Board of Historic & Architectural Review
Regular MeetingSmithfield, VA · September 21, 2021
Minutes
The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on
Tuesday, September 21st, 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
Justin Hornback
Judith Lally
Laura Brown
Members absent:
Russell Hill
Staff present:
William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney
Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director
Press: None
Citizens: 4
Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
Tammie 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. Finally, our
consultants have also posted a draft Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies for feedback. Mrs.
Clary reminded everyone that the 2nd working session for the Comprehensive Plan review will be
on September 29th, 2021 at 6:30 p.m.
Upcoming Meetings and Activities:
Monday, September 27th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, September 28th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 29th, 6:30PM – 2nd Comp Plan Update Working Session
Tuesday, October 5th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 12th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, October 19th, 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 Structure (Garage) – 345 South Church Street – Landmark – Ocean Waves
Revocable Trust c/o Janet E. Dunlop, applicant:
Tammie Clary reported that the applicant was seeking approval to replace the existing
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
September 21st, 2021
seven foot by seven foot brown garage door with a Virginia Door Clopay Coachman overhead
door, which would be eight feet by seven feet. The garage door would be painted white and feature
black straps and handles. Town staff recommended approval as submitted and defer to the BHAR
for architectural discretion.
The applicant was available for questions from the Board.
Mr. Hess asked what material the door was made of.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that the door was insulated steel and composite overlay.
It is not vinyl.
Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the application as presented and Vice Chair
Hillegass seconded. 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. 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.
The applicant asked if she would receive a letter of approval from the Town.
Mrs. Clary explained that she would receive a Board action letter with further instructions.
Assorted Exterior Changes, Fence, and Windows (after-the-fact) – 330 Main Street –
Landmark – Maureen Brines, applicant:
Tammie Clary reported that the applicant was seeking approval to install a six foot wooden
dog-eared privacy fence. The fence would connect to the sides of the house and continue to the
rear of the house, connecting to the current six foot privacy fence along the rear of the property.
The applicant was also seeking approval for a new aluminum white storm door with clear glass
which would replace the existing teal aluminum storm door, and white aluminum gutters with
downspouts. The applicant was also seeking after-the-fact approval for the installation of Harvey
Majesty wooden two-over-two double hung windows with aluminum cladding. Previous approval
from the BHAR at the October 20th, 2020 meeting was for “Harvey Majesty wooden one-over-one
double hung sash windows of a like color.” Town staff recommended approval as submitted
provided the fence was either stained or painted white, and defer to the BHAR for architectural
discretion.
The applicant, Maureen Brines, of 330 Main Street was available for questions from the
Board. She explained that she had to rebuild the house and it took a year and $400,000.00 to do it.
Mr. Settle had helped her with her original application. Mrs. Brines explained that she had told
him that she would replace the windows with the exact same windows that were on the house. The
original application stated one-over-one instead of two-over-two and no one caught that. She stated
that the Town of Smithfield threatened to take her to court if she did not come and ask for re-
approval for two-over-two windows.
Mr. Hornback stated that there was also a material change.
Ms. Brines stated that there was not. John Settle had provided all of the documentation to
the Board members. The windows in the home are Majesty windows that were provided and are
solid wood windows.
Mr. Hess asked if the windows have always been two-over-two and if she was implying
that it was an administrative error.
Ms. Brines stated that was correct.
2
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
September 21st, 2021
Chairman Gwaltney asked if the approval from last year was for wooden windows clad in
aluminum.
The Community Development & Planning Director, Tammie Clary, stated that the October
2020 approval was for one-over-one Harvey Majesty double hung wooden windows.
Ms. Brines stated that the windows are solid wood windows with aluminum cladding. In
October 2020 she gave John Settle all of the documentation which was provided to the Board at
that time. She explained that she spent $30,000.00 on the windows because they are solid wood.
Chairman Gwaltney said that the 2020 approval, according to the minutes, did not say that
the windows were aluminum clad windows.
Ms. Brines stated that was incorrect. She submitted all of the paperwork to John Settle. She
said that Chairman Gwaltney had come to her home after the windows were installed in early 2021.
