Board of Historic & Architectural Review

Wednesday, May 12th, 2021 TO: BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) FROM: TAMMIE CLARY, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: MONTHLY MEETING The BHAR will hold its regularly-scheduled monthly meeting on Tuesday, May 18th, 2021 at 6:30 PM at the Smithfield Center, 220 N Church St, Smithfield, VA 23430. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov. cc: Town Council William H. Riddick, III, Town Attorney The Smithfield Times The Daily Press File COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DEPARTMENT 310 Institute St, PO Box 246 / Smithfield, VA 23431 / 1-(757)-365-4200 / Fax 1-(757)-357-9933 www.smithfieldva.gov  SMITHFIELD BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 18th, 2021, 6:30 PM 1) Community Development & Planning Director’s Report -Summit Design & Engineering Services, PLLC, our 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 conditions 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). -Wednesday, May 12th, 2021 was Community Development & Planning Director John Settle’s last day with the Town of Smithfield. In his absence, Tammie Clary will serve as Interim Community Development & Planning Director until a permanent replacement is appointed. In the meantime, Joseph Reish, Planning Technician & Code Enforcement Officer, will resume his earlier role as the staff liaison for the BHAR. John will be missed greatly, and is leaving large shoes to fill. 2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities Monday, May 24th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, May 25th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, June 1st, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Tuesday, June 8th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, June 15th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting 3) Public Comments 4) Board Member Comments 5) Accessory Structure (Fence) – 223 North Church Street – Non-Contributing – Ernest Dent, applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations enclosed). 6) Accessory Structure (Fence) – 348- 354 Main Street – Non-Contributing – WEB 3715, LLC, C/O Ed Bowman, applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations enclosed). 7) HPO Map & Property Inventory Amendment – Town of Smithfield, applicant (staff report & assorted attachments enclosed). 8) Approval of the Tuesday, March 16th, 2021 Meeting Minutes (enclosed). 9) Approval of the Tuesday, April 20th, 2021 Meeting Minutes (enclosed). 10) Adjournment ***ATTENTION*** Owing to the pandemic, we are encouraging remote public comment on all land use applications, whether or not a public hearing is required. If you do not feel comfortable with attending a meeting in person, please submit your comments in writing to Mrs. Tammie Clary, Interim Community Development & Planning Director. Your comments will be conveyed to the appropriate Board or Commission. Mrs. Clary can be reached via email (tclary@smithfieldva.gov) or mail at the address below: Town of Smithfield Community Development & Planning Department ATTN Tammie Clary, Interim Community Development & Planning Director PO Box 246 Smithfield, VA 23431 NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) Reasonable efforts will be made to provide assistance or special arrangements to qualified individuals with disabilities in order to participate in or attend Board of Historic & Architectural Review (BHAR) meetings. ADA compliant hearing devices are available for use upon request. Please call 1-(757)-365-4200 at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting date so that proper arrangements may be made.  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, May 18th, 2021, 6:30 PM Applicant Ernest Dent 223 North Church Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Owner Ibid. Property 223 North Church Street TPIN 21A-01-071 0.65 ac W side N Church St 450’ NW of N Church St & Thomas St Classification Non-Contributing Zoning Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay (CBO), Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DNR), Floodplain Overlay (FPO) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) Adjacent Zoning Downtown (D), CBO, DNR, FPO & HPO Project Description The applicant is seeking approval to erect a new six foot (6’) tall salt- treated wooded dog-eared privacy fence in the side yards of the property. Recommendation Town staff recommend approval under the condition that the fence is either stained or painted white. For inquiries, please contact Joseph Reish at 1-(757)-365-4200 or jreish@smithfieldva.gov. Proposed 6’ tall salt-treated wooden privacy fence.  