Board of Historic & Architectural Review
Regular MeetingSmithfield, VA · January 18, 2022
Minutes
The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on
Tuesday, January 18th, 2022 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
Judith Lally
Laura Brown
Members absent:
Russell Hill
Justin Hornback
Staff present:
William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney
Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director
Nadya Jaudzimas – Administrative Assistant
Press: none
Citizens: 2
Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting.
2022 Election of Officers
Tammie Clary, Community Development & Planning Director, asked if there were any
nominations for the position of Chairman.
Mr. Hess made a motion to continue with Mr. Gwaltney as the Chairman of the Committee.
Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion.
Mrs. Clary called for any other nominations. Hearing none, she called for the vote. On call
for the vote, four members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mrs. Brown
voted aye, and Vice Chair Hillegass voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion
passed.
Mrs. Clary asked if there were any nominations for the position of Vice Chair.
Mr. Hess made a motion to continue with Mrs. Hillegass as the Vice Chair of the
Committee. Chairman Gwaltney seconded the motion.
Mrs. Clary called for any other nominations. Hearing none, she called for the vote. On call
for the vote, four members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess voted aye, Mrs. Brown
voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There were no votes against the motion. The motion
passed.
Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
Mrs. Clary reported that Summit Design & Engineering Services, PLLC, the 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/ for feedback and comments.
She also reported that the landscaping five feet from Town Hall will be removed in order
to complete the structural report for the building. She added that the plan would either be to replant
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
January 18, 2022
the landscaping five feet away or replace it with additional landscaping once the assessment is
completed.
Mrs. Clary reported that Town Staff wanted to propose that the BHAR update the Historic
District guidelines, with assistance from consultants provided. She encouraged the members to
email her with any questions or areas of concern they would like to see incorporated into the
Historic Guidelines.
She also stated that they would be taking a new photo of the BHAR members in order to
update the Town website.
Vice Chair Hillegass asked if Summit Design would be used as the consultants to update
the Historic Guidelines as well.
Mrs. Clary stated that they had not yet reached out to the consultants regarding possible
updates at this time.
Mrs. Hillegass asked if it would be a completely different request for proposal (RFP), to
which Mrs. Clary confirmed.
Chairman Gwaltney clarified that this was an update to the Historic Guidelines, not to be
confused with the updates made last year regarding historic classifications of properties.
Upcoming Meetings and Activities:
Monday, January 24th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, January 25th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, February 1st, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, February 8th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, February 15th, 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 (Fence) – Lot 182A Riverview Avenue – Non-Contributing – Mesa
Construction C/O Marvin Smith, applicant
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a six-foot (6’) white
vinyl fence connecting to the proposed dwelling, on the left side of the property, and continue
down the side of the property and will stop with a ninety (90) degree right hand turn right before
the benches. The fence will be used to separate their property from the adjoining park, which has
a lot of foot traffic. The applicants are seeking approval for vinyl material due to maintenance
reasons. This application was tabled at the October 19th, 2021 meeting to allow for a survey of the
property to be completed showing the location of the fence. The application was tabled again at
the December 21st, 2021 meeting to allow the applicant to provide samples of the fence material.
Town staff recommend approval under the following conditions and defer to the BHAR for
architectural discretion: 1. Town staff recommend the fence be wooden and painted white or
stained. 2. The fence cannot be erected until after the zoning permit for the new single-family
dwelling has been issued.
Chairman Gwaltney recapped the items discussed at the previous meeting. He stated that
the conclusion was reached that there would be a fence on the property, but there was question
2
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
January 18, 2022
about the material that was proposed as it was vinyl and not wood. He stated that the main topic
for discussion this evening was to look at the sample of the material that the applicant had brought
for the Board’s review.
Marvin Smith of 10283 Newport Street in Battery Park was present to show a sample of
the proposed vinyl fence. He stated that the goal was to find a vinyl material that was not shiny,
adding there were many types of vinyl fencing that had a dulled appearance. Based on the location
of where the fence was being built at the end of the park, it is not visible from the road. He added
that the only place it would be visible would be from the park. He stated that they were looking
for a product that would not be troublesome to maintain, giving the example of wood fencing
needing to be sanded and painted. Mr. Smith stated that he had brought an example of the shiny
vinyl that the Board had expressed concern about, and a piece of the product that they would like
to use for comparison. He walked the examples to the Board members, wearing a mask and trying
to maintain his distance.
Kimberly Owens, the property owner, also brought a picture representation of what a length
of the privacy fence would look like as at the last meeting they were only able to review one panel.
Mr. Smith described the finish of the dull vinyl to the members as he walked the sample
around. He stated that even if paint was used on wood it would likely have a satin finish which
would look similar. He added that of all the duller finish vinyl fencing they found, the product he
was presenting to the Board was the most reasonable in pricing at $200/8 feet. The area to be
fenced is 336 feet. He said that he felt this would be the easiest to maintain while still having good
look, especially from a distance.
Chairman Gwaltney wanted to confirm that all of the fence components had the same finish
as the example presented.
Mr. Smith and Mrs. Owens confirmed that this was correct.
Mr. Smith explained that the fence was held together with a tongue and groove system, and
that it was able to withstand 70 mph winds. He added that the fence flowed well with the
topography of the property.
Mr. Hess wanted to reconfirm that the fence, though joined, would be able to stand up to
high winds.
Mrs. Owens stated that the fence was warranted up to 65-70 mph.
Mr. Smith stated that he had a section of this fencing on his property in Battery Park and it
experienced 50 mph winds on a regular basis. He added that he had not had any issues with the
fence leaning though it was not concreted in. He reported that the proposed fence would be
concreted in providing added stability.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if the posts had a vinyl outer coat that slid over a 4x4.
Mr. Smith stated that the posts were the same material as the fence and the posts were
structural posts that were much thicker.
Mrs. Owens added that what was nice about the fence was that it would be easy to fix if
one section became damaged.
Chairman Gwaltney asked the Town Attorney to review with the Board what their ability
was to stop the property owner from putting a fence up.
3
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
January 18, 2022
The Town Attorney stated that the Board could not stop the owners from putting a fence
on their property.
