Board of Historic & Architectural Review
Regular MeetingSmithfield, VA · August 17, 2021
Minutes
The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on
Tuesday, August 17th, 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
Laura Brown
Members absent:
Staff present:
William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney
Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director
Press: Stephen Faleski of The Smithfield Times
Citizens: 5
Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
Tammy Clary reported that Summit Design & Engineering Services, PLLC, the Town
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. The Town
consultants have also posted a draft Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for citizen feedback.
At the Tuesday, July 20th, 2021 meeting, Vice Chair Hillegass inquired about the windows located
at 330 Main Street. A Notice of Violation/ Stop Work Order was mailed to the resident. As of the
drafting of this report, Town staff are yet to receive a BHAR application for after-the-fact approval.
Staff spoke with the property owner yesterday. She indicated that she would be submitting an
application soon for the windows as well as a fence.
Upcoming Meetings and Activities:
Monday, August 23rd, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, August 24th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, September 7th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, September 14th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 21st, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting
Tuesday, September 21st, 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Board Member Comments:
There were no Board Member comments.
Accessory Structure (Sign) – 111 South Church Street – Landmark – Christ Episcopal
Church c/o Bill Egan, applicant:
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
August 17th, 2021
Tammy Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to replace the existing
detached forty-eight-inch (48”) by eighty-four-inch (84”) sign panel currently located on the
property. The new sign will feature a smaller nine inch (9”) by thirty-six inch (36”) hanging sign.
The new sign panel will also feature revised lettering, and the existing post/frame will be painted
black to match the existing signpost and light post currently on the property. The sign will also
have the 911 address numbers “111” vertically placed on the left side post. Town staff
recommended approval as submitted and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
The applicant, Bill Egan, resides at 205 Clipper Creek Lane in Smithfield, Virginia. He
explained that the sign is being refurbished since the plywood is rotting. Ernest White has been
contracted to do the work. He came up with the design to match the church’s other signs. Mr. Egan
stated that the Town had approved a replacement but the current application was submitted due to
the color change and lettering changes. Mr. Egan felt the new sign would be more consistent with
the other existing signs. He explained that the post is still in good shape. The sign will be made
from a PVC composite material with a longer life and will not rot.
Mr. Hornback stated that he had noticed the sign deteriorating.
Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented and Mr.
Hornback seconded. With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr.
Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman
Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed.
Mr. Egan thanked the Town for being supportive over the years and expressed the church’s
appreciation.
Discussion Item – (Luter Acres) – 240 James Street & 223 Washington Street – Non-
Contributing – Jacob Williams, applicant:
Tammie Clary reported that the applicant is seeking an Special Use Permit (SUP) to
facilitate the construction of four duplex residential dwellings located on TPIN: 21A-01-184A, on
the corner parcel of Washington Street and James Street, in accordance with Smithfield Zoning
Ordinance (SZO) Article 3.D.C.3. which permits duplex residential dwellings (one (1) dwelling
per subdivided lot), as a use permitted by an SUP, in the Downtown Residential District (DNR).
As part of the same project, the applicant plans on constructing four (4) single family detached
dwellings, which is a by-right use through SZO Article 3.D.B.1. And, the construction of thirteen
(13) parking spaces for the Veteran of Foreign Wars building located at 233 Washington Street,
which is also permitted by right through SZO Article 3.D.B.2. This parking lot will connect
Washington Street to Clay Avenue. Finally, the proposed project contains the extension of Clay
Avenue, connecting to it James Street. Along Clay Avenue the applicants will connect a six-inch
(6”) water main to the existing four-inch (4”) water main. And, connect an eight-inch (8”) sanitary
sewer main to the existing eight-inch (8”) sanitary sewer main. A new fire hydrant will also be
added to the site on Clay Avenue. The applicant is aware that they will have to go to the Board of
Zoning Appeals for approval of a Special Yard Exception for the approximate sixteen-foot (16’)
front yard setback encroachment for Lot 1. Additionally, the applicant will have to submit colored
illustrations and elevations, including proposed materials, for BHAR review and decision. Town
staff recommended the applicants include the following statement in their Declaration of
2
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
August 17th, 2021
Covenants and Restrictions: The appearance of the exteriors of the single family detached
dwellings and duplex residential dwellings will be consistent and in conformance with the current
version of the Historic District Guidelines.