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, May 18th, 2021, 6:30 PM Applicant WEB 3715, LLC C/O Ed Bowman 317 Belt Blvd Richmond, VA 23234 Owner Ibid. Property 348-354 Main St TPIN 21A-01-165 0.2 ac NW side Main St 100’ NE of Main St & Cary St Classification Non-Contributing Zoning Downtown (D) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) Adjacent Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DNR), D & HPO Project Description The applicant is seeking approval to replace an existing dilapidated wooden fence with a six foot (6’) tall wooded dog-eared privacy fence in the northeast side yard of the property in question. The proposed fence will straddle the lot line between the subject property and 346 Main St (TPIN 21A-01-164), and will be in the same footprint as the previous fence. The new fence will be painted white. Recommendation Town staff recommend approval as submitted. For inquiries, please contact Joseph Reish at 1-(757)-365-4200 or jreish@smithfieldva.gov.  TOWN OF SMITHFIELD 310 Institute Street, PO Box 246, Smithfield, VA 23431 Tel: 1-(757)-365-4200 Fax: 1-(757)-357-9933 www.smithfieldva.gov BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) APPLICATION 4-20-2021 Date of Application__________ Date of Meeting _________ In accordance with Article 3.M of the Zoning Ordinance, this application must be completed and all materials (Ten (10) copies each of completed application and additional materials) as requested below must be submitted to the town at least 21 days before the regularly scheduled BHAR meeting. If any new materials are submitted at the meeting, then the BHAR may table the application. The BHAR meets the 3rd Tuesday of the month (unless otherwise noted) at 6:30 pm in conference rooms A&B at the Smithfield Center, 220 North Church Street. Applicant/ Owner: WEB 3715, LLC __________________________________________________________ Address: 3715 Belt Boulevard; Richmond, VA 23234 _________________________________________________________________ (804) 439-3300 Phone:_____________________ edbowman@webowman.com Email:________________________ Check all that apply:  New Construction  Color / Paint Change  New Accessory Structure  Material Change  New Fence  Adding to Existing Building  New Shed  Sign  Siding Change  Other NOTE: The BHAR strongly encourages cement siding (i.e., “hardi-plank”) as a more suitable alternative to vinyl siding. The BHAR strongly encourages that if you choose architectural shingles, choose at least 30-year architectural shingles. Replace existing fence at side yard between 346 and 348 Project Description: ___________________________________________________________________________ with 1x6x6' pressure treated dog eared fence painted white _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Attach additional sheets if necessary. Please submit roof, siding, brick, and color samples; window details; elevations of the structure; site plan/ survey, height of structure (if applicable), colored drawings (drawn to scale), refer to Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance for sign regulations. DECLARATION OF CONSENT: By signing below, the property owner/applicant/agent consents to entry upon the subject property by public officers, employees, and agents of the Town of Smithfield to view the site for purposes of processing, evaluating or deciding this application. Name: (printed or typed) Ed Bowman Name: (signature) Version: 2020-10-05 Proposed six foot (6’) tall dog-eared wooden fence replacement (same footprint), painted white. location of proposed new fence at location of old fence.  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT: AMENDMENT TO THE HPO DISTRICT MAP & PROPERTY INVENTORY TUESDAY, MAY 18th, 2021, 6:30 PM Pursuant to Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Section 3.M.D.6, Town staff must update and amend the Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) district map and inventory from time to time to reflect changes that occur within the HPO in real time, with the review and approval of the Board of Historic & Architectural Review (BHAR). On Monday, March 8th, 2021, Town staff approved a minor subdivision, lot consolidation, and utility easement plat for 228 James St, 328 Grace St & Lot 129 Institute St (TPINs 21A-01-127, 21A-01-128, 21A-01-129, 21A-01-133 & 