Chairman Gwaltney said that it was basically a question of the material used or the style
of the fencing.
Mr. Hess agreed that it was an issue of material, style, and added that it was also the height
of 6 feet that was outside what was usually approved.
The Town Attorney stated that 6-foot fencing is frequently permitted. He added that it was
42 inches high from the side of the house towards the street.
Mr. Smith stated that he would like the Board to consider the location of where the fence
would be placed. He reported that the fence would be 300 yards from any visual. He added that if
it was a contributing property he would understand, however this was a matter of separating a
commercial property from a residential property.
The Town Attorney stated that in reviewing the minutes from last month’s meeting he came
across the comment that the guidelines state that the review is stricter if the fence is visible from
the street.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he did not know if now was the appropriate time to discuss
text in the guidelines, but he interprets the term “from the street” as meaning from public spaces.
He added that most of the houses and property the Board works with are on or close to a street. He
suggested that the Board look at updating their definition of that term in the near future.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that an additional cause for concern was that the park in
question is called “Riverview” and the building of the fence would in fact block the view to the
river. He stated that he understood that once the house was built, the fence would not be visible
from the road. He added that from the vantage point of the park, one could see all of the fence.
Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she felt that the product sample that they presented looks
much better than the standard dog-eared fence. She added that she felt the applicant had gone the
extra mile to find a product that the Board could live with. She made a motion to approve the
product as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion.
Mr. Hess wanted to make the comment that he did feel that it was good that the guidelines
were going to be updated to address such a case. He added that technology had changed with a lot
of these materials and the Board needed to take a look at how they deal with some of these requests.
He stated that generally if someone brings a request to use vinyl the answer would be no, but he
understood what the property owner was trying to accomplish. He stated that if they were to put
up a 3 ½ foot, dog-eared wood fence they would likely be repairing it once a week.
Chairman Gwaltney reviewed the motion to approve the 6-foot privacy fence made with
the materials presented tonight with the matte finish, the location, and the length. He asked if there
were any additional comments.
Mrs. Owens stated that last month they had discussed the fence stopping before the
benches. They had spoken with Wayne Griffin at the Public Works Department and Mr. Griffin
had told them they are not going to do anything with the benches.
The Town Attorney stated that the benches do not belong to the Town but to the County.
Mr. Smith agreed.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if the benches would stay where they are.
4
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
January 18, 2022
Mr. Smith stated that the benches were on Mrs. Owens’ property, and that Mr. Griffin said
they could do whatever they want with them.
Mrs. Owens stated that now since the benches were not an issue, the fence would now be
going straight down the property to the tree.
Mrs. Lally stated that she thought the point of turning at the benches was to preserve the
view.
Mr. Smith stated that this was correct, but when they talked to Mr. Griffin about it he was
fine with the owners cutting back the foliage past the benches so that the river could still be seen.
Chairman Gwaltney recapped that this would now mean that the fence would be placed
between the park and the benches, and that the owners could keep the benches or do away with
them entirely.
Mrs. Owens stated that they did not ask for the benches, they were just there on the
property. She added that they would be happy to have someone come move them if they wanted
but the communication was that they did not.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if there were any additional comments from the Board. Vice
Chair Hillegass stated that it was their property and that the motion still stands.
Chairman Gwaltney asked the Town Attorney if he had anything to add. The Town
Attorney stated that it was the County’s problem, and they were being short-sighted. He added that
the property owners have offered many ways to fix the situation and that the Board was not doing
anything wrong.
Mrs. Clary inquired as to whether the motion would be including the staff recommendation
that the fence is not built until the zoning permit for the single-family dwelling is approved.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he would include that in the motion. Hearing no further
comments, he called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess 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) (After-the-fact) – 104 Commerce Street – Non-Contributing –
Deborah Green, applicant
Mrs. Clary stated that the applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for an approximately
three and a half foot tall (3.5’) wooden picket fence. The fence is located on the Pagan River
Townhouse Community Association common area. The fence is used to keep the area separated
from the neighboring properties. She reported that Town staff recommend approval from a zoning
standpoint with the suggestion the fence is either stained or painted white and defer to the BHAR
for architectural discretion.
The applicant was not present to speak about the application.
Chairman Gwaltney inquired about the fence being stained or painted white, and could it
also be a natural wood color stain. Mrs. Clary stated the stain could be any approved stain color,
painted white, or stained white.
The Town Attorney clarified that a coating would need to be applied to preserve longevity.
Mrs. Lally stated that she went to see the fence and that it did not look bad, but that she
wished that they had gone through the appropriate approval process.
5
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
January 18, 2022
Chairman Gwaltney stated that sometimes people act on impulse and don’t necessarily
know the protocol.
Mrs. Lally stated that she had to wait for material for a fence on her property and that this
was not a spur of the moment issue.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he was glad that the “good side” was facing out on the
fence.
Mrs. Lally added that she felt it was well done as the fence was nice and level. She stated
that she understood why the Townhouse Association felt they needed to separate themselves. The
Town Attorney added that sometimes that area is seen as public space.
Mrs. Lally made a motion to approve the application as presented, provided that it is stained
a natural color or painted white.
Mr. Hess confirmed that it was already erected.
Mrs. Hillegass asked if the Board should put a deadline on when the fence should be coated
by. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the fence appeared to be cured, so whomever would be hired
to coat it would perhaps say it couldn’t be painted until it cures. With that in mind, Chairman
Gwaltney stated that he would be ok with setting a deadline of 12 months.
Mrs. Lally asked that the deadline of 12 months be added to her original motion to approve
provided that the fence is painted or stained. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Hearing no further
comments, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mr. Hess 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.
Windows (After-the-Fact) – 360-368 Main Street – Contributing – Yusuf Atay, applicant
Mrs. Clary reported that the application had originally been completed as a complaint had
been received that vinyl windows were installed at this property. Town staff could not confirm nor
deny that the applicant had replaced vinyl windows with the same material. She stated that there
were four windows that had been replaced, and the applicant reported that the windows that were
replaced were vinyl as well. She added that the applicant reported that because he replaced the
windows with like material he did not think he needed the BHAR’s approval. She added that
because they could not confirm the original material, Town staff decided to bring this to the BHAR.