Jamie Weist, of Kimley Horn and Associates, stated that they were working with Mr. Luter
to plan development on the property. He explained that it is a small 2 acre development on the
corner of James and Washington Streets. There will be a mixture of single family dwellings and 2
duplexes. He explained that there are 2 different layouts being considered. The Planning
Commission gave feedback on the application about the style of the homes. Mr. Weist stated that
he spoke to Mr. Luter and talked about alternative finishes and layouts which might be more
attractive than what was presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Luter wanted
everyone to know that the exterior finishes would be in accordance with the historic guidelines for
the district. There will be no vinyl siding. Hardie board and Hardie wood planking would be on
the exteriors. All the homes will be placed on crawl spaces. Mr. Weist presented a slide showing
the layout. He explained that Clay Avenue would be extended to James Street. There is already a
right-of-way that extends along The Children’s Center and part of it is already paved. There would
be approximately 200’ of new roadway added. He said that 8 lots have been created on the 2 acre
parcel between the VFW building and The Children’s Center. Another slide was shown of the
proposed single family dwellings. The Planning Commissioners did not like the look of the
duplexes so Mr. Weist changed the plan to have the duplexes facing James Street. The single-
family homes will be located closer to the VFW building. The 2 large trees on the corner of James
Street would remain at the request of Mr. Luter. The houses would sit back quite a bit from James
Street with the trees in the front yard. Mr. Weist stated that he wanted to hear opinions from the
BHAR members for feedback, guidance, and what might be recommended by the BHAR. He said
that there are no firm site plans as yet since the SUP process has to happen first. Full design and
construction plans will need to come back before the BHAR once completed. He was available for
questions from the BHAR members.
The Town Attorney asked which direction the duplexes would face.
Mr. Weist stated that they both face James Street. The entrances will be off of Washington
and Clay Street because of the garages; but the main front of the house will face James Street.
There are no entrances off of James Street.
Mr. Hess asked about the parking for the VFW building.
Mr. Weist explained that they will be adding parking. There will be a parking lot with an
entrance on Clay Street and an entrance on Washington Street.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if there was a plan for Lot 3.
Mr. Weist stated that there was not. He explained that it is too small to put a home on due
to the setback requirements. It will be a green space which will provide a buffer between the
existing neighborhood and the new development.
Mr. Hornback asked what the inspiration was for the design choices on the structures.
Mr. Weist explained that Mr. Luter provided the plans and suggested the bungalow style
with 2 - 3 bedrooms which fits the area. The units will be approximately 1,300 square feet.
Mr. Hornback stated that only Lot 2 appears to have a garage. He asked if it was due to the
size of the lot or the selected house plans.
3
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
August 17th, 2021
Mr. Weist stated that it was due to the selected house plan. The others will just have a
driveway coming in. He reiterated that the plans have not been completed and are only schematic
level drawings using GIS and aerial photography.
Mr. Jacobs stated that Lot 4 would have a garage too. Lot 4 is the old Lot 6 from the
previous plan.
Vice Chair Hillegass stated that the Planning Commission heard the application last week.
The application was tabled but she felt that Kimley Horn really heard their comments and acted
very quickly to get something else of a higher quality.
The Town Attorney asked if there was stone on the chimney.
Mr. Weist stated that there is stone in the drawing. It could be substituted for brick if it is
recommended. He would discuss it with the owner.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he was reviewing the architectural elements. He asked the
BHAR members their thoughts about metal roofing versus shingles. There are many metal roofs
in the Town of Smithfield. Chairman Gwaltney felt the metal was trendier.
Mr. Hornback stated that it looks more like a modern farmhouse.
Chairman Gwaltney felt the horizontal siding and the asphalt shingles look more in keeping
with what exists in the neighborhood. When building new structures in the historic district, he felt
that the existing homes in the area should be considered so that they blend together.
Mr. Hornback stated that one of the designs looks like it’s from a new development and
more like a track home style with the garage prominently out front. The historic district lacks
prominence of garages and encourages parking in the rear. Most are in the back or kept to the side.
Chairman Gwaltney felt that at least it was not just a rollup door. It is an attractive garage.
The Town Attorney stated that there are 3 elevations for single family homes but there are
4 lots.