21A-01-134). The plat was recorded later that day, resulting in the following changes: (a) The consolidation of a majority of Lot 128, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128) with 328 Grace St (TPIN 21A-01-134). (b) The consolidation of Lot 133, Grace St (TPIN 21A-01-128) with 328 Grace St (TPIN 21A- 01-134). (c) The retention of the residue of Lot 128, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128) as a small, 0.3-acre lot fronting on James St. (d) The creation of Lot 128A, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128) as a small, 0.3-acre lot fronting on James St. (e) The dedication of a twenty-foot (20’) wide sanitary sewer utility easement to the Town, which follows the center line of an existing sanitary sewer main that extends from James St to Institute St and lies beneath portions of 228 James St (TPIN 21A-01-127), 328 Grace St (TPIN 21A-01-134), Lot 128, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128), and Lot 129, Institute St (TPIN 21A-01-129). Consequently, this HPO map and inventory amendment seeks to achieve the following items: (1) To correctly illustrate the new configurations of 328 Grace St (TPIN 21A-01-134), Lot 128, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128) & Lot 128A, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128A). (2) To show the expansion of the contributing classification of 328 Grace St (TPIN 21A-01-134) over the area of land that formerly comprised most of Lot 128, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128), and the entirety of Lot 133, Grace St (TPIN 21A-01-133), which were both non-contributing vacant lots prior to the recordation of the plat. (3) To show the reduction of the non-contributing classification of the area of land formerly occupied by Lot 128, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128), which is now a residue parcel, and the newly created Lot 128A, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128A). Both properties are classified as non-contributing and are 0.3-acre vacant lots. (4) To eliminate Lot 133, Grace St (TPIN 21A-01-133) from the HPO district property inventory. (5) To add Lot 128A, James St (TPIN 21A-01-128A) to the HPO district property inventory as a vacant non-contributing lot. An updated version of the HPO district map and property inventory have been attached to this staff report for the convenience of the BHAR. A copy of the recorded minor subdivision, lot consolidation, and utility easement plat has also been included. Town staff recommend approval as submitted. For inquiries, contact Joseph Reish at 1-(757)-365-4200 or jreish@smithfieldva.gov.  TOWN OF SMITHFIELD, VIRGINIA STR G HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY EET For more information, please consult O O SE URCH Smithfield Zoning Ordinance Article 3.M COMMERCE STREET HI LL CH and the Smithfield Historic District W Guidelines. If you have any questions, AY NO please contact the Community RTH Development & Planning Department 0 BY ROUTE 1 N UE at 1-(757)-365-4200. A VE EW VI ER PASS RIV This map was created in May of 2020 by E ET Tammie Clary, Joseph Reish, and John Settle. STR M IV E CO ON DR NGT E ET TER ME S HI TR R LU YS NO RC WA A CL TH ES M AS TREET SOUTH CHURCH STREET ON JA M R ST ES T EE EE R CA R ST T Y RE E ST AC ST ET GR ET RE E TR ET S LL HI C AS TR URT CO CO K ES SY KE ID AN STR SL E ET EET TR E S R ET DA STR E CE IN POL E MA ROA CO VE Legend ET RO D E N AD STR A TP Streets N AI N O TM C S LA Non-Contributing Properties ICH WE KA E JER Contributing Properties YAK LA 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Landmark Properties NE Miles  Historic Preservation Overlay Inventory Landmark Properties 108 Cary St 304 Church St, S 372 Church St, S 22 Main St 334 Main St 102 Church St, S 309 Church St, S 373 Church St, S 32 Main St 335-37 Main St 111 Church St, S 318 Church St, S 204 Grace St 36 Main St 336 Main St 117 Church St, S 331 Church St, S 220 Grace St 103 Main St 338-46 Main St 121 Church St, S 334 Church St, S 222 Grace St 101 Main St 349 Main St 123 Church St, S 335 Church St, S 304 Grace St 110-12 Main St 400 Main St 130 Church St, S 338 Church St, S 308 Grace St 124 Main St 516 Main St 201 Church St, S 340 Church St, S 320 Grace St 130-32 Main St 106 Mason St, N 205 Church St, S 344 Church St, S 334 Grace St 203 Main St 130 Mason St, N 212 Church St, S 345 Church St, S 502 Grace St 235 Main St 112 Mason St, S 213 Church St, S 351-52 Church St, S 110 Hill St 308 Main St 113 Mason St, S 220 