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant was not able to attend this evening’s meeting, but
that he had reported that he was available by phone if needed.
The Town Attorney stated that he would not recommend calling as it would set a negative
precedent. He stated that it was his opinion that if the Board resorts to calling the applicant, he will
not come to meetings to discuss this issue in person and will continue to make changes without
Board approval.
Mrs. Lally inquired that if someone installs vinyl windows without the Board approving,
does that then grandfather those windows in for any future approvals. She added that the Board
has been in place for 30 years, and if someone put vinyl windows in the building prior, they did so
without permission. She added that the argument that they then could replace vinyl with vinyl
doesn’t hold in this type of case.
6
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
January 18, 2022
Chairman Gwaltney made the example of Mrs. Lally wanting to put vinyl siding on her
home, the Board would have to reluctantly let her. Mrs. Lally reminded Chairman Gwaltney that
this would have been before the BHAR had any authorization to enforce Historic guidelines.
The Town Attorney stated that to his knowledge no one from the property in question had
ever come before the board for any approvals, even after it was damaged in a fire. He added that
if the Board allows someone to perpetuate something that looks bad, it is always going to look
bad.
Chairman Gwaltney recapped that the applicant had asked for after-the-fact approval for
four windows and had stated that he replaced vinyl windows with vinyl windows. He inquired as
what they could respond now with.
The Town Attorney stated that the Board could communicate to the applicant that they
should have done their due diligence as they know the property is in a Historic District and there
are rules that come with that. He continued that the applicant has an obligation to maintain their
property according to the Board’s guidelines. He recommended that the Board acknowledge that
the applicant replaced windows without approval and offer up approved materials to replace them
with that are approved.
The Town Attorney added that this property has not been well-maintained for many years.
He questioned when the windows had been replaced as he had never seen any work being done on
the building.
Mr. Hess stated that his biggest concern was the extensive mix of windows, and that the
objective should be for the windows to be consistent with the guidelines.
Chairman Gwaltney speculated that the applicant would probably agree and say that they
also wanted the windows to be consistent, which in this case would mean vinyl windows.
The Town Attorney stated that the applicant would want to replace the windows with the
most cost-effective material to generate the most rent revenue.
Mr. Hess made the point that technology had changed in this area as well as there are vinyl
windows that look very good, but they are not cheap.
The Town Attorney recommended reaching out to see if there was an agency to assist the
Board in updating their approved materials when they look at updating the guidelines.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he and Mrs. Clary were working to get information together
to send to the Board regarding different issues and updates that had come up necessitating the
guidelines needing to be reviewed. He added that the fence material issue addressed previously
was a good example of this.
The Town Attorney stated that the fence application presented tonight was a textbook
example of how the process should work. The applicant approaches the Board and educates the
members as to why they want a different material. He added that the Board was willing to work
with the applicant in a reasonable way.
Chairman Gwaltney reviewed that this applicant had replaced 4 windows with vinyl
without approval. He added that the separate issue is the fact that the building is very large, with
many more windows that will need to be replaced.
The Town Attorney stated that if the Board allows the applicant to keep the 4 unauthorized
windows, then their credibility will be hurt for the rest of the windows. He suggested that the
7
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
January 18, 2022
burden should be placed on the applicant to come forward to the Board with some replacement
product that meets the guidelines or something that he could persuade the Board that looks
appropriate.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that there were really two issues, and he did not want to get
them mixed-up with each other.
Mr. Hess agreed, stating that the 4 windows were one thing but there were 50 other
windows on the building.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that underlying issue was that the applicant had never appeared
in person. He stated that they should table the issue until the applicant is ready to discuss it in
person.
Mr. Hess stated that the downside of that plan is that it could end up like what happened
with Pierceville, where the applicant could refuse to talk to the Board, and then they end up getting
their own way anyhow.
Mrs. Brown made the point that the applicant is not maintaining the entire property, and
that it was not just the windows that were in disrepair.
The Town Attorney stated that there was another process entirely to deal with that and
recommended not focusing on that at the moment. He inquired as to how often the Board had just
let something pass that had not been authorized by them. He continued that during the Covid
lockdown the Board had been more lenient, but in 28 years he had not seen the Board let
unauthorized work pass when the person refused to address it.
Mr. Hess stated that he did not think that anything should be approved until the applicant
appears in person. He made the point that to make this situation right, the applicant will have to
spend a lot of money just based on the number of windows.
The Town Attorney reminded the Board of a similar situation that they had with a property
owner on Mason Street where the Board had taken a stand.
Mrs. Lally stated that she felt that the applicant wasn’t digging his heels in but was
outwaiting the Board.
The Town Attorney recommended that Mrs. Clary send a letter to the applicant inquiring
when they were available to appear, or their application will be rejected, and the Board will require
him to remove the windows. He recommended that the Board table the issue for a month and have
Town Staff send him a letter requiring him to appear.
Mr. Hess stated that the applicant probably got the property with these problems already
existing.
Mrs. Hillegass stated that this was not an issue of the Board.
Mr. Hess stated that the applicant should appear or remove the windows. Mrs. Lally stated
that he may have to still remove the windows.
The Town Attorney stated that if he appears then the Board can give him a copy of the
guidelines with the expectation that he has a nicely maintained building. He added that the Board
could acknowledge the expense of that type of project and encourage the applicant to do research
and return with some examples of more cost-effective products that adhere to the guidelines.
Mrs. Lally made the point that many people in the Town had replaced 40 windows, and do
not get to claim it on their taxes as a business expense. She made a motion to table the issue until
8
Agenda
Tuesday, January 11th, 2022
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, January 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, January 18th, 2022, 6:30 PM
1) 2022 Election of Officers
2) 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/ for feedback and comments.
3) Upcoming Meetings and Activities
Monday, January 24th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, January 25th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, February 1st, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, February 8th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, February 15th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting
4) Public Comments
5) Board Member Comments
6) Accessory Structure (Fence) (After-the-fact) – 104 Commerce Street – Non-Contributing –
Deborah Green, applicant (staff report, BHAR Application & attachments enclosed).
