Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review held its regular meeting on Tuesday, March 15th, 2022 at the Smithfield Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Members present: Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Gary Hess Judith Lally Laura Brown Russell Hill Justin Hornback Members absent: Julia Hillegass – Vice Chair Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director Nadya Jaudzimas – Administrative Assistant Press: none Citizens: 11 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: Tammie Clary, Community Development and Planning Director, reported that 1400 South Church Street had been demolished and the owners had been sent an invoice. She added that a group picture was scheduled to be taken at the conclusion of the meeting but rescheduled for next month as Vice Chair Hillegass was absent. Upcoming Meetings and Activities: Tuesday March 15th, 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Monday, March 28th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, April 5th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Thursday, April 14, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, April 19th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Public Comments: Bob Hines of 216 Washington Street in Smithfield stated that he was unsure how much the Board was involved in what he would like to speak about. He reported that he had been researching online and found the Historic Preservation Overlay inventory. He continued that he did not know if the list was current, but he found 502 Grace Street included as a landmark property. He stated that this was the old Pierceville place and inquired whether or not this designation would change considering the planning for the property. Mr. Hines discussed the proposed draft of the Comprehensive Plan, stating that he was confused about the inclusion of the New Downtown Mixed-Use and the New Downtown Mixed Commercial zoning designations. He added that they are next to Historic Mixed-Use but they are all in the Historic District. He continued that the plan Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 goes on to describe the properties that will have commercial uses, but in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan these areas are included in the Future Land Use Map as recreational. The Town Attorney addressed Mr. Hines, stating that the members of the Board did not have anything to do with the Comprehensive Plan and likely did not have any idea what he was referring to. Mr. Hines stated that he suspected that they do as they probably read the paper. Mr. Riddick told Mr. Hines that he was going into detail about issues that have not been in front of the Board and they have not reviewed. Mr. Hines stated he understood but pointed out that they are citizens. Mr. Riddick stated that is fine. Mr. Hines reported that he had spoken about this issue in front of the Town Council and the Planning Commission meetings. He added that the group of citizens concerned about this are not trying to stop development, they would just like it to be sensible. He reported that part of the proposal included the allowance of 60 ft high buildings along with access to the development from Grace and Cary Streets. He added that this does not seem to be a good thing and asked if the Board would allow those two inclusions. He reminded the Board that they are citizens of the town and in the responsible positions they are in, they might have some input. He thanked the Board. Chairman Gwaltney stated that there were no other sign-ups for comments and closed the public comment section. Board Member Comments: Mr. Hill apologized to the other Board members for not being present at meetings for the last several months. He reported that he would be present from this time forward. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board understood and told Mr. Hill he was a valued member. Handrails – 309 South Church Street – Landmark – Florine Moore, applicant. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect additional wrought iron handrails on the front right-side corner of the house. There would be a total of twenty-three feet, three inches (23’3”) of new handrails added to the existing porch. An eight-foot, nine-inch (8’9”) section of railing will be attached to the house and the existing column. A three-foot, six-inch (3’6”) section will be attached to the existing column and anchored in the porch near the brick steps. A three-foot, nine-inch (3’9”) section of handrail coming down the brick stairs will be welded to the three-foot, six-inch (3’6”) section continuing to ground level and anchoring into the existing concrete walkway. The handrails will be painted white to match the color of the trim on the house. The applicant has stated that she is requesting the handrails for safety concerns as the porch is elevated approximately three feet from the concrete walkway. She stated that town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Florine Moore of 309 South Church Street in Smithfield was present to speak about the application and reported that she was requesting the additional handrails as a safety feature after 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 having herself fallen from the porch. She stated that there would be rails on both sides and they would look alike. She welcomed the Board members to come to her home to see it in person. Mrs. Lally made the motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Accessory Structure (Temporary Carport) – 318 Main Street – Contributing – Gary and Minette Brooks, applicants. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a twenty-foot (20’) by thirty-foot (30’), 600 square foot, open-sided, carport structure in the rear yard. The proposed location of the carport structure is to the right of the existing sixteen-foot (16’) by twenty-foot (20’) garage. The carport structure will be constructed with metal posts that will be spaced three- foot (3’) on center and feature a blue, 29 gauge metal roof. The carport structure is rated to withstand winds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The applicant has stated that the structure will not be visible from the road and is able to be disassembled and moved easily. The proposed purpose of the carport structure is to store several vehicles out of the weather elements. She stated that town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Gary Brooks of 318 Main Street in Smithfield was present to speak about the application. He began by thanking the Board for allowing them to construct their shed last summer. He reported that the requested structure would allow him to place vehicles that he works on out of the weather. He added that is built for easy disassembly and reported that this was part of his plan. He corrected Mrs. Clary’s report that the roof would be blue, stating that it would be slate gray to match the shed that had been approved. He added that it would be an open-sided structure, so if seen from the street it would not be obvious. Mr. Hornback asked when the structure would be disassembled. Mr. Brooks estimated that this would be within the next 2 – 3 years. Chairman Gwaltney asked for confirmation of the number of outbuildings currently in the yard. Mr. Brooks confirmed that there were two structures currently: the garage that was existing on the property when purchased and the shed they had been allowed to build last year. He added that the shed is entirely unnoticeable from the street. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the drawings illustrated that the proposed structure would go over at least two vehicles currently parked next to the detached garage. Mr. Brooks stated that this was correct, that there were currently two project vehicles. Mr. Gwaltney pointed out that on page 49 of the guidelines discusses outbuildings and was the closest item he could find to address the issue. He read the following from the document: 1. Retain existing historic outbuildings. 2. Design new outbuildings to be compatible with the style of the major buildings on the site, especially in materials and roof slope. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he had a difficult time seeing that the proposed structure fit these guidelines. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 Mr. Brooks stated that it was suggested that it would help if he was to wrap the metal posts of the structure in treated wood and then painted them. He added that he would be happy to do this. Mr. Hornback inquired if there was any more consideration given to matching the house more closely. Mr. Brooks stated that there was nothing else he could do to modify the proposed carport further. He continued that the structure was essentially posts and a roof, and he had designed it to be unobtrusive. He stated that he had asked for it to be designed to be built on three-foot centers instead of five foot centers to max out his possible hurricane load. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mrs. Clary if an open-sided building of this type falls under the same category as a walled-in structure as far as the regulations it must follow. Mrs. Clary stated that it would if it has 2,500 square feet of impervious cover that would trigger Isle of Wight County stormwater review. Chairman Gwaltney expressed concern about allowing another structure in a yard that already has two separated buildings. Mrs. Clary reported that this particular structure would not qualify for review as it was 600 square ft. Mr. Hess asked to go over a couple of questions he had. First he asked if there were only two cars in the yard now. Mr. Brooks stated that he had the two cars, an electric “bad boy” 4w drive cart, and an all- terrain vehicle (ATV). He added that the cart and ATV would be moved once other items had been taken out of the existing shed. He reported that he had a recreational vehicle (RV) that sits at the back of the driveway in front of the garage. He added that the RV was gone for 7 months and was just brought back two days ago. Mr. Hess asked for clarification about what he was planning to wrap the structure with. Mr. Brooks explained that it would be a wood product painted white. He added that it would be a cased structure and it would be the only thing that would be noticed. Mr. Brooks stated that he could do more if they wanted to suggest things, but that this is the plan that they had come up with. Mr. Hess asked if it would be essentially a pole barn wrapped to give it walls. Mr. Brooks explained that it would not be the entire structure wrapped, but only the galvanized metal posts. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this would negate questions he had about doors on the front of the structure as there would be no walls. He added that he was having a hard time considering the application. Mr. Hess stated that he had asked about the wrapping as he had seen one of his neighbor’s use synthetic wrapping to conceal their RV from a sideview. He asked Mr. Brooks if this was something he would consider trying. Mr. Brooks stated that he was before the Board to try and negotiate a modification that works within their level of approval. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he understood Mr. Hess’s question about side wrapping, but it was a moot point based on one side being at the back of the fence and one side touching the 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 garage. He related that he had driven by the property and noted that the two cars are currently under tarps next to the garage. He added that this tells him that this was where the structure would be and that people would be able to see it driving down the road or from the driveway. He stated that this made him question whether it fits within the guidelines. Mr. Hornback inquired if Mr. Brooks was willing to consider extending the roofline off the garage to cover the vehicles using a like material to what the garage was constructed with. Chairman Gwaltney likened it to a lean-to, adding that the roof would be a lower line. He stated that he wanted to ask about doors because people might look directly up his driveway and see the cars. Mr. Brooks stated that if the Board was asking him to enclose the structure, he would be happy to do that and follow the architectural design or styles the Board would like. Chairman Gwaltney stated the Board would prefer that if there was a third structure in the back yard of his home it would be complimentary to the other two buildings and the house itself. He stated that he felt the proposed carport does not match that. Mr. Hess agreed and stated that it was hard to visualize walking down the street in Smithfield surrounded by historical architecture, then looking down someone’s driveway at their ’67 Camaro. He stated that it might be an antique car, but it’s certainly not part of a landmark property. Mr. Hill reported that Mr. Brooks had spoken to him about this project before, and even though it may not be seen from the street, his neighbors would be able to see the cars. He stated that Mr. Brooks’s neighbors may not have the same sentiment about the cars. He stated that incorporating what he wants into two buildings to gain what he wants, it may be more architecturally pleasing. Chairman Gwaltney stated he could turn the existing garage into a 3-bay garage. Mr. Hill continued that if he took off the existing “A” frame and made it longer to house the bay, the structure may be oblong but it would look better than a temporary structure. Mr. Brooks stated that at the time that they had discussed this option, the feeling that he got was that this was not feasible. He added that this was why he went with presenting the temporary structure. Mr. Hill stated that a permanent modification to the garage would cost more than the metal structure, but this is what he thought Chairman Gwaltney was suggesting as well. He asked Mr. Brooks if he was inclined to consider this option. Mr. Brooks stated that he was happy to go back to the original conversation. He stated that he had worked with Mrs. Clary to complete a scaled drawing of that modification, but they had not thought it had a chance to get through the committee. He expressed that if the Board wanted him to go that route he would rework the drawings and bring them back for consideration. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the general consensus was that they would prefer to look at another option other than the metal carport provided. He apologized if there had been a miscommunication earlier. Mr. Hill made the motion to table the application until Mr. Brooks returns with a different plan and a scope of work. Mr. Hornback seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Brooks if there were any questions he had or if anything was unclear. Mr. Brooks said no and added that he wanted to tell the Board that Mrs. Clary was outstanding in her work with them. He stated that the decision was his to move away from the original plan. He added that she gave him very good advice. Assorted Exterior Changes – 328 Main Street – Contributing – Tracy Gramajo, applicant Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval for assorted exterior changes. 1) Erect an approximately thirty-foot (30’) long by six-foot (6’) tall wooden fence on the east side of the property. The fence would match the style and stain of the neighbor’s fence located at 330 Main Street. 2) Repaint the whole house in one of two color schemes. The current color scheme of the house is black and white. The first option would be to paint the house primarily a light blue color known as “Tranquil Vibe” (HGSW3346) with accents of a dark blue color known as “Dress Blues” (HGSW9176) and a white color known as “White Cotton” (HGSW4027). The second option would be painting the house primarily in the “Dress Blues” color with accents of the “Tranquil Vibe” and “White Cotton.” All paint will be Sherwin Williams. The applicant would like approval for both options as they have not settled on either option. The applicant has provided visuals of both color schemes in the enclosed attachments. 3) Erect a ten-foot (10’) by ten-foot (10’) by eight-foot (8’) tall, 100 square feet, shed in the northwest corner of the rear yard. The shed would be constructed out of wood with dark gray asphalt shingles to match the shingles on the house. The shed would be painted to match the house. The applicant has provided a visual in the enclosed attachments. 4) Erect a raised wooden deck in the rear yard. The proposed deck would be eighteen feet (18’) by twenty-four feet (24’) by twelve feet (12’) tall, 432 square feet. The deck will also feature a set of wooden stairs with approximately thirty-six inch (36”) tall wooden railings. The deck would be located just behind the back door of the house. The applicant has stated that the deck will be stained to match the proposed fence. 5) Replace the bottom three to four rows of wooden siding around the entire house with matching Hardie plank siding. The Hardie plank would be painted to match the proposed color of the house. 