Mr. Weist stated that there are 3 different models that they want to construct. They will
likely have a fourth plan or build one design twice. He will clarify with Mr. Luter as to which lot
has which style home. If a fourth design is chosen, it would definitely be brought back to the
BHAR for review.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if the original duplex design would be excluded.
Mr. Weist stated that there will be a new design for the duplexes. They heard the objections
from the Planning Commission.
Chairman Gwaltney liked the idea of Lot 3 remaining as green space. He asked who would
maintain Lot 3.
Mr. Weist stated that there are no plans for that yet. Originally, it was thought that the VFW
could use it and maintain it. The paving there now will be removed, and the site will be cleaned
up. Green space details have not been decided on as yet.
Mrs. Brown asked if there were any plans for a sidewalk along Clay Avenue.
Mr. Weist stated that there are plans for a sidewalk so there is a connection to the park,
college, and the YMCA.
Mr. Hess agreed that brick would look better on the chimney instead of stone.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that chimneys are important in the historic district but most are
brick. A couple of homes have granite chimneys.
4
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
August 17th, 2021
Mr. Weist stated that he would be glad to let the owner know that brick is preferred.
Chairman Gwaltney also stated that the vertical siding does not work for him.
Mr. Weist stated that it makes it look like a modern farmhouse. Adding horizontal siding
and a shingle roof will make the homes look more traditional. He will take all comments back to
the property owner.
Mrs. Brown stated that the design in the center does not look historic. She felt it had too
many front peaks for the historic district.
Mrs. Lally stated that she agreed. She felt there may be another craftsman style that would
blend better in the area.
Mr. Weist explained that there are hundreds of homes to choose from. He said that feedback
from the BHAR was appreciated and he will go back and look at other options.
Mrs. Hillegass stated that there is a great Victorian cottage at the end of Institute Street.
Mr. Hornback asked if the homes without garages would have to park on the street.
Mr. Weist stated that every home will have a driveway. Some would be on the side and
some would be on the front depending on which property they are on.
Mr. Hornback explained that one of the guidelines that the BHAR tries to follow is to place
the parking to the side and rear as much as possible in the district.
Mr. Weist stated that the lots are small and have setback requirements. He explained that
he will need to go to the BZA and request a variance for the setbacks for 2 of the homes since they
encroach in the front yard. The side yards are tight for driveways since there is only 10’ side yard
requirements. The front is 25’. The duplexes facing James Street sit farther back to preserve the
trees in the front.
Mrs. Brown asked if there would be room on any of the lots for sheds to keep lawnmowers.
Mr. Weist said that there should be room in the backs. He explained that everything will
be finalized once the survey was completed and the footprints of the homes are put in. The details
of the designs will be tweaked as he moves forward with the planning.
Mrs. Clary stated that the setbacks for sheds in rear yards would be five feet.
Vice Chair Hillegass explained that some of the neighbors (3 or 4) had spoken against the
duplexes at the Planning Commission meeting. In general, single family homes were preferred.
Mr. Weist explained that the reason behind the duplexes was the cost to build the project
with a road and the necessary infrastructure. Water and sewer lines will be extended down Clay
Street. The cost has to be spread out among the homes. Adding the duplexes helped make the
numbers work. Mr. Weist stated that a new fire hydrant will be added also. It was requested by the
Director of Public Works for the Town. He thanked the BHAR for their feedback and explained
that he would tweak everything and be back in a couple of months.
Approval of the Tuesday, July 20th, 2021 Summary Meeting Minutes:
The Town Attorney recommended approval as presented.
Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Hess seconded the motion.
Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mr. Hill voted aye, Mr.
Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye, and Chairman
Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion passed.
5
Agenda
Wednesday, August 4th, 2021
TO: BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR)
FROM: TAMMIE CLARY, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING
RE: MONTHLY MEETING
The BHAR will hold its regularly-scheduled monthly meeting on Tuesday, August 17th, 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, August 17th, 2021, 6:30 PM
1) Community Development & Planning Director’ 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. Finally, our consultants have
also posted a draft Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies for citizen feedback.
- At the Tuesday, July 20th, 2021 meeting, Vice Chair Hillegass inquired about the windows located at
330 Main Street. A Notice of Violation/ Stop Work Order was mailed to the resident. As of the
drafting of this report, Town staff are yet to receive a BHAR application for after-the-fact approval.
