Board of Historic & Architectural Review

Tuesday, December 13th, 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, December 20th, 2022 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 (or) 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, December 20th, 2022, 6:30 PM 1) Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: Mark Kluck will now staff the BHAR meetings. Thank you all, and please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Elections will occur at our next meeting, January 2023. 2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities Monday, December 26th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, January 3rd, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Monday, January 10th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, January 17th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Tuesday, January 17th, 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting 3) Public Comments 4) Board Member Comments 5) Material Change (Garage Doors) – 365 South Church Street – Landmark – William and Nancy Riddick, applicants. (Staff report, BHAR Application, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 6) Material Change (Front Stairs) – 224 Cary Street – Contributing – Beth Haywood, applicant. (Staff report, BHAR Application, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 7) Material Change (Rear Deck) – 220 N Church Street – Contributing – Amy Novak, applicant. (Staff report, BHAR Application, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 8) Approval of the Tuesday, October 18th, 2022 Meeting Minutes (enclosed). 9) Adjournment ***ATTENTION*** Owing to the pandemic, we are encouraging remote public comment on all land use applications, whether or not a public hearing is required. If you do not feel comfortable with attending a meeting in person, please submit your comments in writing to Mrs. Tammie Clary, Community Development & Planning Director. Your comments will be conveyed to the appropriate Board or Commission. Mrs. Clary can be reached via email (tclary@smithfieldva.gov) or mail at the address below: Town of Smithfield Community Development & Planning Department ATTN Tammie Clary, Community Development & Planning Director PO Box 246 Smithfield, VA 23431 NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) Reasonable efforts will be made to provide assistance or special arrangements to qualified individuals with disabilities in order to participate in or attend Board of Historic & Architectural Review (BHAR) meetings. ADA compliant hearing devices are available for use upon request. Please call 1-(757)-365-4200 at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting date so that proper arrangements may be made.  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, December 20th, 6:30 PM Applicant William and Nancy Riddick 365 South Church Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Owner William and Nancy Riddick 365 South Church Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Property 365 South Church Street TPINs 21A-01-414, 21A-01-415 & 21A-01-416 0.85 ac N side South Church Street 865’ E of Jericho Road Classification Landmark Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DN-R), Historic Preservation Overlay (HP-O), Floodplain Overlay (FP-O), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay (CB-O) Adjacent Zoning DN-R, HPO, FP-O, CB-O, Environmental Conservation (E-C) Project Description The applicant is seeking approval for a material change for the two (2) existing ten-foot (10’) wide by eight-foot (8’) tall composite overhead garage doors. The new garage doors will be Amarr branded Designer’s Choice raised panel textured steel overhead doors. The proposed garage doors will feature an eight-by-four grid pattern and will either be painted black or painted to match the existing trim color of the house, which is currently painted green. The two proposed garage doors will feature two (2) black faux vertical handles each and will have no windows installed in them. The garage doors will be constructed in the same dimensions as the existing garage doors. Zoning Recommendation Town staff recommend approval 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. Textured Steel Garage Doors  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, December 20th, 6:30 PM Applicant Beth Haywood 224 Cary Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Owner Beth Haywood 224 Cary Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Property 224 Cary Street TPINs 21A-01-189 0.18 ac NE side Cary Street 445’ N of Grace Street and Cary Street Classification Contributing Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DN-R) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HP-O) Adjacent Zoning DN-R & HPO Project Description The applicant is seeking approval for a material change of the slate gray tiles located on the steps of the front porch. The applicant would like to replace the slate gray tiles with either red brick or whitewashed brick (but would like approval for both). The proposed material change would only be for the stairs located at the front of the property. Zoning Recommendation Town staff recommend approval 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.  12/20/2022 Beth Haywood 224 Cary Street bhaywood@smithfieldva.gov X The applicant would like approval to replace the front stairs with either white brick (Bradford Hall) or red brick (Buckingham). Seeking approval for either red brick or whitewashed brick to replace slate gray tile on front steps.  