7) Accessory Structure (Fence) – Lot 182A Riverview Avenue – Non-Contributing – Mesa
Construction C/O Marvin Smith, applicant (staff report, BHAR application & illustrations
enclosed).
8) Windows (After-the-Fact) – 360-368 Main Street – Contributing – Yusuf Atay, applicant
(staff report, BHAR application & illustrations enclosed).
9) Approval of the Tuesday, December 21st, 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, 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, January 18th, 2022, 6:30 PM
Applicant Pagan River Townhouse Community Association
C/O Deborah Green, President
104 Commerce Street
Smithfield, VA 23430
Owner Pagan River Townhouse Community Association
100 Commerce Street
Smithfield, VA 23430
Property TPIN 21A-01-057A
NE side Commerce Street
Corner of Main Street and Commerce Street
Classification Non-Contributing
Zoning Downtown (D), Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO), Floodplain Overlay
(FPO), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay (CBO)
Adjacent Zoning D, HPO, FPO, CBO
Project Description The applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for an approximately three
and a half foot tall (3.5’) wooden picket fence. The fence is located on the
Pagan River Townhouse Community Association common area. The fence
is used to keep the area separated from the neighboring properties.
Zoning
Recommendation Town staff recommend approval from a zoning stand point with the
suggestion 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.
01/18/2022
BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, January 18th, 2022, 6:30 PM
Applicant Mesa Construction
C/O Marvin Smith
345 South Church Street
Smithfield, Virginia 23430
Owner Kimberly & Joseph Owens
3975 Virginia Mallory Drive, Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 20151
Property Lot 182A Riverview Ave
TPIN 21A-01-182A
1.91-acre N side Riverview Ave
End of cul-de-sac for Riverview Ave
Classification Non-Contributing
Zoning Downtown Residential (DNR), Environmental Conservation (EC),
Floodplain Overlay (FPO), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBO), &
Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO)
Adjacent Zoning DNR, EC, FPO, CBO, & HPO
Project Description The applicant is seeking approval to erect a six-foot (6’) white vinyl fence
connecting ot the proposed dwelling, on the left side of the property, and
continue down the side of the property and will stop with a ninety (90)
degree right hand turn right before the benches. The fence will be used to
separate their property from the adjoining park, which has a lot of foot
traffic. The applicants are seeking approval for vinyl material due to
maintenance reasons. This application was tabled at the October 19th, 2021
meeting to allow for a survey of the property to be completed showing the
location of the fence. The application was tabled again at the December
21st, 2021 meeting to allow the applicant to provide samples of the fence
material.
Zoning
Recommendation Town staff recommend approval under the following conditions and defer
to the BHAR for architectural discretion:
1. Town staff recommend the fence be wooden and painted white or
stained.
2. The fence cannot be erected until after the zoning permit for the new
single family dwelling has been issued.
For inquiries, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.
12/21/21
BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, January 18th, 2022, 6:30 PM
Applicant Yusuf Atay
360-368 Main Street
Smithfield, VA 23430
Owner Ozgur Dursun & Emel Kirach-Dursun & Yusuf Atay
74 Sanlun Lakes Drive
Hampton, VA 23666
Property 360-368 Main Street
TPIN 21A-01-166
N side of Main Street & E side of Cary Street
On the corner of Main Street and Cary Street
Classification Contributing
Zoning Downtown (D) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO)
Adjacent Zoning D & HPO
Project Description The applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for the installation of one-
over-one vinyl windows. The decision on whether to approve or deny the
applicant's request was tabled at the October 19th, 2021 meeting to allow
the applicant the opportunity to answer questions ahead of the November
16th, 2021 BHAR meeting (which was cancelled due to a lack of
business). The decision was tabled again, at the December 21st, 2021
meeting after Board members requested that the applicant be present to
answer questions. The applicant received an e-mail with a list of questions
from Board members and provided Town Staff with the following:
(1) How many windows are on the structure, and how many did the
applicant replace?
a. The applicant believes he replaced four (4) windows. Town
staff did confirm that the applicant replaced only 4 windows on
the building since acquiring the building. The applicant stated
to Town staff that the previous owner replaced a majority of
the windows on the building.
(2) What type(s) of windows (wood/ vinyl/ composite/ other) are presently
installed on the structure, and how many of each type?
a. They were vinyl and replaced with vinyl. Another window was
a different material, and the applicant did not replace it.
(3) Do you have any before and after photographs of the windows that
were replaced?
a. The applicant does not have before and after pictures.
(4) Are there plans to replace more windows on the building? If so, how
many?
a. The applicant would like to replace the remaining windows, so
that the all the windows on the building look uniform.
Town staff conducted an onsite window evaluation and determined that
the two windows on the first floor, on the left side of the door are wooden;
however, the two windows are the right side are vinyl. It is difficult to be
certain but on the second floor the windows appear to be a mix of vinyl
and wood. On the right side of the building the first floor features all vinyl
windows, except for one wooden window. The second floor has all vinyl
windows. On the left side of the building, the first floor are wooden
windows, and the second floor has vinyl windows.
Zoning
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.
From: Yusuf Atay
To: Tammie Clary
Cc: Mark Kluck; Joseph Reish
Subject: Re: 360-368 Main Street - Letter about windows to the Board of Historic and Architectural Review
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 3:24:12 PM
Dear Tammie,
Sorry for delay on my response I been very packed because employee shortage in our plant
and we are trying to anodize all government firearms that orders are not late. Please see
answer below.
Thank you.
On Nov 8, 2021, at 12:41 PM, Tammie Clary <tclary@smithfieldva.gov> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
We are following up on the status of the proposed windows for 360-368 Main
street, which were tabled at last month’s BHAR meeting, following the receipt of
additional information requested.
Specifically, the BHAR had the following questions:
1. How many total windows are on the structure and how many did you
replace?
-As far as I remember 4 of them replace. I think it was 14 windows.
1.
2. What type(s) of windows (wood/vinyl/composite/other) are presently
installed on the structure and how many of each type?
-They we’re vinyl and replaced. One of them was different material and we did not want to
touch it.
2.
3. Do you have any before/after photographs of the windows that were
replaced?
-I don’t have before after because never thought it will be asking for.
3.