Church St, S 357 Church St, S 301 Jericho Rd 314 Main St 117 Mason St, S 223 Church St, S 365 Church St, S 302 Jericho Rd 330 Main St 205 Mason St, S 226 Church St, S 368 Church St, S 213 Mason St, S Historic Preservation Overlay Inventory Contributing Properties 103 Cary St 221 Cary St 111 Church St, N 386 Church St, S 217 Grace St 105 Cary St 224 Cary St 113 Church St, N 390 Church St, S 228 Grace St 109 Cary St 226 Cary St 117 Church St, N 313 Grace St 409 Church St, S 111 Cary St 229 Cary St 121 Church St, N 316 Grace St 415 Church St, S 113 Cary St 104 Church St, S 230 Cary St 209-11 Clay St 317 Grace St 202 Cary St 204 Church St, S 232 Cary St 315 Church St, S 107 Cockes Ln 321 Grace St 203 Cary St 223 Cedar St 326 Church St, S 111 Cockes Ln 325 Grace St 204 Cary St 206 Cary St 225 Cedar St 346-48 Church St, S 120 Cockes Ln 328 Grace St 301 Cedar St 356 Church St, S 329 Grace St 208 Cary St 111 Commerce St 362 Church St, S 210 Cary St 304 Cedar St 112 Commerce St 333 Grace St 364-66 Church St, S 215 Cary St 203 Chalmers Row 200 Commerce St 338 Grace St 378 Church St, S 216 Cary St 212 Chalmers Row 382 Church St, S 349 Grace St 218 Cary St 355 Grace St  Historic Preservation Overlay Inventory Contributing Properties (continued) 426 Main St 136 Sykes Ct 107 Institute St 259 James St 228 Main St 511 Main St 111 Institute St 105 Jericho Rd 234 Main St 140 Sykes Ct 108 Jericho Rd 517-19 Main St 115 Institute St 237 Main St 106 Thomas St 109 Jericho Rd 107 Mason St, N 214 Institute St 303 Main St 107 Thomas St 112 Jericho Rd 110 Mason St, N 226 Institute St 113 Jericho Rd 304 Main St 111 Mason St, N 110 Thomas St 230 Institute St 13-27 Main St 310 Main St 112 Mason St, N 111 Thomas St 310 Institute St 100 Main St 117 Mason St, N 114 Thomas St 311 Main St 108 Main St 203 Mason St, N 102 Underwood Ln 203 James St 115 Main St 315 Main St 205 Mason St, N 207 James St 131 Main St 318 Main St 106 Underwood Ln 207 Mason St, N 213 James St 202 Main St 322 Main St 112 Mason St, S 121-23 Underwood Ln 217 James St 213 Main St 324 Main St 116 Mason St, S 209 Washington St 215 Main St 220 Mason St, S 210 Washington St 227 James St 326 Main St 216 Main St 229 Mason St, S 228 James St 327 Main St 212 Washington St 217 Main St 233 Mason St, S 231 James St 218A-B Main St 328 Main St 215 Washington St 150 Riverview Ave 232 James St 220 Main St 331-33 Main St 216 Washington St 154 Riverview Ave 253 James St 221 Main St 221 Washington St 353 Main St 200 Riverview Ave 223 Main St 236 Washington St 255 James St 224 Main St 360-68 Main St 212 Riverview Ave  Historic Preservation Overlay Inventory Non-Contributing Properties 206-24 Astrid St 203-07 Clay St 3-11 Main St 211 Mason St, N 212 Cary St 213 Clay St 108 Mason St, S 206-10 Main St 231 Cary St 121 Mason St, S 217-32 Clay St 229 Main St 233 Cary St 223-28 Mason St, S 113-117 Cockes Ln 245 Main St 232-40 Mason St, S 237 Cary St 302 Main St 100-8 Commerce St 101-49 Riverview Ave 239-43 Cary St 309 Main St 105-11 Drummonds Ln 151 Riverview Ave 325-29 Cedar St 319 Main St 503-13 Cedar St 204-19 Drummonds Ln 156 Riverview Ave 303-8 First St 348-54 Main St 203-10 Riverview Ave 545 Cedar St 407-415 Main St 129-35 Sykes Ct 205-11 Chalmers Row 337 Grace St 415 Main St 139 Sykes Ct 215 Chalmers Row 345 Grace St 144-45 Sykes Ct 420 Main St 120 Church St, N 401-7 Grace St 103-11 Washington St 424 Main St 201-40 Church St, N 222 Institute St 200-6 Washington St 509 Main St 379 Church St, S 219 James St 211 Washington St 385 Church St, S 513 Main St 219-20 Washington St 240 James St 521 Main St 403-05 Church St, S 223 Washington St  Historic Preservation Overlay Inventory Non-Contributing Properties (vacant lots) 21A-01-241 21A-01-300 21A-01-350 21A-01-360 21A-01-400 21A-01-038 21A-01-074 21A-01-181 21A-01-246 21A-01-301 21A-01-352 21A-01-361 21A-01-402A 21A-01-039 21A-01-106 21A-01-182 21A-01-252 21A-01-308 21A-01-353 21A-01-364A 21A-01-404 21A-01-040 21A-01-107 21A-01-182A 21A-01-254 21A-01-309 21A-01-354 21A-01-375 21A-01-407 21A-01-041 21A-01-113 21A-01-183 21A-01-255 21A-01-311 21A-01-354A 21A-01-380 21A-01-407A 21A-01-042 21A-01-117A 21A-01-186A 21A-01-263 21A-01-315 21A-01-355 21A-01-392 21A-01-420 21A-01-043 21A-01-128 21A-01-192 21A-01-263A 21A-01-316 21A-01-356 21A-01-393 21A-01-421 21A-01-044 21A-01-128A 21A-01-202 21A-01-275 21A-01-317 21A-01-356A 21A-01-399 21A-01-451 21A-01-045 21A-01-129 21A-01-224A 21A-01-276 21A-01-318 21A-01-357 21A-01-399B 21A-01-452 21A-01-046A 21A-01-170A 21A-01-224A 21A-01-277 21A-01-319 21A-01-359 