2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities
Monday, August 23rd, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, August 24th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, September 7th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, September 14th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 21st, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting
Tuesday, September 21st, 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
3) Public Comments
4) Board Member Comments
5) Accessory Structure (Sign) – 111 South Church Street – Landmark – Christ Episcopal
Church c/o Bill Egan, applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations enclosed).
6) *Discussion Item* (Luter Acres) – 240 James Street & 223 Washington Street – Non-
Contributing – Jacob Williams, applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations
enclosed).
7) Approval of the Tuesday, July 20th, 2021 Meeting Minutes (enclosed).
8) 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, 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, 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, August 18th, 2021, 6:30 PM
Applicant Christ Episcopal Church
C/O Bill Egan
111 South Church Street
Smithfield, Virginia 23430
Owner Ibid
Property 111 South Church Street
TPIN 21A-01-135
0.35-acre E side S Church St, South side of Main St
Corner of Main St & South Church St intersection
Classification Landmark
Zoning Downtown (D) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO)
Adjacent Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DNR), D & HPO
Project Description The applicant is seeking approval to replace the existing detached forty-
eight-inch (48”) by eighty-four-inch (84”) sign panel currently located on
the property. The new sign with feature a smaller nine inch (9”) by thirty-
six inch (36”) hanging sign. The new sign panel will also feature revised
lettering, and the existing post/ frame will be painted black to match the
existing signpost and light post currently on the property. The sign will
also have the 911 address numbers “111” vertically placed on the left side
post.
Zoning
Recommendation Town staff recommend approval as submitted and defer to the BHAR for
architectural discretion.
For inquiries, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.
8/17/2021
48" x84" & 9"x36"
BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, August 18th, 2021, 6:30 PM
*Discussion Item*
Applicants Jacob Williams
11818 Rock Landing Drive, Suite 100
Newport News, VA 23606
Owners Town of Smithfield
310 Institute St
Smithfield, VA 23430
Property 223 Washington St & 240 James St
TPIN 21A-01-184A
2.69 ac E side James St
Corner of Washington St & James St
Zoning Downtown Residential (DNR) and Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO)
Adjacent Zoning DNR & HPO
Project Description The applicant is seeking an Special Use Permit (SUP) to facilitate the
construction of four duplex residential dwellings located on TPIN: 21A-01-
184A, on the corner parcel of Washington Street and James Street, in
accordance with Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Article 3.D.C.3. which
permits duplex residential dwellings (one (1) dwelling per subdivided lot), as
a use permitted by an SUP, in the Downtown Residential District (DNR).
As part of the same project, the applicant plans on constructing four (4) single
family detached dwellings, which is a by-right use through SZO Article
3.D.B.1. And, the construction of thirteen (13) parking spaces for the Veteran
of Foreign Wars building located at 233 Washington Street, which is also
permitted by right through SZO Article 3.D.B.2. This parking lot will connect
Washington Street to Clay Avenue.
Finally, the proposed project contains the extension of Clay Avenue,
connecting to it James Street. Along Clay Avenue the applicants will connect
a six-inch (6”) water main to the existing four-inch (4”) water main. And,
connect an eight-inch (8”) sanitary sewer main to the existing eight-inch (8”)
sanitary sewer main. A new fire hydrant will also be added to the site on Clay
Avenue.
The applicant is aware that they will have to go to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for approval of a Special Yard Exception for the approximate
sixteen-foot (16’) front yard setback encroachment for Lot 1. Additionally,
the applicant will have to submit colored illustrations and elevations,
including proposed materials, for BHAR review and decision.
Zoning
Recommendation Town staff recommends the applicants include the following statement in
their Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions:
The appearance of the exteriors of the single family detached dwellings and
duplex residential dwellings will be consistent and in conformance with the
current version of the Historic District Guidelines.
Please direct inquiries to Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.
Large Single Family
Small Single Family
Duplex Dwellings
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
WASHINGTON ST.
CLAY AVE.
JAMES ST.