4. Are there plans to replace more windows on the building? If so, how
many?
I want to replace the one that looks not the same and make all of them uniform if you let me to
do it.
4.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
Best,
TAMMIE CLARY
Community Development & Planning Director
Town of Smithfield, Virginia
310 Institute St, Smithfield, VA 23430
1-(757)-365-4200
tclary@smithfieldva.gov
<image001.png>
From: Tammie Clary
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 4:30 PM
To: Yusuf Atay <yusufatay@outlook.com>; Mark Kluck <mkluck@smithfieldva.gov>
Cc: Joseph Reish <jreish@smithfieldva.gov>
Subject: RE: 360-368 Main Street - Letter about windows to the Board of Historic and
Architectural Review
Good Afternoon,
The BHAR tabled your application for the window replacement at 360-368 Main
Street, awaiting some additional information. We strongly encourage you or a
representative to be present at the next BHAR meeting, Tuesday, November 16th,
2021.
Specifically, the BHAR had the following questions:
1. How many total windows are on the structure and how many did you
replace?
2. What type(s) of windows (wood/vinyl/composite/other) are presently
installed on the structure and how many of each type?
3. Do you have any before/after photographs of the windows that were
replaced?
Key
Red: Vinyl (30)
Blue: Wood (14)
Orange: Unsure (6;
3 not pictured)
The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on
Tuesday, December 21st, 2021, at the Smithfield Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:32
p.m.
Members present:
Trey Gwaltney – Chairman
Justin Hornback – Vice Chairman
Judith Lally
Laura Brown
Julia Hillegass
Members absent:
Russell Hill
Gary Hess
Staff present:
William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney
Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director
Nadya Jaudzimas – Administrative Assistant
Judy Winslow – Director of Tourism
Jennifer England – Director, Isle of Wight County Museum
Press: None
Citizens: 4
Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
Tammie Clary, the Community Development and Planning Director, reported that the
consultants for the 2020/2021 Comprehensive Plan will be present at the January Planning
Commission meeting with a draft for review.
Mrs. Clary reported that 100 Commerce Street received a stop work order for a fence that
had been built. Once a signed BHAR application is received, it can be brought for review.
She added that 116 South Mason Street erected handrails without approval. They will also
receive a stop work order and a BHAR application will be requested.
Upcoming Meetings and Activities:
Monday, December 27th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
Tuesday, December 28th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Tuesday, January 4th, 2022, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 11th, 2022, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, January 18th, 2022, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Board Member Comments:
Mrs. Hillegass asked if Mrs. Clary could update the board on new zoning that is being
considered for the Comprehensive Plan and reported that there had been a public comment at the
last Planning Commission meeting about the new mixed-use zoning that is being considered. She
added that the commenter had been hopeful that the Historic District would be omitted from this
type of zoning.
Mrs. Clary confirmed that Town staff had prepared an updated article for the planned
mixed-use development district that would incorporate residential, commercial, and light industrial
zoning while also providing a list of permitted uses that are also listed in the HRC and light
industrial district that are by right uses. She added that there was a section that addressed what
items would need a special use permit only. Mrs. Clary additionally reported that the comment
was from a citizen requesting to not allow the mixed-use permit within the Historic District.
Mrs. Hillegass confirmed with Mrs. Clary and the Town Attorney that this would be up for
public hearing on January 11th, 2022.
Signs (Wayfinding) – Various Locations on S. Church Street and Main Street Corridors –
Judy Winslow, applicant
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect and update wayfinding
signage in the Downtown area at various locations along the Main Street and South Church Street
corridors. The signage will be used to welcome and direct citizens and tourists to public parking
locations, shops, restaurants, attractions, lodging options, and the visitor center. There will be a
total of sixteen (16) signs placed between this area.
Mrs. Clary reported that there will be two larger public parking signs with one located on
the Bank of Southern Virginia (BSV) and a second sign on the Smithfield Foods building.
2
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
Mrs. Clary stated that the sign at the old Smithfield Times building will be refaced to read
“Main Street Square.” She noted that the frame and sign at this location already exist, and Public
Works will repair and repaint the structure accordingly.
She added that a “Welcome to Smithfield” sign will have a yellow, teal, and green
background. The phrase “Welcomes You” and “Genuine” will be printed in white lettering with
black background to give the words a three-dimensional look. The name “Smithfield” will be filled
with pictures that define the Town of Smithfield’s character. The top and bottom border of all the
signs will have a smaller square pattern with various colors of green, red, yellow, and blue. The
sign will be placed at the corner of Main Street and the Route 10 Bypass near the pig statue.
Mrs. Clary stated that there will be two public parking signs that will be double-sided and
located across from the Post Office on Main Street and the Public Parking lot on the 400 block of
Main Street.
She stated that there would be various other signs throughout Main Street and South
Church Street. She went into detail of sign locations as follows:
(1) Light post near the corner of Main Street and South Church Street in front of Christ
Episcopal Church.
(2) Light post in front of the Chamber of Commerce Building.
(3) Light post at entrance to Isle of Wight County Museum on Main Street.
(4) Light post in front of 308 Main Street, the Nelms House.
(5) Light post in front of 330 Main Street.
(6) Light post at the corner of Main Street and Underwood Lane.
(7) Install new pole and sign just past the entrance to Church Manor Apartments on the
same side of the street heading into town.
(8) Light post beside 379 South Church Street with new public parking sign.
(9) Install new pole and sign in front of 123 South Church Street and relocating an existing
Windsor Castle Park sign to the new pole.
Mrs. Clary reported that Town staff recommended approval as submitted and deferred to
the BHAR for architectural discretion.
The applicant, Judy Winslow of 110 Ellisville in Louisa, was present to answer any
questions the board may have. She stated that she had been asked by multiple entities within the
Town to put together a wayfinding plan for the downtown area. She added that much planning had
3
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
been done with the Town Engineers and the Planning and Zoning Department and all involved felt
that these signs would benefit visitors and residents to help figure out where they need to go to
access different areas of downtown. Mrs. Winslow said that they wanted to ensure that all the signs
had a uniform appearance and that it would be clear that these were wayfinding signs.