She has been threatened with being taken to court because the windows had aluminum cladding.
She did not understand what Ms. Clary was talking about so she went back to the supply company
and had the paperwork resubmitted to her which was also approved by the Board. She had asked
for Mr. Settle to call and talk to Mrs. Clary about what he had submitted. All of the brochures and
literature were provided to Mr. Settle.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that there are aluminum clad wooden windows installed in the
house which are before the BHAR for approval as after-the-fact. He said that regardless of what
happened last October the current application before the Board is for what has been installed in
the house.
Mrs. Lally stated that the BHAR has approved aluminum clad windows previously.
Chairman Gwaltney suggested that the Board address the issue of the windows which have
already been installed. They are the same manufacturer that was approved in 2020.
Mrs. Clary stated that the only thing missing was the aluminum cladding.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that the design was slightly different also but, in his opinion,
either design would be appropriate for the house. He suggested dividing the application into four
parts as follows:
Motion for After-the-Fact Approval of Windows at 330 Main Street:
Mrs. Lally made a motion to approve the modified application for the wooden windows
with aluminum cladding. Vice Chair Hillegass 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. 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.
Motion for Gutters at 330 Main Street:
Mr. Hornback stated that he did not think gutters were required to have BHAR approval.
Mrs. Clary stated that it was her understanding that all improvements that are visible from
the right-of-way needed BHAR approval.
The Town Attorney alleged that there used to be a precedent for the installation of half
round gutters in which case BHAR approval was not needed. It was a long standing rule as dictated
by the Board. Half round gutters are an older traditional style and no one objects to them and, if
deviated from, then three would be an issue. The style is an issue more than the material.
3
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
September 21st, 2021
Chairman Gwaltney asked the applicant if she would consider using half round gutters and
round downspouts for the house.
Ms. Brines stated that she cannot afford them. She explained that they would be hidden
and not very noticeable since they will be white against white trim. She asked if she needed
approval for the gutters or not.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that if half round gutters were to be installed then they would
not need to come before the BHAR since they would be appropriate for the house.
Ms. Brines stated that the house originally had the gutters flowing through the house. The
beams were large and eaten down much smaller all the way to the third story. The house was in
such disrepair that it probably should have been torn down since it was severely neglected. The
gutters that were in the home are now obsolete and not functional now. Ms. Brines explained that
she rebuilt the home so it will last another 100 years.
The Town Attorney asked where the gutters would be located which might have a bearing
on how the Board feels about the gutters.
Mr. Hornback asked if the gutters would be on the upper roof and the front porch roof.
Ms. Brines stated that gutters would not be on the front porch; only on the third story roof.
Mr. Hess asked if the white gutters would be on the white trim in all cases.
Ms. Brines stated that they would except there would be no gutters on the front porch.
The Town Attorney stated that the guidelines do not address gutters.
Mr. Hess stated that anything that is decided would set a precedent of some sort. He has
not studied the gutters up and down Main Street. He felt that with the gutters the same color as the
trim that they would blend and would be as good as it would get in today’s environment. Not
having gutters would be much worse due to potential water damage to the house. He was inclined
to support the request.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if Ms. Brines had priced the gutters for the home.
Ms. Brines stated that she had not priced them.
Chairman Gwaltney asked Ms. Brines to consider pricing both types to see if they were
more or less or the same.
Mr. Hess stated that the round gutters would be more appropriate for the period of the
home.
Mr. Hornback recommended that Ms. Brines have the contractor look at the very complex
roof line which included a lot of channel points. The contractor might recommend a larger diameter
downspout which would be conducive to round which he has found to be an issue with Victorian
style homes.
Mrs. Lally stated that it would be important to account for the amount of runoff. Even with
oversize gutters, there can be an incredible amount of water due to the pitch of the roof. She
suggested that the property owner have the contractor take that into consideration.
Mr. Hornback asked if the gutter vote could be segregated.
Ms. Brines stated that the Town did not have a precedent for that.