NO
RT
H
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
©
PREPARED FOR
SITE LAYOUT EX-1
MR. LUTER
The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on
Tuesday, July 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
Laura Brown
Staff present:
Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director
William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney
Charles Bryan – Vice Chairman for the Planning Commission
Press: -0-
Citizens: 4
Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
The Community Development & Planning Director reported that Summit Design &
Engineering Services, PLLC, Town 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. We have surpassed our
citizen participation target. Our consultants are currently working on a draft vision statement, as
well as a draft Goals, Objectives and Strategies that has been posted for citizen feedback. Town
staff recently received a formal written complaint on the former Tastee Freeze located at 1400
South Church Street. A letter was sent via regular and certified mail on June 9th, 2021, in
accordance with Section 22-2 “Removal or repair of dangerous buildings, spot blight abatement”
of the Town Code. The owners have thirty (30) days from the date of the letter to respond with an
abatement plan. On July 9th, 2021, staff received a response proposing a 12–18-month
rehabilitation expectation. Town staff has requested a more detailed abatement plan be submitted
prior to July 19th, 2021. Town staff recently received a complaint about the unauthorized
installation of vinyl windows at 360-368 Main Street. A stop work order and notice of violation
was mailed to the owners. Town staff received a grass height complaint for 339 Main Street. A
“Notice of Correction” was mailed to the owners.
Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she had a phone call about the yellow house that was totally
gutted. The caller wanted to know why the BHAR had allowed vinyl windows there. She did not
have the information in front of her. The caller had to install many wooden windows that were
required by the BHAR. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that it was the yellow cottage on Main Street
with the turret, referred to as the Clay House.
Mrs. Lally stated that the owner had said she was putting in wooden windows.
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
July 20th, 2021
Chairman Gwaltney thinks the property address is 313 Main Street.
The Community Development & Planning Director, Tammie Clary, stated that she would
look into it and let the BHAR know what she finds out.
Upcoming Meetings and Activities:
Tuesday, July 20th, 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Monday, July 26th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, July 27th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, August 3rd, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 10th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Board Member Comments:
Chairman Gwaltney welcomed Laura Brown as the newest member of the BHAR. He
explained that the BHAR is glad to have her and will be happy to help her get acclimated.
Accessory Structure (Fence) – 237 Cary Street – Non-Contributing – Premiere Landscape
Design c/o William Moore, applicant:
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a new black aluminum
fence. The proposed fence will be four feet (4’) tall in the rear and side yards and will be three-
and one-half feet (3.5’) tall in the front yard. Town staff recommended approval as submitted and
deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
Michael Siggers resides at 237 Cary Street in Smithfield, Virginia. He was available for
questions. He explained that this is the second time around with the application.
Vice Chair Hillegass explained that the first application was tabled due to the BHAR not
allowing chain link fencing in the historic district.
Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the application as presented with black aluminum
fencing. Mrs. Lally 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, Mrs. Brown voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass
voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion
passed.
Color Change (Door & Shutters) – 100 Commerce Street – Non-Contributing – Steve &
Rhonda Stewart, applicants:
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicants are seeking approval to paint the front door and the
front and side shutters, Sherwin Williams “Gauntlet Gray” (SW7019). Town staff recommended
approval as submitted and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
The applicant did not attend the meeting.
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, Mrs. Brown voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass
2
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
July 20th, 2021
voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion
passed.
Accessory Structure (Screened Enclosure) & Color Change (Decking) – 113 Jericho Road –
Non-Contributing – Randy Turner, applicant:
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect an enclosed screened
“sunroom” on portions of the existing rear deck. The rear decking will be replaced with decking
colored “Mocha.” The roof of the enclosure will be “Patriot Red” metal to match the existing
primary dwelling. The screened enclosure will feature white AZEK ceilings and white AZEK
sleeved posts. The flat black fortress rail will replace the white railings currently located on the
property. The footprint of the existing rear deck will not change. The enclosure will be
approximately fifteen feet (15’) six inches (6”) by twenty feet (20’) two- and one-half inches
(2.5”). The enclosure will be paneled, featuring a Cabana door on the right side (east side) of the
enclosure, along with three panels, and four panels on the adjacent side. Each vinyl-glazed panel
will feature four over four grids. Town staff recommended approval as submitted and defer to the
BHAR for architectural discretion.
Mr. Turner explained that he is the general contractor for the property owner. He resides
at 373 South Church Street in Smithfield, Virginia. He was available for questions from the BHAR
members.