Mrs. Lally inquired as to whether a sign could be placed at Cedar Street directing traffic to
Windsor Castle Park instead of down Jericho Road.
Mrs. Winslow stated that the current signs do not direct traffic down Jericho Road to
Windsor Castle Park but down Cedar. She added that they do try to keep people from going that
direction and keep them on Cedar.
Mrs. Clary stated that part of the placement plan on sign (9) was to move it creating more
time between the sign and the turn onto Cedar Street.
Mrs. Winslow stated that they had deemed the sign there currently as too close to the turn
and that it was very easy to miss. She stated that more time to react between the sign and the turn
would enable people to get to the appropriate route to the park.
Mrs. Lally stated it would be beneficial to limit the amount of traffic on Jericho Road as it
is being damaged by frequent use.
Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented and Mrs. Lally
seconded. With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion passed.
Material/Color Change (Siding) – 206 Cary Street – Contributing – Ryan Smith, applicant
Mrs. Clary stated that the applicant was seeking approval to replace the existing faded
yellow siding with CertainTEED Main Street Vinyl Siding in a Sterling Gray color, which would
complement the existing red roof. The applicant is also considering a Desert Tan color which is
the closest match to the existing siding and is open to using either color.
She reported that Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint as submitted
and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
The applicant, Ryan Smith of 103 Monroe Court in Carrollton, was present for questions
from the board. Mr. Smith stated that he had opted to replace all the siding as there were many
spots that needed repair and he wanted the siding to look uniform. He stated that he had 12-15
4
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
companies come out to give estimates, and only one person got back to him. This person had stated
that only two of the CertainTEED colors of siding were available at this time – the Sterling Gray
and Desert Tan options.
Chairman Gwaltney inquired as to whether he had removed a railing on the front of the
house. Mr. Smith clarified that the online tool that allowed you to see what the different colors
would look like on your home had edited it out in the process, but the railing was still present on
the house.
Mr. Hornback asked if there had been any consideration as to whether a different material
than vinyl could be used.
Mr. Smith stated that he had gotten a verbal estimate on HardiePlank, but it was
significantly more affordable to replace with vinyl.
Chairman Gwaltney inquired as to what the plan for the property would be.
Mr. Smith stated that he would be selling it as it was no longer needed for a family members
use, as had originally been planned. He added that this would be one of the last of the renovations
needed. He stated that he had been trying to have the siding done for around a year and that it had
been hard to get anyone to give an estimate after seeing the difficulty involved. Mr. Smith
elaborated that there were several different types of materials layered on the house and attaching
new siding to the existing structure was going to be a challenge.
Mr. Hornback confirmed with the board members that they were considering synthetic
material because it had been grandfathered in and was existing on the property.
Mr. Smith elaborated that if the total replacement doesn’t get approved then he will have
to patch the different areas in need of repair which will not match the existing vinyl siding.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that the board would not have an issue with either color, but the
material needed to be discussed.
The Town Attorney confirmed as it had been grandfathered in, the decision had already
been made regarding the material.
Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve as presented with a note that the existing synthetic
siding was grandfathered in. Mrs. Hillegass seconded the motion. The board agreed that either
color was fine, it would likely come down to availability. With no further discussion, Chairman
Gwaltney called for the vote.
5
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion passed.
Accessory Structure (Shed) – 210 Drummonds Lane – Non-Contributing – Daniel Towns,
applicant
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a seven-foot (7’) by
seven-foot (7’), 49 square feet, Craftsman Resin Gable-Style Storage Shed. The proposed shed
will be eight feet (8’) tall; it will feature a gray-like color siding with a brown-colored roof. Metal
hinges will attach two (2) doors to the structure; the doors will be a darker gray-like color than the
siding color. The roof will feature a total of four (4) skylights, two (2) on each side of the top.
She stated that the Town staff recommended approval as submitted from a zoning
standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
The applicant was not present to answer board questions.
Mr. Hornback stated that the guidelines were clear that outbuildings should match the main
house in material and style, and the shed does neither. Mrs. Hillegass agreed.
Mr. Hornback made a motion to reject the application as presented due to the outbuilding
not matching the main house’s material or style. Mrs. Hillegass seconded the motion. With no
further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion to reject passed.
Accessory Structure (Fence) – Lot 182A Riverview Avenue – Non-Contributing – Mesa
Construction C/O Marvin Smith, applicant
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a six-foot (6’) white
vinyl fence connecting to the proposed dwelling, on the left side of the property, and continue
down the side of the property and will stop with a ninety (90) degree right hand turn right before
the benches. The fence will be used to separate their property from the adjoining park, which has
a lot of foot traffic. The applicants are seeking approval for vinyl material due to maintenance
reasons. This application was tabled at the October 19th, 2021 meeting to allow for a survey of the
property to be completed showing the location of the fence.
6
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
Town staff recommend approval under the following conditions and defer to the BHAR
for architectural discretion:
1. Town staff recommend the fence be wooden and painted white or stained.
2. The fence cannot be erected until after the zoning permit for the new single-
family dwelling has been issued.
Marvin Smith of 10283 Newport Street in Battery Park was available to answer questions
from the board. Mr. Smith recapped that at the October 19th meeting it had been discussed to turn
the fence before benches to keep the view of the water from Riverview Park. Mr. Smith had been
able to meet with the Town Engineer, Mr. Griffin, at the property to discuss placement of the
benches. Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Griffin had suggested that he would prefer that the applicant
would move the benches to just beyond a tree past the end of the fence. He added that they could
let them clear an area on the Owens property allowing for the park to have a view. He stated that
this would be a 12–14-foot difference from the end of the fence. Mr. Smith added that he believed
the benches belonged to the Town of Smithfield, he was unsure who installed them, and they were
installed on the Owens’s property. He stated that Mr. Griffin suggested that he would be fine with
moving them and placing them back on the Smithfield’s property.
Mr. Gwaltney wanted to clarify that what they were looking at was a little different than
what was presented.
Mr. Smith passed around a plat completed by Canada Surveying of what Smithfield’s
property lines versus the Owens’s property lines. He stated that they would just go to the tree with
the fence, do a 90° turn, allow the town to move the benches, and allow them to clear the area
preserving the park’s view. He stated that the Owens’s had purchased the property, thereby
purchasing the view, but they were willing to work with the Town to ensure that the park retained
its view. Mr. Smith stated the fence was to keep a separation between the two properties.