The Town Attorney stated that gutters have been coming before the Board for a long time
and was resolved a long time ago. The gutters Ms. Brines proposed are an OG style which is a
modern design not typically found on older homes. He explained that in order to keep people from
4
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
September 21st, 2021
having to make an application and attend a meeting for gutters that the BHAR adopted a policy
that half-round gutters were acceptable in every instance. Homes that are not historical or
contributing would be given more deference in respect to the choice of gutters. He felt that OG
type of gutter was a more inappropriate type of gutter. Mr. Riddick stated that it is not fair to say
there is no precedent because there is precedent. He explained that Ms. Brines is asking to deviate
from what has been generally accepted without any evidence that round gutters would cost more.
Ms. Brines implied that she could not afford the round gutters but had not priced them yet.
Ms. Brines stated that she never said she could not afford them. She explained that she did
not want to put any more money into the house than she already had. She stated that there are
aluminum windows, vinyl siding, and vinyl gutters right next door to her home.
Vice Chair Hillegass stated that the adjacent property was not a landmark structure which
is the difference.
Chairman Gwaltney explained that it creates a difference for everything the BHAR
considers for each property. There are three classifications of every home in the historic district
which are landmark, contributing, and non-contributing. The landmark properties are viewed
closely as far as changes. Landmark homes are the homes that people want to look at and want to
see what a historic property looks like.
Mrs. Lally explained that her home had vinyl siding on it when she purchased it. When she
remodeled, she upgraded the siding since she did not want vinyl siding, which then changed the
classification. She explained that the reason homes around Ms. Brines’ home have less historical
coverings was because they were put on before the BHAR was ever even thought of.
Mr. Hess suggested that they table the gutter decision and give Ms. Brines the opportunity
to explore her options for gutters. She could then come back to the BHAR to discuss it further.
Ms. Brines agreed to price the different types of gutters.
Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to table the decision on the gutters until the owner
priced the options. Mrs. Lally 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. 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 the BHAR would prefer the half round gutters. He asked
the owner to price everything and let them know.
Fence at 330 Main Street:
Ms. Brines stated that she would like a dog-eared wooden privacy fence in the backyard.
She explained that John Settle told her last year that she did not need approval for the fence. When
Ms. Clary contacted her and said she had to have approval for the fence.
Mrs. Clary stated that the applicant is connecting the fence to the side of the house and it
is visible from the public right-of-way.
Mr. Hess asked if the owner had an objection to staining or painting the fence.
Mrs. Brines stated that she would not paint the fence since it is treated wood. She did not
object to staining it after it cures for a year. She explained that she has walked through Smithfield
and has seen unpainted/unstained rotten privacy fences.
5
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
September 21st, 2021
Chairman Gwaltney explained that the BHAR request that fences be stained or painted so
that they do not rot. The BHAR started requiring it about four years ago because there were too
many fences that were not painted and they all look weathered and poor. The stain or paint protects
the wood. The BHAR asks property owners to do one or the other.
Ms. Brines stated that she typically uses Weather Protect on fences and decks.
Mrs. Lally explained that she used a white stain on her fence and she was pleased since it
looks painted but is actually stain.
Ms. Brines stated that she would not paint the fence at all.
Mrs. Lally reiterated that it was white stain; not paint.
Mrs. Brown asked if there would be gates along the fence that would look different than
the regular fence.
Ms. Brines stated that there would not be any gates that look different.
Vice Chair Hillegass asked if anyone had a problem with a dog-eared fence on a landmark
structure.
Mr. Hornback stated there was already precedent there.
Mrs. Lally asked if the finished side would be required to face the outside.
Ms. Brines stated that the finished side would face out.
Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the fence with the condition that it be stained or
painted white, with the finished side facing outward. Vice Chair Hillegass 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. 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.
Storm Door for 330 Main Street:
Ms. Brines stated that her reason for replacing the storm door is because the original
aluminum storm door was not suitable. She had not planned to put anything there due to the beauty
of the original door, but she has been getting a lot of air loss around the door. The original gothic
windows were rebuilt and originally worked; but they had to sealed due to air penetration. The
storm door that she was proposing contains full glass so that the original door can be seen.