Mr. Hess asked if the structure of the deck would need additional support due to the weight
of the new addition of the sunroom which includes a roof.
Mr. Turner stated that there will be five posts with footings installed to carry the load. The
header sits on top of the posts which carries all the weight. The backside is attached to the rafters
that are existing. The Isle of Wight County Building Inspection office has reviewed the plan and
given approval.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if there was a sample of the windows.
Mr. Turner stated that there was not a sample small enough for him to bring to the meeting.
It is not plexiglass. It is a vinyl that will stretch if pushed on and has memory. It has four tracks,
and they slide over top of each other. The panels slide down and up. It can be closed for colder
weather and still use it year around. It is a popular product at this time and made specifically for
porches. They are custom made to fit.
Chairman Gwaltney explained that vinyl is usually referred to for siding or windows. He
asked the Board members how they felt about the vinyl product for the porch.
Mr. Turner explained that the frame itself is not vinyl. It is a white aluminum. Only the
space that would have glass is vinyl.
Mr. Hornback stated that the house has vinyl siding and possibly vinyl windows as well.
Mr. Turner explained that no one would be able to tell the difference just by looking at it.
The brochure shows the pictures of the product.
Mr. Hess asked if the porch would be visible from the street.
Mr. Hornback stated that it will be visible from an angle if walking from Windsor Castle
towards South Church Street.
Mrs. Clary referred to the packet with one of the illustrations. It shows the small part that
would be visible.
3
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
July 20th, 2021
Mrs. Lally asked if the porch would be screened also.
Mr. Turner explained that there is a screen which is fixed. The vinyl panels will move to
open up to the air or closed them in cooler weather. It makes the porch a four-season room.
Mr. Hill stated that the product is not bad. He had seen them but never installed them. It is
costly to do what he is doing in that large of an area with solid windows. If the homeowner used
sliding glass doors, then there would need to be stairs. This product is about the only option. He
asked Mr. Turner about the end where the grill is located.
Mr. Turner explained that one end of the deck would remain open with only a portion of it
enclosed. The awning would be removed along with the chair lift.
Chairman Gwaltney explained that the home is far from being prominent in the historic
district. It is an aluminum addition with vinyl windows. It is a new product that is unfamiliar. If
there was a home on Main Street that wanted to use the product and was more visible, how would
the BHAR feel about it?
Mr. Hess stated that it does not add to the historic nature. It is in the back and hardly visible
from the street.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that the home is contributing not a landmark property.
Mr. Hill explained that the home has vinyl siding and vinyl windows. It had been done
long before there were historic guidelines.
Mr. Turner explained that all of his trim would be AZEK.
Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Hornback
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, Mrs. Brown voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass
voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion
passed.
Accessory Structure (Stairs) – 334 Grace Street – Landmark – Paula Cole, applicant:
The Community Development & Planning Director reported that the applicant is seeking
approval to erect a set of stairs and three (3) landings/ catwalks, along with railings on the rear of
the house that will provide access to an existing second story rear porch. The stairs,
landings/catwalks and railings will all be constructed from treated lumber painted a light grey color
to match the existing trim, along with matching the color of the current porch. The proposed
railings will match the style of the top and bottom portions of the current railings but will not
feature the decorative center. Town staff recommended approval as submitted and deferred to the
BHAR for architectural discretion. Town staff suggest that for continuity reasons, the proposed
railings match the currently railings located on the rear and second story porch.
Paula Cole resides at 334 Grace Street in Smithfield, Virginia. She was available for
questions from the Board.
Chairman Gwaltney asked about the two types of railings.
Mrs. Clary explained that the railing in the top photo is what is currently located on the
property. The applicant is proposing to create a newer railing which is shown in the bottom image
for the stairs and landings.
4
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
July 20th, 2021
Chairman Gwaltney asked if he should assume doing the simpler version is because it is
simpler, cheaper, and it will not be seen.
Ms. Cole stated that was correct. The pickets are very ornate. It would be quite expensive
to have them duplicated.
Chairman Gwaltney asked about visibility of the railings.
Ms. Cole stated that the only area seen from the front would be the last landing going over
the generator and those few stairs with railing. The corner of it would be visible from the sidewalk.
