Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 17th, 2023 at the Smithfield Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Members present: Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Judith Lally Laura Brown Justin Hornback Gary Hess Members absent: Julia Hillegass – Vice Chair Russell Hill Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Mark Kluck – Planner Steve Clark – Parks and Grounds Attendant Nadya Jaudzimas – Administrative Assistant Press: None Citizens: 5 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, reported that Town staff received three (3) applications for the Request for Proposal (RFP) to update the Historic District Guidelines. He continued that Staff are currently reviewing the proposals and will provide an update once the company is selected with the contract awarded. Public Comments: Bob Hines of 216 Washington Street in Smithfield asked if there were any exceptions to the guideline of no vinyl or vinyl-clad aluminum windows in the Historic District. He requested that the questions that he was asking be answered during the Board member comments section of the meeting. He inquired if a resident of the Historic District was allowed to replace decking with synthetic wood and would an application be needed. Mr. Hines reviewed that there was much discussion about storage containers with the Planning Commission and asked where BHAR would fit in with their possible placement within the Historic District. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Hines to clarify what type of containers he was referencing. Mr. Hines stated that he was referencing storage or shipping containers, as seen at Beale Park. He reviewed that the Pierceville property had been changed from Landmark to Non- Contributing previously, adding that he had heard that there were no plans to remove it from the Board of Historic and Architectural Review January 17th, 2023 Historic District. He asked for confirmation if that was still the case and if the BHAR still had purview over what was placed there if it remained. Board Member Comments: Mr. Hornback stated that he could answer some of the questions that Mr. Hines had. He reported that the use of vinyl siding and windows was discouraged but not explicitly prohibited. He explained that there were cases where houses that were grandfathered into the current guidelines had pre-existing vinyl products that were then replaced with vinyl. He continued that if an application was presented for a property where there was wood existing, or if the property was historically contributing, then BHAR’s goal was to protect it as much as possible. Mr. Hornback stated that composite decking was mostly considered on a case-by-case basis, as there were some products that looked identical to wood. He added that these type of composites were also not explicitly prohibited in the guidelines. He further stated that it was his understanding that shipping containers in the historic district would be categorized as an accessory structure or storage building to be considered on a case-by-case basis, adding that he did not think that there was specific language in the guidelines to address containers. The Town Attorney explained that there were proposed amendments to the Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO) that were being considered by the Planning Commission, and soon to be recommended to the Town Council, that would essentially eliminate the possibility of any sort of shipping container being placed in most all residential districts. He reviewed that an inventory of shipping containers in Town had shown that there were more present than expected; however, most were in industrial and commercial areas. He reported that the issue was currently under consideration, as were rental storage containers such as Portable On-Demand Storage (PODS). He explained that the Planning Commission had suggested that there not be a need to apply for a zoning permit if the placement was temporary, for example in the case of a citizen moving in or out. He expanded that the current recommendation was to make the timeline 14-21 days as the Town did not want a storage container to become a fixture without oversight. The Town Attorney additionally reported that there was no discussion of the Pierceville property leaving the Historic District. Mr. Hornback asked if the Planning Commission approved proposed rezoning of Pierceville, the future plans would need to be considered by the BHAR. The Town Attorney stated that this was correct. He gave the reminder that the Historic District guidelines treated new construction differently than existing contributing properties, adding that the BHAR had guidelines to address issues like materials used and architectural design. He continued that the new construction guidelines were not as stringent as the guidelines that applied to homes classified as Landmark. Chairman Gwaltney reviewed that the BHAR had made the change in the Pierceville property’s categorization based on the status of the structures on the property. The Town Attorney stated that was correct. He continued that the way the ordinance was written, a piece of land is not a Landmark, though that same property can be important and 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review January 17th, 2023 historically significant. He stated that this is why the recommendation was made to change the status of the Pierceville property. Mr. Hornback addressed the question regarding whether a resident would need to come before the Board if they wanted to install composite decking. He stated that if there was a request for a material change, then typically, the answer would be yes. Chairman Gwaltney added that this was for any material change and confirmed that an application would