Mrs. Clary stated that Mr. Griffin did come back with the proposal, but it had not been
approved by the Director of Public Works at this time.
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Griffin had reported that he would contact him, but he thought
this might have to be pushed to next month. He added that he had really wanted to get the vinyl
portion of the fence approved. Mr. Smith stated that this was considered a Non-Contributing
property and that this was a large park with them already having to deal with encroachment issues.
He added that they would like to build the fence prior to getting the zoning approved for the
7
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
proposed dwelling, with it starting from where the benches were located. Once the structure was
built the fencing would connect with the dwelling.
Mr. Gwaltney stated that there were two points that the board was hung up on:
1. The blocking of the view.
2. The material of the fence.
Mrs. Brown stated that she was concerned about the height of the fence. She added that she
preferred use of a lower, more natural material from at least the pivot point of the fence out.
Mr. Smith stated that having a lower fence would not address any encroachment issues as
someone could jump a 4-foot fence. He added that living next to a park made the properties look
contiguous and privacy is needed.
The Town Attorney stated the height should not be an issue because they had allowed 6-
foot fences in Town previously, and the other part of the issue is where the fence would be located,
as theoretically he could go as far down the property as he wanted. He added that they had already
made an accommodation for the view. Mr. Riddick stated that this would leave the issue of the
material used.
Mr. Hornback stated that in the guidelines there is a question mark regarding white plastic
fences and questioned the history of that question mark.
Mr. Smith stated that he had seen the question mark in the guidelines and thought it may
be regarding a composite of some sort. He added that the material that they were going to use if
approved was more expensive than wood and would not be cheap vinyl.
The board members had a discussion regarding where the question mark was in the
guidelines regarding white plastic fences, and how it had gotten there.
Mrs. Hillegass stated that they needed to investigate the question mark issue. She added
that the fence looked better to her than some of the fences they had previously approved.
Mr. Smith brought up that there were other vinyl fences in Town, and they wanted to keep
it clean and easy to maintain. He added that there had been many changes to fencing materials at
this point.
The Town Attorney pointed out that the guideline pertains to fences in view from the street.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he would interpret street to mean public view, and this
fence would be within public view.
8
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
Mr. Smith stated that they had put much thought into the look of the fence knowing it was
adjacent to the park and within public view. He stated that he felt the fence they were asking for
would look better than a wood fence that was painted or stained and be easier to keep pristine over
time.
Chairman Gwaltney stated that he felt the issue of the view had been addressed, that was
the owner’s property, and they could put up a fence.
Mr. Smith stated that they were willing to work with the Town and make accommodations
to keep everyone happy.
Mrs. Lally stated that she did not have any issue with the height of the fence, her issue was
with the materials. She added that there have been plenty of people who have been turned down
for vinyl fences in the Historic District and have put up wooden fences that they were able to
maintain.
Chairman Gwaltney addressed the point that there were other houses in the Historic District
with vinyl fences, stating that there were many things that were in the district that the board would
not have approved, many that had been done before there was a board.
Mrs. Brown stated that she was against the vinyl material being used, adding that this fence
would not be in the back of the property but where it would be seen.
Mrs. Hillegass asked Mr. Smith what the alternative would be if they turned him down and
required wood.
The owner, Kimberly Lowry, was present and stated that they would have to go to a dog-
eared fence, as that was their only other option. She added that with the great length of the fence a
wood material could be maintained, but it would never look as clean.
Mr. Smith brought up that the type of fence that they are proposing looks good on both
sides, whereas with a wood fence the structural side would be visible as well giving it a good and
a bad side.
Mr. Gwaltney inquired as to whether they would put any other fencing up on the property.
Mr. Smith stated he did not think so.
Mr. Gwaltney asked if Mr. Smith could give an estimate on how much of the purpose of
the fencing from the angle to the benches is for privacy.
Mr. Smith stated that it was waterfront and there were plans for a future pier on the
property. He added that the point right between the benches is the closest point to the water, and
9
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
the fence all the way down to the end would be where privacy is needed the most. The concern
then would be people trying to access the pier without permission.
The Town Attorney asked the board if their objection to the vinyl is synthetic or because it
is shiny. He pointed out that there were many newer vinyl products that were matte finish or
designed to look like wood.
Mr. Smith stated that it was similar to the Everlast siding that will be used on the house.
He added that it is a vinyl product, and it had been previously approved by the BHAR. He stated
that he would be willing to bring in some samples for the board to see and feel.
Mrs. Brown stated that when she thinks of vinyl fence, she thinks of it as white, shiny, and
if something knocks into it, the fence cracking and the clean-up involved. She inquired about the
alternative materials available.
Mr. Smith stated he would bring the board some samples but would like to try to resolve
the matter at the next meeting.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if the fence panels would sit directly on the ground, or would it
be attached to fence posts that would offer clearance.
Mr. Smith stated that it would be mounted with just enough clearance for proper
maintenance with a weed eater. He confirmed that there would a cap on the post tops that the
panels would be mounted to.
Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to table the issue until the next meeting to review samples
of the product.
Mr. Smith asked if the Town Engineer’s bench placing could be included within the
motion. Mr. Gwaltney stated that the board didn’t have control over that, and Mrs. Clary stated
that she would work on that information.
Mr. Hornback seconded the motion. With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called
for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion to passed.
Chairman Gwaltney expressed appreciation the applicant for their understanding and
working with the board.
10
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
Exterior Changes (Handrails) – 309 Main Street – Non-Contributing – Mesa Construction
C/O Marvin Smith, applicant
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to install two (2) sets of handrails
on the stairs that are located at right side of the building. The handrails will be constructed using
one-inch (1”) by four-inch (4”) treated lumber and will follow the pattern of the stairs currently
located on the property.
She added that from a zoning standpoint, Town staff recommended approval as submitted
and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion on staining or painting white.