Mr. Hornback thanked Ms. Brines for restoring the home. Many Board members
understand what it takes to restore a historical home. Mr. Hornback asked Ms. Brines if she had
considered weather stripping to help with the air penetration issue.
Ms. Brines indicated that had not worked.
Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the storm door as presented and Mr. Hess
seconded. 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. 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 (Fence) – 205 Washington Street – Non-Contributing – Anne English,
applicant:
Tammie Clary reported that the applicant was seeking approval for the installation of a
brown stained wooden dog-eared picket privacy fence. The portions of the fence that will run off
6
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
September 21st, 2021
the rear corner of the primary structure and the left side of the property will be six feet tall, with
the flush side facing out. The portion of the fence that will join this run of fencing at the rear of
the backyard will be three feet tall and will feature a farm fence backed with galvanized welded
wire. The gate on the right side of the primary structure will be four feet and features an “x”
decorative design. All fencing will be stained. Town staff recommended approval as submitted
form a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
The applicant, Anne English, resides at 205 Washington Street and was available for
questions from the Board members.
Chairman Gwaltney interpreted that the fence was needed for privacy since the hedge was
there. He questioned why there was a different type of fence in the back.
Ms. English stated that the hedge does not belong to her. She explained that her yard was
rather small and the land behind her lot which is owned by someone else looks like part of her
yard. She stated that it is a lovely piece of property and she pays to have it mowed which is why
she would like to be able to see it with the lower farm style fence in the back. She would like to be
able to see through it and over it. She would like a privacy fence on the side that needs privacy but
she does not need a privacy fence in the back. She felt it would also box in her small yard and not
look very pretty.
Chairman Gwaltney asked about the wire on the fence.
Ms. English explained that the wire would be to keep her dog from getting out just like a
typical farm fence.
Chairman Gwaltney questioned that type of fencing in the historic district in the middle of
a town.
Ms. English stated that her home is not a landmark but she is in the historic district. She
intends to put landscaping in front of the fence that would not be taller than the fence. The area is
only about 30’ wide.
Mr. Hornback stated that the challenge is the ungalvanized steel wire. He explained that it
exists in the historic district but the BHAR has been trying not to add wire in order to preserve the
historic nature of the area. It is why wooden picket fences are preferred. Wire has been allowed
but it is coated black so it looks more finished in the historic district.
Mrs. Brown asked how visible the back fence was from the road.
Ms. English said that it would not be seen. The privacy fence obscures any view of the rear
fence.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that the whole backyard can be seen from Clay Street. He asked
the Board members how they felt about the style of the fence.
The Town Attorney reminded the Board that the property was in a non-contributing area
which should be one of the considerations.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that there seems to be consensus that the style of the fence is
okay with the BHAR but the wire is an issue.
Mrs. Lally suggested that green or black wire would blend better and be less noticeable
than the galvanized wire.
Ms. English stated that she would be fine with coated black or green wire. She also would
be fine with adding another cross rail so her dog could not get through the fence instead of wire.
7
Agenda
Wednesday, September 8th, 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, September 21st,
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, September 21st, 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. Finally, our consultants have
also posted a draft Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies for feedback.
2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities
Monday, September 27th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, September 28th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 29th, 6:30PM – 2nd Comp Plan Update Working Session
Tuesday, October 5th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 12th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, October 19th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting
3) Public Comments
4) Board Member Comments
5) Accessory Structure (Garage) – 345 South Church Street – Landmark – Ocean Waves
Revocable Trust c/o Janet E. Dunlop, applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations
enclosed).
6) Assorted Exterior Changes, Fence, and Windows (after-the-fact) – 330 Main Street –
Landmark – Maureen Brines, applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations
enclosed).
7) Accessory Structure (Fence) – 205 Washington Street – Non-Contributing – Anne English,
applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations enclosed).
8) Approval of the Tuesday, August 17th, 2021 Meeting Minutes (enclosed).