21A-01-459 21A-01-050 21A-01-173 21A-01-228 21A-01-050A 21A-01-178 21A-01-228 21A-01-284 21A-01-323 21A-01-050B 21A-01-238A 21A-01-285 21A-01-346 21A-01-051 21A-01-293 21A-01-347 21A-01-057A 21A-01-296 21A-01-348 21A-01-058 21A-01-296 21A-01-349 21A-01-061 21A-01-067A2 21A-01-067C 21A-01-068 21A-01-069  Historic Preservation Overlay Inventory Non-Contributing Properties (vacant lots continued) 21A-03-A001 21A-03-B010 21A-03-B033 21A-03-D015 21A-03-D034 21A-03-G003 21A-04-000I11 21A-03-A002 21A-03-B011 21A-03-B034 21A-03-D017 21A-03-D035 21A-03-G005 21A-04-000I14 21A-03-A003B 21A-03-B012 21A-03-B035 21A-03-D019 21A-03-D036 21A-03-G008 21A-04-000I6 21A-03-A004A 21A-03-B013 21A-03-B038 21A-03-D021 21A-03-D037 21A-03-H001 21A-04-004 21A-03-A005 21A-03-B014 21A-03-B041 21A-03-D022 21A-03-D038 21A-03-H008 21A-04-010A 21A-03-A005A 21A-03-B015 21A-03-B042 21A-03-D023 21A-03-D039 21A-03-H011 21A-04-012 21A-03-A008 21A-03-B017 21A-03-B043 21A-03-D024 21A-03-D040 21A-03-H014 21A-04-037 21A-03-A008A 21A-03-B017B 21A-03-B044 21A-03-D025 21A-03-D041 21A-03-H018 21A-04-038 21A-03-B001 21A-03-B018 21A-03-B044A 21A-03-D026 21A-03-D042 21A-03-H019 21A-04-039 21A-03-B003 21A-03-B018A 21A-03-B044B 21A-03-D027 21A-03-D043 21A-03-H020 21A-04-040 21A-03-B004 21A-03-B019 21A-03-B044B 21A-03-D028 21A-03-D044 21A-03-H021 21A-04-049 21A-03-B005 21A-03-B024 21A-03-C005 21A-03-D029 21A-03-E001 21A-03-H024 21A-04-050 21A-03-B007 21A-03-B025 21A-03-C017 21A-03-D030 21A-03-E001A 21A-03-H025 21A-04-051 21A-03-B008A 21A-03-B026 21A-03-C018 21A-03-D030 21A-03-E001B 21A-03-H026 21A-04-052 21A-03-B009 21A-03-B027 21A-03-C021 21A-03-D031 21A-03-E002 21A-03-H027 21A-04-053 21A-03-B009A 21A-03-B028 21A-03-D004A 21A-03-D032 21A-03-E006 21A-03-H028 21A-04-054 21A-03-B029 21A-03-D005 21A-03-D033 21A-03-E011A 21A-03-B030 21A-03-D013 21A-03-F001 21A-03-B032 21A-03-F002  The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on Tuesday, March 16th, 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 Ronny Prevatte Russell Hill Justin Hornback Judith Lally Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney John Settle – Community Development & Planning Director Tammie Clary - Planner Press: None Citizens: 1 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: Mr. Settle stated that there was no new information to report. Upcoming Meetings and Activities: Monday, March 29th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, March 30th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, April 6th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Tuesday, April 13th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, April 20th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Public Comments: There were no public comments. Board Member Comments: There were no Board member comments. Accessory Building/Structure (Fence) – 362 South Church Street – Contributing – Carrie Elzie, applicant: Mr. Settle reported that the applicant is seeking approval for the installation of a wooden dog- eared picket fence. The portions of the fence that will run parallel with the sides of the property will be four feet (4’) tall, while the portion of the fence that will join these two (2) runs of fencing at the rear of the backyard will be three feet (3’) tall. The entire fence will be painted white. Town staff suggested approval as submitted. The applicant, Ms. Elzie, will be living at 362 South Church Street soon. She stated that she would like the fence for her dogs. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the fence as presented. Mrs. Hillegass seconded the motion. With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 16th, 2021 Mr. Hornback stated that the home was an HGTV home. Ms. Elzie stated that her home in Norfolk was also an HGTV home. She is excited to move into the Smithfield home. Amendment of Prior Approval – 330 Main Street – Landmark – Maureen Brines, applicant: Mr. Settle reported that at its Tuesday, October 20th, 2020 meeting, the applicant received an approval from the BHAR to (among other improvements) replace the existing dilapidated wooden fish scale shingle siding with Hardie Board fish scale fiber cement shingle siding of a like color. The applicant is seeking an amendment of this prior approval, and now wishes to paint the existing wooden fish scale shingle siding (which is currently a beige/soft yellow color) and front porch posts (which are currently a faded teal color) “Soft Apricot.” Town staff suggested approval as submitted. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Settle to refresh the BHAR’s memory on the previous application. The picture shows horizontal Hardie Board in “Navajo Beige” that was previously approved. Now, the house will be “Navajo Beige” and “Soft Apricot.” Mr. Settle stated that was correct. The applicant was not present at the meeting. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the white trim would remain white. Mr. Settle stated that the trim would remain white. Mr. Hess expressed concern that originally the applicant was going to replace the fish scale shingle siding with Hardie Board. He asked if the cost was the problem. Mr. Hornback stated that the renovations started this week. Mr. Hess stated that he had no problem with the applicant painting the fish scale siding. His concern was if the wood was still durable enough to last if painted. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the siding would still be Hardie Board. Mr. Settle clarified that the horizontal siding will be replaced with horizontal Hardie Board siding. The fish scale shingle siding will be painted. Mrs. Lally stated that she assumed the decision to retain the fish scale shingle siding was related to the expense, but they could also replace it at a later date. Chairman Gwaltney stated that lumber prices have increased significantly but that Hardie Board prices have not increased very much. Mr. Hill stated that was correct. Interior trim has also remained close to the same price as before. He speculated that the applicant decided against the Hardie fish scale siding because it is hard to come by. It may be the reason the applicant decided against it. Mr. Hess reminded the BHAR that Hardie Board fish scale shingle siding was what was originally approved. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the amendment as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte 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 (Fence) – 400 Main Street – Landmark – Clarence Shuler, applicant: 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 16th, 2021 Mr. Settle reported that the applicant is seeking approval for the installation of a six foot (6’) tall wooden privacy fence in the yard to the left of the house. The entirety of the proposed fence will be stained with clear Thompson’s water seal. Town staff suggested approval as submitted. The applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Hornback stated that the area is hard to see since it is down a hill. Chairman Gwaltney explained that the area is pretty much hidden by vegetation. Mr. Settle agreed that the area is very difficult to see due to vegetation. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the application meets the criteria and is not seen. However, if the vegetation were to be cleaned up it would be visible from the street. He was curious if the growth and vegetation needed to be addressed. Chairman Gwaltney explained that he has received letters about his grass height from Codes Compliance. Mr. Settle stated that the area is woods. The tall grass ordinance refers only to tall grass and weeds. Mr. Hill asked if the Town owns the lot adjacent to 400 Main Street. Mr. Settle stated that it is a Town parking lot. The Town Attorney explained that the property is surrounded on two sides by, basically, a privet hedge. The Town trims it on a regular basis. By the house, there is a lot of wisteria. The Town does not tell people they cannot have wisteria or privet hedges. Since the property goes down a hill, no one can see anything. Mr. Settle stated that Town staff speculates that the slope is greater than 30%. Overgrowth is encouraged for slopes that severe to stifle erosion. Mr. Hess asked why they would need the fence with all of the overgrowth. Mr. Hill stated that the property owner has large dogs. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. New Business: 111 Cary Street – Contributing – Steven & Hannah Wingfield, applicants: Chairman Gwaltney explained that there are roof repairs that need to be done and there is some urgency for the repairs. The tin roof is causing some problems. The applicant would like to remove the tin and replace it with architectural asphalt shingles to match the rest of the house. A picture was provided showing the house. Mr. Settle reported that the applicant recently discovered that the roof was leaking. They are only looking to replace the metal section of the roof behind the main massing of the house. They would like, in the long run, to replace all of the existing