6) Replace the existing front screen door with a Screen Tight Springview thirty inch (30”) by eighty inch (80”) white vinyl frame hinged screen door. The applicant has stated that they would like to go with vinyl for durability reasons. The white vinyl is also UV- protected, preventing the screen door from fading or discoloration with age. 7) Demolish the existing chimney on the rear of the house. The applicant has stated that this section of the house was an addition to the original house. There is a chimney in the front of the house, which is the original one and will remain with the house. 8) Install all new Jeld-Wen branded white vinyl windows and window structures. The applicant states that using vinyl windows would be best to protect the home from future 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 damage and be more energy-efficient. The windows currently installed in the house are made of wood. Mrs. Clary stated that the applicant would like approval for one of three options. a. Option 1: Six over six (6/6) white vinyl windows on the front of the house and one over one (1/1) white vinyl windows on the rear of the house. b. Option 2: Four over four (4/4) white vinyl windows on the front of the house with one over one (1/1) white vinyl windows if the six over-six white vinyl windows were not in stock. c. Option 3: The applicant would consider six over six (6/6) aluminum windows for the front and one over one (1/1) aluminum windows for the rear of the house. She added that the applicant has stated that aluminum windows are not readily available which is why this is their third option. The applicant has also stated that it is visually difficult to tell the difference between vinyl and aluminum windows, the applicant has stated that she would like the Board to consider the vinyl over the aluminum to protect the structure’s integrity. The applicant has provided a visual in the enclosed attachments. Mrs. Clary reported that town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint with the suggestion the fence and the deck are either stained or painted white and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Dan Asble of 328 Main Street in Smithfield stated that Mrs. Clary had covered what they were hoping to complete at the property. He reported that they had completed extensive work on the foundation and were just about done with that job. He reiterated the report that Mr. Clary had given regarding the fence, shed, and house paint colors. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there was any additional information that had not been covered previously that he wanted the Board to know. Mr. Asble stated that he did not have any other information to add, but that they wanted to see the process to get some of these things approved to get started. They were especially anxious to discuss with the Board the issue of the vinyl windows. He reported that they did not necessarily want to restore the current wooden windows, but it would be an option along with adding storm windows. Mr. Hornback thanked Mr. Asble for taking on the project of restoring the house. He added that most of the Board members had been in the same place as he is in with renovation challenges. Mr. Asble invited the members of the Board to come see the house and he described how they were able to fix foundation issues with the help of an engineer. He wanted to add that the chimney in question for removal is in the back of the home and is not original to the house. He described future plans to build a deck over the one-story addition that the chimney is attached to, which would require its removal. Chairman Gwaltney expressed concerns over the possible plans for the raised deck. He stated that in all of the requested items, it is the most hypothetical and requires the most discussion. He asked that the Board be able to address all of the other items separately from the deck and it be considered at a later time when Mr. Asble has decided what he really wants to do with it. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 Mr. Asble stated that he felt that he and Ms. Gramajo, the applicant, had their hearts set on completing the deck, and removal of the chimney would allow for the option of more entertainment space. Chairman Gwaltney asked the Board for their thoughts and reiterated that he thought it would be easier to address the deck as a separate item. The Town Attorney suggested that they could address each request separately to keep it organized. Chairman Gwaltney presented the thirty-foot (30’) long by six-foot (6’) tall wooden fence that would be stained to match the neighbor’s fence for consideration. Mr. Hess confirmed with Mr. Asble that the fence would be stained the same color as the neighbors for continuity. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the fence as presented, provided it is stained the same color as the neighbor’s fence and the “good side” faces outward. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. In a collective vote, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney moved on to the house paint color scheme presented by Mr. Asble. He confirmed with Mr. Asble that the two pictures provided illustrate the color concept options that they are considering. Mr. Hornback, Mrs. Brown, and Mr. Hess all stated that they felt that either combination was acceptable. Mrs. Lally made the motion to approve both color schemes as presented. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. In a collective vote, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney presented for consideration the building of a ten-foot (10’) by ten-foot (10’) by eight-foot (8’) tall, 100 square feet shed. Mr. Hornback confirmed that it was like material, like colors, and had a like roof shingles to the main house. Chairman Gwaltney inquired about whether the siding would be T1-11 plywood siding. Mr. Asble confirmed that it would be T1-11. He added that they would also consider using Hardie plank siding to match the house. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this would be what the Board would prefer and be more inclined to approve. Mr. Hess made a motion to approve provided that they will use Hardie plank for siding to match the house. Mrs. Brown seconded the motion. In a collective vote, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney continued down the list and stated that they would move onto the fourth item for consideration. The Town Attorney recommended that they move that item to the end as there would need to be more discussion since they alluded to controversy surrounding it. Chairman Gwaltney presented the next item, replacing the bottom three to four rows of wooden siding around the entire house with matching Hardie plank siding. The Hardie plank would be painted to match the proposed color of the house. 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 Mrs. Lally inquired if the siding would be going stud to stud or was there sheathing on the house. Mr. Asble stated that they need to cut out the areas of rotted siding and put new sheathing down. Mrs. Lally described her previous personal experience with replacing siding on a historical home, and some of the challenges. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the siding as presented. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. In a collective vote, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney moved on to the discussion of the proposed screen door replacement and added that it would be replaced with a vinyl door. Mr. Hill asked if they had looked at any wooden doors for the replacement. Mr. Asble stated that they had but opted for vinyl due to the lower quality of the wooden doors they had seen. He added that the proposed door would match the trim of the house, look the best, and be the most durable. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the door would be under a porch, which made it fairly well protected and wood might work. He pointed out that the placement of the door is close to the street, and the material would be visible. Mr. Asble stated that the existing door was a vinyl screen door. He stated that they wanted to upgrade as it was damaged. Chairman Gwaltney stated that there were many things in the district that the Board had never approved. Mr. Hill inquired if Mr. Asble would be willing to look at a custom-made wooden door. He acknowledged that the wooden doors that were readily available at Lowe’s did tend to be cheap but added that a nice wooden door stained or painted would really look nice from the street. Mr. Asble stated that they were trying to move away from using items that would require more maintenance and painting. He continued that if it was up to the Board, he would be willing to look at other wooden doors. Mr. Hess made a motion to table approval of the screen door so that a wooden option may be considered. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Lally. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed with Mr. Asble that this would not delay the completion of any of the approved construction. Mr. Asble stated another option would be to take the existing door down, sandblast it, and paint it so that it looks better. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he may do as he wishes with the existing door, with the exception of painting it a wild color. He called for a collective vote to table the issue, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney continued with the discussion of demolishing the existing chimney on the rear of the house. Mr. Hornback recapped that the chimney was at the back, hard to see, and related that he understood the problems with possible chimney leaks. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that it was not serving any function at this time. 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the demolition of the chimney as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. In a collective vote all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney raised the issue of replacing the existing windows with vinyl. Mrs. Lally stated that in her previous experience with window replacement, the Jen-weld windows were good, but made mostly of plastic. There was discussion between the board members of different houses in the Historic District with vinyl windows. Mr. Asble stated that at the house next door to his it is hard to tell whether the windows are vinyl or aluminum, but he can see the heat weld on the seam. Chairman Gwaltney asked if he had spoken to the neighbor about their windows. Mr. Asble stated that he had not. Mrs. Lally reported that the owner of that home had sworn that the windows were not vinyl. Mr. Hornback stated that one of the main items that the Board tries to protect is from using all vinyl in renovations. He stated that there should be other options. He added that the Board encourages the use of the other options especially considering the house is very close to the street. He recommended the use of composite windows and stated that approval was unlikely with vinyl windows. Mr. Asble asked if the Board would collectively approve the use of composite adding that it was very hard to find windows, have them made, and install them. Mr. Hill recommended that