The stairs go straight down to the driveway.
Mrs. Lally asked if it would be the entrance to the second floor and if it would be an
entrance for an apartment?
Ms. Cole stated that she was working on getting that done. The stairs will go to the second-
floor porch which used to have stairs from the second floor to the first floor. The stairs took up
most of the very small porch. The first-floor porch was previously expanded. The only other way
to get to the second floor is through the front door. She is trying to arrange it so that would not be
necessary.
Mrs. Lally asked if it was needed for fire escape.
Ms. Cole stated that it was not.
Mrs. Lally asked if the posts supporting the catwalk/stairs would have footings.
Ms. Cole stated that the posts would have footings.
Mrs. Brown asked what the gap would be on the railings since the plans did not specify
that information. She believes there is a gap requirement of four inches.
Ms. Cole stated that would be adjusted to meet any requirements.
Mrs. Lally stated that not much would be seen from Grace Street but would be seen from
James Street.
Mrs. Hillegass stated that if someone was walking or driving from the YMCA or library
then it would be seen. It is a landmark property.
For clarification, Mr. Hess asked if the pickets with the design would be removed and
replaced or if they would remain with the new stairs and landing having a different style.
Ms. Cole explained that the decorative pickets that exist now will remain. The decorative
pickets are on the second-floor porch and the first-floor porch. The front porch has a different
railing.
Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she was not ready to bend on landmark homes.
The Town Attorney explained that he did not think the BHAR could turn downstairs which
are functional. The BHAR could condition the appearance of the stairs but not deny them. He
believes that the BHAR does not have the authority to deny the applicant stairs which were there
in the past.
Chairman Gwaltney clarified that the discussion revolves around the design of the railing
and not the stairs themselves.
Mr. Hess stated that his concern is for the inconsistency of the two patterns and how they
will look together.
Chairman Gwaltney agreed. He asked if the design with the tiered landings and stairs was
necessary to make it spaced out or if the code requires it.
5
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
July 20th, 2021
Mrs. Cole stated that she does not think there is with the upstairs. It is just a top rail and
pickets. For the downstairs, it had to be made bigger and taller. Extra wood was added to make the
railings the height that was required. The boards were plain, and she asked the contractor to cut
holes to make it look more ornate with the pickets. The upstairs pickets do not have the extended
board with the holes cut out.
The Town Attorney stated that it might not be functionally possible for the stairs and
landings due to the angles.
Mr. Hill stated that they can be on the angled railings as long as they are cut long enough
to make the angled cut.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that if the cost of the ornate pickets was the issue, he suggested
considering some complementary designed railing that might not be as expensive as cutting out
the ornate pickets.
Mr. Hess stated that it is a landmark property which has to be treated a little differently. He
feels that there should be some consistency with the beautiful woodwork that is there now. He
explained that there would be two options: get rid of the beautiful woodwork that exists and have
different railings that match throughout or use the same decorative pickets that exist on the new
stairs and landings. He felt that it should be consistent from the ground up to the second floor.
Ms. Cole understood Mr. Hess’s opinion. She asked if it would look better to have vertical
straight pickets versus the horizontal rail that looks like a fence. She also asked if she could relocate
the decorative pickets to the area that would be seen when she puts in the porch.
Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the drawings as presented with the condition of using
the ornate pickets which exist instead of the horizontal board railings. Vice Chair Hillegass
seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that the motion is to accept the design of the
staircase and its location to include railings and balustrades that match the existing railings on the
top porch. 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, Mrs. Brown voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass
voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion
passed.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he hoped everyone understood that the general idea would
be for all of the railings to look like the existing railings now.
Ms. Cole stated that she understood and had one question. She asked about the height of
the railings.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that her contractor or the building inspections office would have
to answer that question. The railings will have to meet the code requirements.
Approval of the Tuesday, June 15th, 2021 Summary Meeting Minutes:
The Town Attorney recommended the minutes for approval as submitted.
Vice Chair Hillegass made the motion to approve the minutes and 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, Mrs. Brown voted aye, Vice Chair Hillegass
6
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
July 20th, 2021
voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion
passed.
The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
______________________________ ________________________________
Mr. Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Mrs. Tammie Clary – Community
Development & Planning Director
7
Get email alerts for Smithfield
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.