need to be completed whether it be approved administratively or if it needed to come for consideration by the Board. The Town Attorney suggested that it may be a good time to review that the BHAR had decided as a whole to evaluate new construction materials available and update the Historic District guidelines. He outlined that it had been an extended period of time since an update had been completed, and there had been many advancements in materials that would likely make them appropriate for use in the Historic District. Chairman Gwaltney agreed that there had been a large amount of time since the guidelines were updated. He added that there would not be changes as far as the style and structure guidelines as they were historic buildings, but the materials that are used had changed. He reported that the BHAR has tried to keep up with the changes in materials, but the guidelines have not kept up, and the aim was to correct that. He stated that he hoped that answered some of the questions asked. He encouraged Mr. Hines to reach out to the Board after the meeting if he had any additional questions. Material Change (Garage Door) – 303 Main Street – Contributing – Gary Terwilliger, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant is seeking approval for a material change for the installation of an approximately twelve feet (12’) wide and nine feet (9’) tall metal roll-up garage door, at the rear of the building. He stated that the proposed garage door will be located on the right, rear side of the building and will be in place of the two windows currently located on the building. In order to accommodate this request, the HVAC unit will be relocated, and a zoning permit waiver will be issued. He added that the applicants proposed to keep the metal roll-up garage door and any required metal/steel trim, in a standard color, white, tan, black or gray. Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that the bank building being referred to was previously the Bank of America building. Gary Terwilliger of 10 Oak Alley in Smithfield was present to speak regarding the application. He explained that the idea was to make the property into a miniature or vintage car museum, adding that the roll-up garage door would be necessary to get cars in and out of the building. He reported that their plans would include the eventual addition of an out-building, or possibly two smaller buildings, in the back of the property. He added that they had decided to install a roll-up garage door due to the pitch of the roof not accommodating a standard overhead 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review January 17th, 2023 garage door. Mr. Terwilliger stated that they had opted to use a standard color in powder coating as they were unsure that paint would last on a roll-up door. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the colors he would like to use were the ones that were included in the application. Mr. Kluck reviewed that the colors submitted were white, tan, black, or gray. Mr. Terwilliger asked if the Board would also consider the color brown. He reported that the air conditioning system would need to be relocated, was 30 years old at this point, and needed refurbishment as it did not work in the upstairs of the building. He added that the main power supply would be moved, and a concrete apron to allow for movement would be installed at the front of the property. He outlined that the goal for the property was to have a club that would allow for different car clubs to come to Town for events. Chairman Gwaltney asked if Mr. Terwilliger expected the club to be open on a regular basis or to the public in any way. Mr. Terwilliger stated that he was unsure at this time. He stated that he did not know that there would be set open hours, but if someone wanted to come see the cars, they could. Mr. Hess stated that it will be nice to see the building have a purpose. Mr. Terwilliger reported that certain architectural elements, especially pieces original to the building, would be kept including: the house’s original fireplace and mantle, the terrazzo flooring, the bank vaults, the safes, the trim, and the moulding. He described it as a spectacular old building that was well-built. Chairman Gwaltney asked the Board to discuss the color choices presented. Mr. Hornback recommended using a color that matched the brick of the building as close as possible. Chairman Gwaltney agreed. He stated that the trim and door color would stand out as it was such a large area. He inquired if there were more color options available with the powder coating finish. Mr. Terwilliger stated that there were about 50 colors to choose from; however, the wait was described as “6 to 8 weeks.” He added that he was unsure if that was more likely 6 to 8 months with possible supply issues. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Terwilliger how he would feel about choosing a color that closely matched the color of the brick on the building. He noted that the trim color was not specified. Mr. Terwilliger stated that the door would be trimmed with channels of steel that would wrap the corner to keep it smooth and uniform. He acknowledged that the trim described would also be powder-coated. Chairman Gwaltney described the option of also painting that trim as close in color to the brick to match the door. He stated with it painted this way, the door may blend into the brick background. Mr. Terwilliger agreed and added that the corners of the door frame would be wrapped in a ¾” plate with decorative cuts at the top and a bulbous lower part to keep entering car’s wheels from hitting the walls. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review January 17th, 2023 Mr. Hornback made the motion to approve the application with the condition that the roll- up garage door and trim materials closely match the existing brick color on the building. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney gave the suggestion to look at conduits on the older buildings to see examples of matching paint to the color of the brick. He pointed out that Mr. Terwilliger had mentioned the plan to have one or several out buildings, which would make this door very difficult to see from Cedar Street. He called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Mr. Hess asked Mr. Terwilliger what would be done with the existing empty ATM building from the bank. Mr. Terwilliger stated that they were not sure yet, but had thought about turning it into a small shop of some sort or perhaps a place to wash a car. He described it as having working plumbing. The Town Attorney recommended the removal of the sodium vapor light that was very unpopular with residents. Mr. Terwilliger acknowledged it, and added that it had not been on recently. Exterior Change (Awning) – 402 Grace Street – Non-Contributing – Carter Williams, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect an approximately forty- foot (40’) long by six-foot (6’) wide by sixteen-foot (16’) tall white-gray colored aluminum walkway canopy at the rear of the building at 402 Grace Street. He continued that the walkway canopy will be attached to the building and extend to the end of the existing curb. He reported that the canopy will have a gradual slope toward the parking lot and feature an incorporated gutter system with downspouts to allow rainwater to drain off the canopy. He continued that the walkway was being proposed to protect and allow volunteers to deliver and accept goods when there was inclement weather. Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Carter Williams of 500 Moonefield Drive in Smithfield was present to speak about the application and represent the Christian Outreach Program (COP). He reported that the COP had contacted him about installing a canopy at the back of the building and asked him how it could be done inexpensively. He gave the update that the width would likely be seven-foot (7’) wide instead of six-foot (6’), but he had not received confirmation from the supply company as he had come to see if the BHAR would approve of the project at all first. He acknowledged that the building was in the Historic District and reported that it was comprised of many different structures, but he did not feel that the addition of the canopy would change the appearance of the building. He additionally acknowledged that the canopy was made of aluminum which he understood was generally not approved in the Historic District. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if there was any consideration being given to extending the awning toward the storage facilities in the future. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review January 17th, 2023 Mr. Williams stated that there were no additional extensions or canopy additions planned. Rick Rollins of 425 Evergreen Lane in Smithfield, reported that he is the Director of the COP. He stated that the storage facilities that were referenced were hardly ever used, contained garden equipment, and had various items for different events. He stated that the canopy’s placement was long overdue to protect volunteers and the citizens they serve coming to get food. He added that the building was not historic by any means and there was already a metal roof on the building. He confirmed that they had no plans to extend the proposed canopy. Mrs. Brown stated that it seemed like a practical addition to the building that serves a purpose and pointed out the property was classified as Non-Contributing with the canopy’s placement in the back. Chairman Gwaltney agreed. Mr. Hess made the motion to approve the application as submitted. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. *Discussion Item* (Color Change) Riverview Avenue – Non-Contributing- Allen Loree, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that Mr. Loree, contractor for multiple properties on Riverview Avenue, brought to the attention of Town Staff that as he was entering preparation to put siding on the dwellings, he recognized a color choice issue. He continued that the dwellings at 156 Riverview, 202 Riverview, and 206 Riverview would all be a similar color. He added that Mr. Loree had stated that if the Board okay with the color choices then he would proceed, but if they preferred a different color combination, he was able to change the color choice for 202 Riverview. Mr. Kluck stated that Mr. Loree understood that an amendment to the application for 202 Riverview would need to be completed should the Board request a color change. Chairman Gwaltney asked for confirmation that Mr. Loree’s concern was that the houses would look too similar in a concentrated area. Mr. Kluck reported that this was correct, as three (3) of the five (5) houses on the same block would be a similar shade of beige. He continued that Mr. Loree wanted to consult with the Board on how to proceed. Mr. Hornback confirmed that what was included in the packet is what had been originally approved by the BHAR, and that Mr. Loree wanted to see how the Board would like him to proceed. He stated that the Board was open to changes. Chairman Gwaltney agreed and asked if Mr. Loree was asking the Board to suggest a color choice. Mr. Kluck clarified that Mr. Loree wasn’t necessarily looking for the Board to pick the color, but more would like to know if they would prefer more color variation on the block. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board wanted the area to look the best it could, and if that meant a variation in color, then that would be great. He applauded Mr. Loree’s concern about 6