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, December 20th, 6:30 PM Applicant Town of Smithfield C/O Amy Novak 220 North Church Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Owner Town of Smithfield P.O. Box 246 Smithfield, VA 23430 Property 220 North Church Street TPIN: 21A-01-067A 3.62 ac E side North Church 557’ N of North Church Street, Luter Drive and Thomas Street Classification Contributing Zoning Downtown (D) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HP-O) Adjacent Zoning DN-R, HPO, Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DN-R) Environmental Conservation (E-C), Floodplain Overlay (FP-O), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay (CB-O) Project Description The applicant is seeking approval for a material change to the existing 2,500 square foot wooden deck boards. The applicant is seeking to replace the ivory-colored wooden deck boards with Wolf Perspective Composite Decking Boards in light gray and Ivory/Sand colors. There are no planned changes to the wooden handrails at this time. The benches will be removed, and the deck will be an open deck (no built-in seating). The "picture frame" will be the border so that they have less waste of the gray colored boards. Zoning Recommendation Town staff recommend approval 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. Existing Conditions Proposed Composite Decking Board Colors  FIBER SEQUENCING™ TECHNOLOGY A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW Take in the outdoors with decking that takes durability and style to a whole new level. Wolf Perspective™ Decking is made from 94% recycled content and features a strong core, which helps provide industry-leading strength and performance. The texture also mimics the grain of real wood for a premium appearance that will keep your backyard escape looking good, year after year. 10 PERSPECTIVE DECKING: Potomac Grey W O L F D E C K I N G 11 WOLF PERSPECTIVE™ DECKING COLLECTIONS Acacia Potomac Grey Redwood Cedar Ridge Dune A BEAUTIFUL OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE THAT PRESERVES THE OUTDOORS. FIBER SEQUENCING™ TECHNOLOGY Perspective™ Decking sustainably blends the best characteristics of recycled wood with the long-lasting resilience of recycled plastic. Its Wolf Perspective Decking with Fiber Sequencing Technology composite material is certified by SCS Global Services as containing provides a high-performance deck board with industry-leading 94% recycled content. Router clippings and sawdust and recycled strength. Our Fiber Sequencing Technology aligns wood fibers grocery bags and packaging material are used to make every plank. and polymers in a parallel orientation for superior strength. A reusable water reservoir provides a near-endless source of water for Proprietary additives double the encapsulation of the wood manufacturing. Pine trees are saved, lakes and rivers within the polymer for a high-performance deck board that you are preserved. With Perspective Decking, you help can depend on well into the future. to save the environment — and enjoy a beautiful outdoor living space that will last for years. 12 PERSPECTIVE DECKING: Acacia W O L F D E C K I N G 13  WOLF PERSPECTIVE™ DECKING FEATURES » Five rich, solid colors with the look of stained hardwoods » Wood-grain textured surface with unique matte finish » Solid and grooved boards accept hidden fasteners PERSPECTIVE DECKING: Potomac Grey » Moisture, mold and mildew resistance » Resists rotting, delaminating, splitting and cracking PERSPECTIVE DECKING: Cedar Ridge » Strong and durable » ⅞" x 5 ½" deck boards available in 12', 16' and 20' lengths as well as 3/4" x 11 ¼" x 12' rimboards » ICC Code Compliant – ESR-5016 » Made from 94% recycled content » Suitable for commercial or residential application 14 PERSPECTIVE DECKING: Potomac Grey W O L F D E C K I N G 15  The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, October 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 Judith Lally Gary Hess Laura Brown Justin Hornback Members absent: Russell Hill Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director Mark Kluck – Planner Press: None Citizens: 4 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: Tammie Clary, Community Development and Planning Director, reminded the Board members to please speak into their microphones to assist with the recordation of the minutes. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Board Member Comments: There were no Board member comments. Amendment of Prior Approval – 334 Grace Street – Landmark – Paula Cole, applicant Mrs. Clary reported that at its Tuesday, July 20th, 2021 meeting, the applicant received conditional approval from BHAR to erect a set of stairs and three (3) landings/catwalks, along with railings on the rear of the house that will provide access to an existing second story rear porch. This application most recently received a thirty (30) day extension, at the Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 meeting. She continued that the applicant has proposed wooden, decorative spindles in a similar pattern to what is existing on the rear porch. Town staff recommend approval as submitted and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Town staff suggest that for continuity reasons, the proposed spindles maintain a full Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 connection at the top and bottom of the railings, in order to match the current railings located on the rear and second-story porch. Paula Cole of 334 Grace Street in Smithfield was present to discuss the status of the application. Mr. Hornback inquired if the extension would allow for more time to schedule work to be completed. Chairman Gwaltney questioned the Board members if they were in favor of the most recent update to the application. Mrs. Cole asked if the Chairman was referencing the pictures that she had provided. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he was addressing the Board members and that he thought that they needed to review the pictures provided as they showed a different example than previously reviewed. Mrs. Lally inquired if the information she was looking at was the proposed final product. Mrs. Clary reported that this was correct. She stated that Town Staff had edited the picture that Mrs. Cole had provided them in order to have the top of the spindle meet the handrail. She added that the purpose was to give the Board a visual idea of what was being proposed. Chairman Gwaltney asked everyone to look at the picture labeled “proposed final product” and stated that what is shown on the upper landing is a good representation of what will end up in that area adding that he was unsure of the thickness of the spindle as what was presented was very thick. He speculated that the thickness shown in the picture was around 4 inches, where he was assuming that the product used would be more similar in thickness to the original which was around 1-2 inches. Mrs. Clary reiterated that the picture provided had the white outline overlaid on one of the existing pictures provided previously to illustrate where the top handrail is located. Mr. Hess pointed out that in the next two pictures where the wood was not painted gave a better perspective of the sizing of the spindles. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the pictures that Mr. Hess was referencing were at the other end of the spectrum as the thickness represented was more along the lines of Luan wood, adding that the Board had already agreed previously that this type of wood and thickness was not acceptable. He estimated that the proposed product would be more along the lines of a 1x4 or 1x6 in thickness. Chairman Gwaltney applauded the digital representation given, but pointed out that the spindles running down the staircase on an angle will have to be made so that at the gap at the top and bottom will be filled in as it is with the three spindles shown at the top landing. He stated that he wanted to make it clear that what was seen in the photos for review was not exactly what would be the end product, but that everyone understood what the expectation was for the end product. Mrs. Brown stated that she thought the most updated picture provided was a lot more like what the Board had in mind when the application was first approved as it looked more similar to the original railings on the home. She inquired if the ornate spindles would be on both sides of the steps, next to the house as well as on the outside. Mrs. Cole reported yes it would be on both sides. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 Mr. Hess stated that he liked the proposal and how the spindles were cut on the top and bottom, because in order to do what was being recommended by Town Staff the spindles would be on an angle which he felt would look unusual. Vice Chair Hillegass agreed and stated that she was unsure how they would attach very well that way. Mrs. Brown stated that she was imagining the gap shown being filled in by another triangle of material. Chairman Gwaltney assumed that the piece would be cut from a stock piece long enough to get to the upper most and lowest points. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that if indeed this was how it would be completed then she would make a motion to approve with those conditions. Chairman Gwaltney reviewed that there was a motion to approve the application as presented in the proposed final product picture with the understanding that the tops and the bottoms of the spindles will be fully connected to the rails above and below. Mrs. Cole stated yes. Chairman Gwaltney added that the spindles on the stairs would need to be cut on an angle. Mrs. Cole stated that it would need to stand up straight as she did not want them at an angle. Chairman Gwaltney agreed and reiterated that the ornate spindles would need to be cut longer to make it work. Mrs. Cole stated that this was person cutting’s responsibility. Chairman Gwaltney stated that she would need to get with her carpenter to make it happen in this way. He repeated the motion was to accept the application as shown in the picture with the understanding that it will be fully connected much like the horizontal railing is shown. Mrs. Cole asked if Chairman Gwaltney had a picture of the stairs. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board did. Mrs. Cole stated that the spindles would be cut the same on the downward sloped railing as well. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that they are cut in the same manner, but on the downward sloped railing the updated spindles are not connected at the top. He asked Mrs. Cole to look at what the Board was referencing and had it pointed out to her by Mr. Kluck. He added that he wanted to ensure that she understood as he wanted to get this worked out tonight. Mr. Hess noted that any of the ornate spindles that were on a stair would have to be cut differently. Mrs. Cole inquired if there was a picture of the lower porch’s handrailing from the porch to the ground. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the stairs in question would be different from the original because the railing put in place was not the same. He added that without redoing all of what had been done, the Board was on the verge of accepting the proposal with the understanding that the tops and the bottoms will go all the way up and all the down to the railings. Mrs. Cole stated yes several times. Chairman Gwaltney restated that the motion was to accept as presented with the tops and the bottoms connecting together. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 The Town Attorney asked Chairman Gwaltney to look at the photograph grouping in the packet labeled “Entrance Stairs” from the original application presentation. He pointed out in the picture it showed the lower porch’s stairs and railing that were original to the house. He asked Mr. Gwaltney to confirm that this is how he expects the new stair’s updated spindles to look. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this was correct. The Town Attorney asked Chairman Gwaltney to ask Mrs. Cole if this is what she intends as well. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that Mrs. Cole was looking at the same picture as they were referencing that showed the original lower porch stairs. Mrs. Cole confirmed that they found it, and that this was what she was planning to do. Chairman Gwaltney reiterated the question to Mrs. Cole this is what would be reproduced on the new stairs. Mrs. Cole stated that was right. She pointed out what she had in the picture was the straight spindles were already in place and would stay. She added that the three spindles in the middle of the grouping would change dependent on the size, dimensions, and cutting. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this is what the Board was going for. Mrs. Cole acknowledged that it did look much better. Chairman Gwaltney asked the other Board members if they were all looking at the same picture that they were referencing. He stated that the motion on the floor is that the new steps end up looking like the original lower porch’s rails that were pictured, and pointed them out. Vice Chair Hillegass confirmed that was her motion. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there was any additional discussion from the Board, and asked Mrs. Cole if she had anything to add. Mrs. Cole stated that she did not. Mrs. Clary stated that the Town Staff just wanted to make sure that the Board understood that what the applicant was proposing was still maintaining the vertical spindles at certain intersections and inserting the decorative spindles in approximately every three posts, making it not identical. Mrs. Cole stated that she did not know if that would do because if a section was looked at on the porch, it would be dependent on the measurements. She elaborated that there could be two straight spindles, then three decorative spindles, and then two straight spindles on the other side. She stated that the next section would follow dependent on how they had to cut it but it would be consistent all the way through. Mrs. Clary stated that the applicant did want to incorporate some vertical spindles. Chairman Gwaltney stated he thought the applicant had been referencing the 4x4 corner posts. Mr. Hornback stated that he did not think that was correct. The Town Attorney asked Mrs. Cole for confirmation that she was not going to remove the existing vertical spindles and the decorative inserts would be superimposed over the existing structure. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 Mrs. Cole stated no, the three straight spindles would be removed from the middle of the section. The Town Attorney pointed out the middle had more than three. Mrs. Cole stated that she needed to look at it to see what there was. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he felt what would be the end product would be similar to the Luan wood picture which showed a cut spindle next to a straight spindle. Mrs. Cole reported that they would not be alternating and reiterated that there would be two straight spindles on the ends and three decorative spindles in the middle with the vertical spindles removed. She stated that this was her plan, and she thought that is what the picture looked like. She approached the Board members to show them more closely. Mr. Hornback stated that he wanted to make sure that the Board was confirming that the final product was different from the original railing shown in the pictures with the lower porch visible. Mrs. Cole stated that she wasn’t sure what he meant. Chairman Gwaltney explained that the original railing on the lower level had nothing but the decorative cut spindles. Mrs. Cole acknowledged this was correct. She added that the original railing on the lower level was already different then what was there to begin with. She reported that the original railing had only been as high as the pickets with no top or bottom railing. She continued that when they made the lower porch bigger, there was a code for the railing to be higher that had to be met. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mrs. Cole for confirmation that she had added the top rail. Mrs. Cole stated that that this was correct and she thought the bottom rail too. She stated that the original had solid would and she asked for there to be cuts so that it at least blended together. She reiterated that the extra had to be added to meet the height requirement. She added that if the Board members looked at the original railing at the top porch the difference could be seen. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the only thing the Board was currently addressing what was happening between the rails on the stairs. He added that they wanted to come to an agreement on what the cut-out pieces were going to be and where they would fit. He stated that if Mrs. Cole made the stair rail going down the stairs look like the three pieces shown on the upper landing, put however many pieces needed in there, and make sure to tell the carpenter to make them all fit. Mrs. Cole stated with the spindles currently there she would make them fit. Chairman Gwaltney stated that there were no cut pieces on the rail going down the stairs currently. Mrs. Cole stated that there was. She approached to point them out. Mr. Kluck clarified that Mrs. Cole was referencing the three spindles at the top of the stairs. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if they were currently placed on the railing. Mrs. Cole stated that they were right there on the picture. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledge this, and asked if they were currently physically on the railings. Mr. Kluck reported that they had just been imposed for review, and there was nothing currently there but the straight spindles. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 Mrs. Cole agreed that there were only straight spindles at the moment on the stairs. She stated that she was waiting for the plan to get approved to speak with someone about cutting them out. Chairman Gwaltney stated that if they really wanted this to work, then his suggestion would be instead of keeping two on either side of the cut spindles, take all of the vertical spindles out and have the cut pieces from post to post. Mrs. Cole questioned cutting all the way. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this is how it was on the ground floor. Mrs. Cole stated that it was that way on the ground floor but she liked her proposal better. She explained that her proposal looked lighter and not as heavy and thick. Chairman Gwaltney stated that if spindles were coming out and there would be cut ones in their place but was unable to finish. Mrs. Cole stated that she was not taking all the straight spindles out, just the ones that needed to be removed to place the decorative cut spindles. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board wanted her to do that because it would match the rest of the house. Mr. Hornback stated that this was how the application had originally been approved. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this was how it was approved one year ago and how the Board originally had stated that it needed to happen. He continued that it made no sense to battle to keep one spindle on either side of cut out spindles added in. He stated that if all but two of the straight spindles were removed, his recommendation was to take all of them out and run the cut pieces from post to post. Mrs. Cole reiterated that she liked her proposal better. Vice Chair Hillegass pointed out that this was a Landmark structure and it needed to match. Chairman Gwaltney stated that it appeared that she also liked it when the gentleman that built the current stairs made it look like a Nags Head beach house. Mrs. Cole stated that she did not like it, but that she needed access. She agreed that it does look like a Nags Head beach house, especially since it was not painted. She reported that she is waiting for a year to paint it as she had been told to do. She added that they could probably make them out of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Chairman Gwaltney observed that it felt like they were back in the same place they were one year ago as they have almost come to an agreement of what the project needs to be and it has come down to Mrs. Cole wanting to put a spindle on either side of all the cut out pieces. Mrs. Cole stated that she was not going to put one, she was going to leave them there. The Town Attorney asked Mrs. Cole if she had consulted with a contractor who had looked at her proposed plan and said that it could be done. Mrs. Cole stated that she had found someone that said they could cut out the pieces as they have been able to cut out the pieces for everything else. The Town Attorney stated that he understood. He asked if a contractor had looked at her steps and said that they could make it look like what she is proposing. Mrs. Cole stated that she is going to get it approved first before she consults a contractor. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 The Town Attorney pointed out that this was a functional issue. He continued that she was proposing something very hypothetical that does not match what had been originally approved. He reported that the Board had asked Mrs. Cole to return with an application to make it look like was the stairs were originally proposed to look like. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that Mrs. Cole had mentioned using PVC and that would definitely not be approved. The Town Attorney stated that PVC is ok, adding that PVC was frequently approved. Mrs. Cole reported that there was PVC currently on the bottom railing that was replaced. The Town Attorney asked the Board members for confirmation that they had asked a number of times for the project to look like what had been approved last year. Chairman Gwaltney stated he felt that they were 90% of the way there, and were about reach an agreement earlier. He stated that what she is proposing is so close to reproducing what was on the original application as well as matching the ornate railing on already on the house, which is what the Board asked for a year ago and what she had agreed to do. He continued that now they have gone through many different options to get to the point where they were trying to amend the proposal to make it match what was originally on the house on the lower porch and now Mrs. Cole is reporting that she does not want to do that as she does not like it. Mrs. Cole stated that she likes her currently proposal better as it is not as heavy. She stated that it looked more feminine and more Victorian, especially with how much they were. Chairman Gwaltney reviewed that there was a motion on the floor and asked if there was a desire to amend it. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she would like to withdraw the motion. Mr. Hornback asked if the vertical spindles were removed would that mean that the original approval to match the railings can be considered. Chairman Gwaltney stated that if the decorative pieces go end to end as they do on the porch below. He stated that what they were trying to do was to make a motion to make the new stairs look just like the old stairs. He continued that was where the Board was a year ago, that is where they continue to come back to, and that is what they are trying to do. He stated that this is what he felt the motion needed to be. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she agreed with Chairman Gwaltney and made a motion to approve with the condition that the new rails match the original ones. Mr. Hornback suggested that all the vertical spindles be removed. Chairman Gwaltney stated that those conditions were needed in order for the railings to match. Vice Chair Hillegass restated her motion to approve with the condition that the applicant remove all vertical spindles, using only ornate spindles that match the ones present in other areas of the house. Mrs. Clary asked to include the caveat that the balusters be cut so that they are flush with the top and bottom handrails. Chairman Gwaltney agreed with this and gave the reminder that they reviewed the picture of the original handrail with that feature that, both horizontally and angled. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote. All members present voted aye, with none opposed. He stated that the motion was approved with the outlined conditions and reminded the applicant that the Board was available to answer any questions or to offer any assistance. Mrs. Cole stated that she would like to submit the application again. The Town Attorney pointed out that the vote had been completed. Mrs. Cole stated that she liked the plan that she had submitted better than what was approved. The Town Attorney reminded Mrs. Cole that a year ago when originally presented she had told the Board that she would make the railings match the originals, which is what was just approved again. He continued that the home is a Landmark property, that the Board had followed guidelines, had given her guidance, had given her ample time for a solution, and the proposal that she had presented did not match what the Board had said they would approve. The Town Attorney outlined that Mrs. Cole wanted to appeal and vote on her proposal of three decorative spindles between each set of support posts. He asked the Board if there was a motion. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to deny the proposal. Mr. Hornback seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote to deny the proposal presented. Mrs. Lally asked if the motion could be restated. Chairman Gwaltney repeated that the motion was to deny what has been presented to the Board by Mrs. Cole, and that it had been seconded. He called for a collective vote. All members present voted aye, with none opposed. The motion to deny the proposal passed. Mrs. Cole thanked the Board. Color Change (Trim) – 231 Cary Street – Non-Contributing – Joseph Reish, applicant. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval for the modification of prior approval (approved on June 21st, 2022) to change the paint color on the Hardie Plank siding on the gable of the renovated porch, from white to a blue-gray color known as Boothbay Blue. The applicant is also seeking approval to change the color of all exterior trim from a green color to the same blue-gray color known as Boothbay Blue. The primary color of the single-family dwelling will remain white. She continued that Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Joseph Reish of 231 Cary Street in Smithfield was present to speak regarding the application. He reported that the porch’s reconstruction had been completed, and he was going to paint the gable white. He continued that the Hardie Plank siding that had been placed on the gable had been blue, which he surmised must have been recycled from a previous build, but now everyone had fallen in love with the Boothbay Blue color. Mr. Reish asked for approval to keep the gable color blue but added that he would be happy to paint it white as originally approved. He added that he would also like approval to paint the trim that is currently green Boothbay Blue to match the gable. Mrs. Lally reported that she had seen the blue on the new gable and thought it looked even nicer than planned. 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if the ceiling in the porch would be altered as well as it was included on the application. Mr. Reish reported that the ceiling that was approved at the June 2022 BHAR meeting was a stained, tongue-and-groove style wood. Chairman Gwaltney reviewed that there was a motion and a second to approve as presented. He called for a collective vote. All members present voted aye, with none opposed. The motion passed. Paint/Color Change – 331 & 333 Main Street – Contributing – A&H Property Management LLC C/O Anthony Brentlinger, applicant. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval for a color change to the exterior of the duplex building. The existing green siding will be painted in a green color known as “At Ease Solider” (SW 9127). The white window grids, white window sashes, and orange front doors will be painted in a dark brown color known as “Black Bean” (SW 6006). The exterior trim, soffit, fascia, and the window and door frames will be repainted white. She reported that Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Jed Coburn of 47 Days Point Lane in Smithfield reported that he is the owner of the property in question. He reported that he liked the color scheme, and the building was in obvious need of help. He stated that the current color of the building was an intense color of Kelly Green that was faded, but he felt it was not fitting on a building of that size. Mr. Hess stated that he thought it would improve the appearance of the property considerably. Chairman Gwaltney inquired what the plan for the roof would be. Mr. Coburn reported that the roof had recently been fixed and retarred. He added that the leaning that could be seen on the roof of the front porch overhang was due to the posts on one side being supported by concrete which was not present on the other side, which had sunk down. He reported that the sinking side would be fixed making it level. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if there were any plans for color changes on the roof. Mr. Coburn stated that there was not at this time. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the application as presented. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote. All members present voted aye, with none opposed. The motion passed. Material Change (Roof) – 360-368 Main Street – Contributing – Benjamin Boomer, applicant. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking to replace the existing three-tab black/ gray asbestos shingles with thirty-year architectural asphalt shingles in a black color known as Moire Black, manufactured by CertainTeed, due to the leaks throughout the units within the building. 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 She reported that Town staff recognize there is an active potential BHAR violation for this property in regard to the window change (previously Tabled by the BHAR at the October 19th, 2021 meeting); however, the applicant is in the process of purchasing the property and has indicated plans of replacing the windows. Town staff recommend approval as submitted and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion under the condition that the applicant proceeds to resolve the potential window violation. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if the applicant was present to speak about the application. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant was not present. Mr. Hornback stated that outside of the issues with the windows, the new roof would be an improvement. Chairman Gwaltney added to that statement that going from asbestos shingles to architectural shingles was a large improvement. He reported that he had spoken with the gentleman who was completing this project and had received more information regarding what he hoped to do with the property. He stated that this was a good start. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote. All members present voted aye, with none opposed. The motion passed. Exterior Changes – 117 Cockes Lane – Non-Contributing – Ashland Wilkerson, applicant. Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant is seeking approval for exterior changes to the eight- foot (8’) by twelve-foot (12’) room located are the rear of the house. More specifically, the applicant would like approval to change the existing white stucco façade to white vinyl siding or white Hardie Plank siding. The dormer of the single-family dwelling currently features white vinyl siding. The proposed renovations also include replacing the two (2) existing four-over-four (4/4) wooden windows with two (2) one-over-one (1/1) white vinyl windows. The windows will be replaced in their existing locations. The single-family dwelling currently features one-over-one (1/1) white vinyl windows in various locations throughout the dwelling. Mrs. Clary reported that Town staff had additionally issued a zoning permit waiver to replace and repair the floor joists to address structural issues that have occurred due to age and the replacement of the six (6) panel metal door in the same material and color. She continued that Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the applicant was not present to speak about the application. Mrs. Lally inquired if consideration should be broken out into separate parts. The Town Attorney asked how it could be divided. Mrs. Lally suggested that the windows could be separate. Chairman Gwaltney stated that it could be considered separately unless the Board members were in favor of just considering it all together. Mr. Hornback pointed out that the structure was non-contributing and there was precedence of the use of vinyl on the house. 10 Board of Historic and Architectural Review October 18th, 2022 Chairman Gwaltney added that the applicant was replacing some of the vinyl siding with Hardie Plank. Multiple Board members stated that the application was for vinyl or Hardie Plank siding. Mr. Hornback reviewed that the applicant acknowledges the existing vinyl on the dormer, but that was just a clarification, not a request to replace. The Town Attorney reported that the dormer was on the front of the house, and the applicant was looking to put siding on the rear of the home. Mr. Hess suggested that they encourage the applicant to use Hardie Plank. The Town Attorney added that the applicant had reported that they would. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if the applicant was wrapping the entire house in new siding, to which multiple Board members replied they would not be. He added that the stucco would then remain. The Town Attorney clarified that the applicant was going to wrap the rear addition on the house, which was currently stucco, with Hardie Plank or vinyl. He added that the applicant would also like to put in two new vinyl windows on the addition. Chairman Gwaltney construed that the application really had nothing to do with the main portion of the house. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application with the condition that the applicant uses white Hardie Plank siding and not white vinyl siding on the addition. Mr. Hornback seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Approval of the Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 Meeting Minutes: The Town Attorney recommended approval of the minutes as presented. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the minutes. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:19 pm. ______________________________ ________________________________ Mr. Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director 11