9) 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, September 21st, 2021, 6:30 PM
Applicant Oceans Waves Revocable Trust
C/O Janet E. Dunlop
345 South Church Street
Smithfield, Virginia 23430
Owner Ibid
Property 345 South Church Street
TPIN 21A-01-411
0.85-acre N side S Church St
482 ft from Jericho Rd & South Church St intersection
Classification Landmark
Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DNR) & Historic Preservation
Overlay (HPO)
Adjacent Zoning Environmental Conservation (EC), DNR, & HPO
Project Description The applicant is seeking approval to replace the existing seven foot (7’) by
seven foot (7’) brown garage door with a Virginia Door Colplay
Coachman overhead door, which would be eight feet (8’) by seven feet
(7’). The garage door with be painted white and feature black straps and
handles.
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.
BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, September 21st, 2021, 6:30 PM
Applicant Maureen Brines
206 Beech Ct
Smithfield, VA 23430
Owner Ibid
Property 330 Main St
TPIN 21A-01-158
NW side Main St
50’ SW Main St & Cockes Ln
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 install a six foot (6’) wooden dog-
eared privacy fence. The fence will connect to the sides of the house and
continue to the rear of the house, connecting to the current six-foot (6’)
privacy fence along the rear of the property. The applicant is also seeking
approval for a new aluminum trim storm door in white, with clear glass,
which will replace the previous teal aluminum screen door, and white
aluminum gutters with downspouts. The applicant is also seeking after-
the-fact approval for the installation of Harvey Majesty wooden two-over-
two double hung windows with aluminum cladding. Previous approval
from the BHAR on October 20th 2020, was for “Harvey Majesty wooden
one-over-one double-hung sash windows of a like color.”
Zoning
Recommendation Town staff recommend approval as submitted, provided the fence is either
stained or painted white, and defer to the BHAR for architectural
discretion.
For inquiries, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@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
9/10/21
Date of Application__________ 9/21/21
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:
MAUREEN BRINES
__________________________________________________________
Address:
330_________________________________________________________________
MAIN STREET
7577784800
Phone:_____________________ MDUKE11@MSN.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.
PRIVACY WOOD FENCE IN BACK YARD
Project Description: ___________________________________________________________________________
WHITE FULL GLASS ALUMINUM TRIM STORM DOOR
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
GUTTERS
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WINDOWS PER CITY REQUEST
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
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) MAUREEN BRINES
Name: (signature) MAUREEN BRINES
Version: 2020-10-05
KEY: PROPERTY LINE KEY: EXISTING /PREVIOUS KEY: NEW
NEW PRIVACY 6’ FENCE
WOOD DOG EAR
EXISTING REMAINS
privacy 6’ fence wood
dog ear
NEW FULL VIEW STORM
DOOR ALLUMINUM
NEW ALLUMINUM GUTTERS
prevent water runoff
NEW HARVEY MAJESTY WOODEN
TWO OVER TWO DOUBLE HUNG
BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, September 21st, 2021, 6:30 PM
Applicant Anne English
205 Washington Street
Smithfield, VA 23430
Owner Ibid.
Property 205 Washington Street
TPIN 21A-03-H012
NW side South Church Street
135’ corner of North Mason St & Washington St
Classification Non-Contributing
Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DNR) & Historic Preservation
Overlay (HPO)
Adjacent Zoning DNR & HPO
Project Description The applicant is seeking approval for the installation of a brown stained
wooden dog-eared picket privacy fence. The portions of the fence that will
run off the rear corner of the primary structure and the left side of the
property will be six feet (6’) tall, with the flush side facing out, while the
portion of the fence that will join this run of fencing at the rear of the
backyard will be three feet (3’) tall and will feature a farm fence backed
with galvanized welded wire. The gate on the right side of the primary
structure will be four feet (4’) and feature an “x” decorative design. All
fencing will be stained.
Recommendation Town staff recommend approval as submitted from a zoning standpoint
and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
For inquiries, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.
Brown stained wooden 6' fence flush side facing out, 3' farm fence in rear
with galvanized wire and 4' gate on right side.
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
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
August 17th, 2021
The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
______________________________ ________________________________
Mr. Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Mrs. Tammie Clary – Community
Development and Planning Director
6
Get email alerts for Smithfield
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.