he look at composite windows through Andersen Wood or Atrium. He gave an example of a home that has used these types of windows in renovations recently for Mr. Asble to look at. He stated that he could not speak for the entire Board, but he did not feel that there would be any problems with either of those two types. He added that there were many structures that they had approved them in. Mr. Asble stated he would like to get approval for the windows as soon as possible as they would like to replace the windows prior to replacing the siding and painting the house. Chairman Gwaltney interpreted this to mean that Mr. Asble was asking for permission to proceed with window replacement using one of the two products discussed. Mrs. Lally questioned if the Board should see them first. Mr. Hill made the motion to approve provided that Andersen Woodwright or Atrium composite windows are used, not vinyl. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. In a collective vote to table the issue, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney moved on to the approval of the window styles proposed and reviewed the three options presented by the applicant. He asked Mr. Asble if he wanted just one of the three options. Mr. Asble asked the Board that if he was able to find the windows that had been approved would they be willing to give him a general approval of the options. Chairman Gwaltney asked the Board if they felt that all the options presented are appropriate. There was general discussion of different types of gridded windows. Mr. Hess stated that he was concerned that the Board was approving styles that had not been seen. He stated that he understood that Mr. Asble would like to get the windows ordered so 10 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 that he may start his construction but inquired if they should require that once he has made his decision that he return to Mrs. Clary to confirm that it was one of the approved options. Mrs. Lally made the point that the number of grids did not matter to her because all of the different types could be found all over the Historic District. Mrs. Clary asked Mr. Hess if he wanted to specify what type of window was in the front of the house and in the rear of the house. Mr. Hess stated that it was one over one in the rear and six over six in the front. Mr. Asble stated that this was fine. The Town attorney asked Mr. Asble if this is what he wanted. Mr. Asble stated that this configuration was what existed on the house currently and confirmed with the Town Attorney that this is what they preferred. Mrs. Lally stated that Mr. Asble may be limited to what is available, and if he was happy with any of these choices they should approve them. Mr. Hess made a motion to approve all three options of window style presented. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. In a collective vote all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney presented information for discussion regarding the proposed deck that would be eighteen feet (18’) by twenty-four feet (24’) by twelve feet (12’) tall. Mr. Asble stated that looking at the house from the left side, the deck would not be able to be seen. He added that it might be seen slightly from the shared driveway, but it would be mostly hidden from view. Mr. Hill asked if there had been a drawing provided of the proposed deck. Mr. Asble stated that there was not one in the packet. Mrs. Lally stated that she would like to see a drawing before ruling on the deck. Chairman Gwaltney stated that Mr. Asble and his partner had provided a thorough packet and he felt confident that they would be able to complete a drawing of what the deck will look like. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this would not be something that Mrs. Clary would be able to approve without the applicant coming back in front of the Board. Mr. Hill asked what kind of material they were planning on using for the deck, handrailing, etc. Mr. Asble stated that they would be using all wood, and it would be stained to match all the fencing in the backyard. Mr. Hornback asked if he was planning on parking a car underneath. Mr. Asble stated that it would likely be tall enough for that, but that was not the intended purpose. Mr. Hess made a motion to table the issue until the applicant returns with a visual plan. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. In a collective vote to table the issue, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Garage Door Replacement (After-the-Fact) – 341 Main Street – Landmark – Shelia Robinette, applicant. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval to replace the plastic, rollup garage door with three (3) wooden French doors, painted white, on the detached 11 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 garage. Each French door features a three (3) by five (5) grid pattern. The white wood modeling that was present around the old garage door remained in place. She stated that town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Sheila Robinette of 341 Main Street in Smithfield apologized for the after-the-fact approval application. She reported that she had been told a skylight on the same structure facing Drummonds Lane did not need approval from the Board, so she assumed that this also did not need Board approval as it was also facing Drummonds. She stated that she kept the wood casing around the door the same and stated that they could see this in the pictures provided. Mrs. Lally stated that it looked very cute. Mr. Gwaltney asked if this was used as a rental property. Mrs. Robinette stated that it was used for family to stay in when they visited. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote to approve as presented, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. Accessory Structure (Fence) – 343 Main Street – Landmark – Carroll and Ann Hubbard, applicants. Mrs. Clary stated that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a six-foot (6’) wooden privacy fence to enclose a portion of the backyard. The fence would be erected on a portion of the left side property line and will be approximately sixty-four (64’) in length, at which point the fence will make a ninety (90) degree right-hand turn. The fence would then extend across the backyard and be attached to the left side of the existing clay studio structure. The small portion of the fence on the right side of the clay studio structure would be attached to the clay studio structure and the neighbor’s fence at 345 Main Street. The fence would be constructed out of pressure-treated pine with four-inch (4”) dog-eared pickets and feature two (2) three and a half foot wide (3 ½’) gates at the front and rear portions of the fence. The applicant has requested to let the fence age naturally without painting or staining it for the following reasons: 1) They would like the fence to match the existing fence on the right side of the property. 2) There is not enough room between the applicant’s fence and the neighbor’s fence to paint or stain the fence. 3) The rear yard of the brick house located at 339 Main Street has overgrown shrubbery that will hide the proposed fence, which would allow it not to be seen from Drummonds Lane. She continued that town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint with the suggestion the fence is either stained or painted white, the flat side faces outward, and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Carroll Hubbard of 343 Main Street in Smithfield stated that he wanted to build the fence around a portion of his backyard as he has adopted a rescue dog that is a fence jumper. He reported that his neighbor at 345 Main Street has a six-foot fence on one side of his yard and he wanted his fence to look just like that fence. He reported that the flat side of that fence faces the inside of his 12 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 15th, 2022 yard. He added that he would only be enclosing about 60 feet of the yard. He stated that on the left side of the yard was a four-foot picket fence, and he wanted his fence to run parallel to it. He stated that he noticed that zoning had suggested that he construct a new fence facing outwards on this side. Mr. Hubbard stated he was requesting to change the facing to inward, giving the reason of limited workspace for the builder and the existing fencing on the other side of his yard faces inward and he would like for them to match. He continued that there would be two small sections of fence on both sides of the house that would be visible from Main Street and he had no objection with putting the flat side of the fencing facing outward in these sections. Mr. Hornback inquired if Mr. Hubbard had given any thought to asking his neighbor with the four-foot picket fence if they would be willing to take that section down so that he could replace it with just the six foot fence. He questioned putting a fence so close to an existing fence. He stated that he had not discussed the issue with his neighbor. He added that his main reason for putting up the fence was to have it look the same the entire way around the yard. Mr. Hess stated that he understood that there were some unique considerations. He pointed out that the proposed placement of the fence would create landscaping issues for his neighbor. He also suggested that Mr. Hubbard speak with his neighbor and ask if they could work together on the issue. Mr. Hubbard stated that he had mentioned that he wanted to build the fence to his neighbor, but he had heard no comment back. He reiterated that he needed a six-foot fence. He wanted to point out that only two feet of his fence would be visible from the outside and the picket fence was built with the flat side facing inwards. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that both of the yards were secluded from the public view. He stated that most of the Board’s comments centered around the landscaping and upkeep between the applicant and his neighbor versus who would see the fence from the street. Mrs. Lally and Mr. Hess rediscussed the facing of his neighbor’s picket fence with the flat side facing inward. Mr. Hornback made the motion to approve as presented with the understanding that the flat side would be facing inward due to the fact that the fence is not visible from the street and the fencing that is visible from the street would be flat side facing outward. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with no one opposed. The motion passed. After the vote Chairman Gwaltney mentioned the staining of the fence, however the Town Attorney pointed out that they had already completed the vote to approve as presented. Accessory Structure (Sunroom) – 233 Cary Street – Non-Contributing – ECCO Remodeling, Inc. C/O Pilar Martinez, applicant. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval to remove the existing twelve- foot (12’) by twenty-foot (20’), 240 square foot, existing deck and erect a twelve foot (12’) by sixteen-foot (16’) by seven-foot (7’) tall, 192 square foot, sunroom. The Allview Elite Sunroom will be white and feature double pane sliding glass windows, single slope, expanded foam aluminum roof with no shingles, aluminum gutters, and aluminum downspouts. The sunroom interior will feature multiple outlets, a ceiling fan, an Amana heating and cooling system, and vinyl 13