Marvin Smith of 10283 Newport Street in Battery Park was available to answer questions
from the board. He reported that the applicant has two sets of steps that at the side of the building
into an alleyway that do not have handrails. The applicant’s insurance company has stated that
they must have handrails as they part of fire escape routes. They would like to put up a minimal
handrail that is to code, 1x4 type, stained railing. He added that it would not be nailed to the bricks
but would be on the outside of the stairs.
Mr. Hornback questioned if the small tree in front of the stairs would have to be removed,
to which Mr. Smith stated that it would stay and when it was in season would provide foliage to
block the view of the stairs from the street.
Mr. Hornback stated that he felt it needed to be done, would not be seen from the street,
and that he had no issue with it.
Mr. Gwaltney questioned as to whether the double stair would really need handrails down
both sides as the door opened outward, blocking one side. He asked if they would be painted or
stained.
Mr. Smith stated that they were planning on staining it.
Chairman Gwaltney recommended that they use a wood tone.
Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion.
With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion to passed.
Sign- 103 Main Street – Landmark – Isle of Wight County Museum C/O Jennifer England,
applicant
11
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
Mrs. Clary stated that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a Civil War Trails sign in
a new location, in front of the Isle of Wight County Museum, near the Ivy Hill Cemetery Landmark
Register Sign on Main Street. The proposed sign frame will be forty inches (40”) wide by twenty-
four and a half inches (24 ½”) long. The sign will be at a maximum height of forty-five inches
(45”). The printed panel inside the frame will be thirty-six inches (36”) wide by twenty-four inches
(24”) tall. The panel will be set at a forty-five-degree (45°) angle to make it easy to read. The frame
of the sign will be painted brown while the panel will be printed with a blue and red header, black
text on a beige-colored background. The panel will present facts and pictures from the Civil War
era in the Town of Smithfield.
Mrs. Clary reported that Town staff recommended approval as submitted from a zoning
standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion
Jennifer England, of 3905 Queen Elizabeth Drive in Chesapeake, was present to answer
any question the board had. She stated that there was previously a Civil War Trails sign about the
Battle of Smithfield on South Church Street, but a Verizon truck had hit and taken it out about two
years ago. This would be the sign to go up in its place, but since it is referring to the Battle of
Smithfield, they wanted it to be placed in the location of the battle. She added that in front of the
Museum on Main Street is ideal for that.
Chairman Gwaltney asked for clarification on the sign’s actual placement on the street due
to the number of pictures included in the application.
Ms. England stated that if you are in front of the museum looking across the street it will
be right next to the Ivy Hill Cemetery sign.
Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to approve as presented. Mr. Hornback seconded the motion.
With no further discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion to passed.
Windows (After-the-Fact) – 360-368 Main Street – Contributing – Yusuf Atay, applicant
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for the installation
of one-over-one vinyl windows. The decision on whether to approve or deny the applicant's request
was tabled at the October 19th, 2021 meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to answer
questions ahead of the November 16th, 2021 BHAR meeting (which was canceled due to a lack
12
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
of business). She stated that the applicant received an e-mail with a list of questions from Board
members and provided Town Staff with the following:
(1) How many windows are on the structure, and how many did the applicant replace?
a. The applicant believes he replaced four (4) windows.
(2) What type(s) of windows (wood/ vinyl/ composite/ other) are presently installed on the
structure, and how many of each type?
a. They were vinyl and replaced with vinyl. Another window was a different
material, and the applicant did not replace it.
(3) Do you have any before and after photographs of the windows that were replaced?
a. The applicant does not have before and after pictures.
(4) Are there plans to replace more windows on the building? If so, how many?
a. The applicant would like to replace the remaining windows, so that the all the
windows on the building look uniform.
She reported that Town staff conducted an onsite window evaluation and determined that
the two windows on the first floor, on the left side of the door are wooden; however, the two
windows are the right side are vinyl. It is difficult to be certain but on the second floor the windows
appear to be a mix of vinyl and wood. On the right side of the building the first floor features all
vinyl windows, except for one wooden window. The second floor has all vinyl windows. On the
left side of the building, the first floor are wooden windows, and the second floor has vinyl
windows.
She added that Town staff recommended approval as submitted from a zoning standpoint
and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion.
The applicant was not present to answer any of the board’s questions.
Mrs. Hillegass asked Mrs. Clary if she was able to confirm if 4 windows had been replaced.
Mrs. Clary apologized and stated that they were not able to confirm that the 4 windows
were replaced. She added that in the email thread included in the packet that the applicant had
stated that there were only 14 windows total.
The board members discussed and counted that there were 53 total windows in the structure
as shown by the photos included in the packet.
Chairman Gwaltney asked if the application had originally been to replace 14 wooden
windows.
13
Board of Historic and Architectural Review
December 21st, 2021
Mrs. Clary stated that the original application had been due to a complaint that there were
vinyl windows being installed at the location. She stated that the after-the-fact application came
because of the Town’s staff investigation into the 4 vinyl windows installed. She added that the
owner has not applied for the 14 wooden windows.
The Town Attorney asked the board why they do not make him come to the meeting, to
understand the process. He added that the other option would be to just let the owner do it, but that
would be perpetuating negative behavior.
Mr. Hornback asked if they did reject the approval would the owner have to pull out the 4
vinyl windows and if so, is it even certain which 4 windows were the ones in question.
Mrs. Clary reported they did not know which of the windows had been replaced.
The Town Attorney stated that not following proper procedure had been an ongoing issue
at this property.
Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to table the issue until the applicant appears before the Board
prepared with specifications and receipts. Mrs. Brown seconded the motion. With no further
discussion, Chairman Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion to passed.
Approval of the Tuesday, October 19th, 2021, meeting minutes:
The Town Attorney recommended approval of the minutes with clerical revisions.
Mrs. Lally made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Hornback seconded. Chairman
Gwaltney called for the vote.
On call for the vote, five members were present. Mr. Hornback voted aye, Mrs. Hillegass
voted aye, Mrs. Lally voted aye, Mrs. Brown voted aye, and Chairman Gwaltney voted aye. There
were no votes against the motion. The motion to passed.
The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
______________________________ ________________________________
Mr. Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Tammie Clary – Community Development &
Planning Director
14
Get email alerts for Smithfield
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.