metal roofing with architectural asphalt shingles to match the ones already present on two parts of the house. At this time, the applicant is seeking emergency approval from Town staff to replace the leaking portion of the roof. In these situations, Town staff would normally authorize the repair and then bring it to the BHAR the following month. Because it is a contributing property, and because they are replacing original metal roofing material with architectural asphalt shines, Town staff would bring the application to the BHAR. Mr. Settle stated that Town staff is only asking for the blessing of the BHAR for the emergency zoning permit waiver to replace the back (leaking) portion of the roof. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 16th, 2021 The applicant was not present at the meeting. Chairman Gwaltney stated that if the BHAR gives them approval to replace a portion of the roof, then they could also give the applicant approval to replace all of it even if they do not do it all now. He acknowledged that there is historical integrity to the metal roof but most of it is not visible. The front porch is metal and would be visible. The applicant is asking for approval for the metal on the rear of the house. Chairman Gwaltney proposed the idea of approving matching shingles to the existing architectural shingles for the entirety of the building’s roof and allowing the property owner to be granted administrative approval by Town staff. The Town Attorney stated that the BHAR could simply approve the request. It would be appropriate for the BHAR to grant the emergency repair zoning waiver and to amend the application to include the whole roof which could be approved as well. He explained that it is difficult to get tin painted, much less repaired. Mrs. Lally explained that patching a tin roof and painting it is very difficult. Mr. Hill stated that the property is not readily visible. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the proposed project under the condition that, at the owners’ discretion, they may replace all remaining portions of the existing dilapidated metal roof present on the building with architectural asphalt shingles that will match those present on the rest of the building, and that, before Town staff can issue a zoning permit waiver for the replacement roof, the owners must submit a BHAR application to Town staff outlining that specific request. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte 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, February 16th, 2021 Summary Meeting Minutes: The Town Attorney recommended approval of the minutes as presented- although he was absent from the March meeting, he found no issues with the minutes. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote. On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mr. Prevatte voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ______________________________ _____________________________ Mr. Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Mrs. Tammie Clary – Interim Director, Community Development & Planning Dept. 4  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 Board of Historic and Architectural Review April 20th, 2021 will match the style, colors, and materials utilized for the awnings located elsewhere on the building. Town staff suggested approval as submitted. Chairman Gwaltney explained that the applicant/owner asked the Board to call her when her application was being considered. Mrs. Burke, the applicant, explained that the application explains everything. The awning will match the front awnings except that it will be retractable in case of high wind. Vice Chair Hillegass asked if the awning would have white trim like the awnings on the front of the building. Mrs. Burke stated that there would be white trim but not quite as wide as the front of the building. Mrs. Lally made a motion to approve the application 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. Approval of the Tuesday, March 16th, 2021 Summary Meeting Minutes: Chairman Gwaltney explained that the Town Attorney was not present at the meeting. Mr. Hornback made a motion to table the approval of the minutes until the next meeting. 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. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ______________________________ _____________________________ Mr. Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Mrs. Tammie Clary – Interim Director, Community Development & Planning Dept. 11