12’) in height. The shed will be covered by a forward-facing gable roof, sheathed in gray architectural asphalt shingles. It will feature Hardie Board siding and trim of colors identical to those present on the primary building, and will be adorned by a front porch. Town staff suggested approval as submitted. The applicant, Mr. Mitchem, resides at 121 South Church Street. He was available for questions from the Board members. Mr. Hornback stated that the project looks well-planned. Chairman Gwaltney asked if any of the fence would be visible from the street. Mr. Settle stated that a lot of the improvements are visible from the bottom of the hill. Mr. Mitchem would like an enclosed area for his dogs. The yard is sloped. There will be a platform with the shed for ease of use. Mrs. Lally made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, six members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Accessory Building/Structure (Detached Garage) – 338 Main Street – Landmark – Joseph McCain, applicant: Mr. Settle reported that the applicant is seeking approval to repair the existing sixteen foot (16’) wide, twenty-six foot (26’) long (416 square foot) detached garage on the premises. The garage is currently sided in cedar shake shingles, horizontally-lapped weatherboard, and vertically- lapped weatherboard- all siding materials currently consist of wood. The garage is covered by a forward-facing gable roof, sheathed in asphalt shingles. A small “shed” addition of approximately 128 square feet comprises the rearward-most portion of the garage. It is covered by a shallowly- pitched single-plane roof sheathed in what appears to be barn tin. The garage is accessed by two (2) large double doors on its primary façade- a small attic door exists in the gable of this façade. The shed addition to the rear of the building is accessed via a small open doorway. All existing conditions noted are in a noticeable state of disrepair. The applicant now wishes to heighten and join the shed addition’s roof system with the gable roof present on the rest of the building. The entirety of the resulting roof will be covered with black architectural asphalt shingles to match the color of the existing roof. The building will be sided with horizontally-lapped Hardie Board siding of a “Summit Gray” (SW 7669) color, and adorned with Hardie Board trim of a “Greenblack” (SW 6994) and “March Wind” (SW 7668) color to match the color of the trim present on the primary building. Two (2) large “Coachman Collection” eight foot (8’) wide, seven foot (7’) tall sandstone- colored insulated garage doors will serve as the building’s primary entrance. To ensure the 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 building’s continued use and survival, the applicant also plans to undertake significant repairs to the building’s foundation, footings, and slab. All other materials on the building that are not noted here will be repaired/replaced with materials of a like color, configuration, material, and style. Town staff suggested approval under the condition that the proposed roofing material be substituted with gray architectural asphalt shingles to match the roof color of the primary building. The applicant, Joseph McCain, resides at 338 Main Street. He was available for questions from the Board. The detached garage is in disrepair. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that the repairs will be a huge improvement. She explained that she had spoken to the applicant and they are okay with the change in color of the shingles. She made a motion to approve the application under staff’s recommendation for the shingles to match the roof color of the primary building. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, six members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Other Improvement (After-the-Fact) – 402 Grace Street- Non-Contributing – Isle of Wight Christian Outreach Program, Inc., applicant: Mr. Settle reported that the applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for “closing in” a loading dock that was located on the back of the building. This entailed the construction of two (2) new exterior walls that were subsequently sided in the same gray-colored wooden board-and- batten siding that was approved by the BHAR at its Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 meeting. Town staff suggested approval as submitted. Mr. Owen Rowlands, the applicant, resides at 425 Evergreen Way. He explained that he is the Executive Director for Christian Outreach. He reported that the work was done by the building team at Christian Outreach. The loading dock was small and never used as a loading dock. People would drop off whatever they wanted to, including trash. Christian Outreach decided it would better serve as storage space. Mrs. Hillegass expressed frustration that they did not come to the BHAR for approval first. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the improvement matches what was approved by the Board seven years ago. Mr. Hess made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, six members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Other Improvement – 218 & 220 Main Street – Contributing – Smithfield Gourmet Bakery & Café, LLC, applicant: Mrs. Settle reported that the applicant wishes to install an 8.583’ deep, thirty-two foot (32’) long retractable awning ten feet (10’) above an existing outdoor seating area that is located on the adjacent property (Lot 106 Main Street, TPIN 21A-01-106). The applicant obtained an easement from the Town of Smithfield for the use of this area as an outdoor seating area in 2013. The awning 10