Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, February 21st, 2023 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 Laura Brown Justin Hornback Russell Hill Gary Hess Members absent: Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Tammie Clary – Director of Planning and Community Development Mark Kluck – Planner Press: None Citizens: 2 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, reported that on Tuesday, February 7th, Town Council awarded the contract for updating the Historic District Guidelines to PaleoWest. He told the Board to feel free to email Town staff with any ideas or suggestions for improvements to the guidelines so they can be shared with the consultant. He added that there would be work sessions scheduled as well. Mr. Kluck reported that emails went out to all BHAR members informing them of upcoming webinars and gave the reminder that BHAR bylaws require each member to attend at least one informational or educational meeting per year. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if the members could register for the classes directly or would they need to go through Town Staff. Tammie Clary, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported that the Town would pay the fees associated for the members registration in the classes, and there was potential for a group rate as well. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Board Member Comments: Mrs. Lally thanked Vice Chair Hillegass for her agreement to be the liaison to the Smithfield Planning Commission and the BHAR. Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney seconded the sentiment on behalf of the other members. Accessory Structure Removal – 130 Main Street – Landmark – Historic Smithfield Inc. C/O Nick Blevins, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to relocate the stocks and pillory display from the front right yard of the Courthouse Museum to a new location on North Mason Street. The applicant has proposed to move the stocks and pillory so that they are closer to their original placement on the site. He reported that the stocks and pillory consisted of several wooden posts that are set in the ground; they will be partially disassembled and pulled from the ground so that they can be relocated to the North Mason Street side of the Courthouse Museum. He continued that the applicant had stated that any rotten wood will be repaired or replaced in a like-for-like manner, and the display will be repainted to match its existing color, which is currently brown with black hardware. Additionally, the owners have received the necessary approvals from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR). Mr. Kluck reported that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion, provided the applicant adhered to the recommendations for artifacts or archaeological deposits in the approval letter sent by DHR and dated April 21, 2022. David Hundley, Director of the 1750 Isle of Wight County Courthouse Board, was present to speak about the application. He reported that he did not have anything to add to the information contained in the letter, and that their intention was to move the stocks and pillory to a new site on North Mason Street. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if moving the stocks and pillory to this area would allow them to remain operable in the sense that the public could take pictures with them as done before. Mr. Hundley explained that at one point the stocks and pillory were operable, but due to the pandemic they had been secured so they would not be used. He stated that they are currently still secured and when they are moved the plan as of now was to keep them that way. 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 were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. New Accessory Structure (Fence) – 203 Main Street – Landmark – Amanda Norman, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect a six-foot (6’) tall dog- eared wooden privacy fence with one access gate at the rear of the property abutting the vacant property located at 108 South Mason Street (TPIN: 21A-01-328). He stated that the six-foot fence will match the fence style of the surrounding properties, with the finished side facing the neighboring vacant property on South Mason Street. The applicant has also proposed to add a clear sealer to the fence once it is installed. Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney reported that there was not a representative present to speak on behalf of the application. Mr. Hornback stated that the back of the lot had been cleared recently which made the back of the home more visible. He stated that the addition of the fence would allow the owner more privacy. Chairman Gwaltney stated that it would work nicely there. Mr. Hess made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Amendment to Prior Approval (Color Change) – 202 Riverview Avenue – Non-Contributing – Allen Loree, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval for an amendment to a prior approval (from August 16th, 2022) to change the color of Hardieboard siding for the single-family dwelling from a tan color known as “Navajo Beige" to LP Smart Siding in one of the following four colors: an off-white color known as “Quarry Gray,” a light-yellow color known as “Prairie Clay,” a golden-brown color known as “Timberland Suede,” or a light brown color known as “Tundra Gray.” He added that the applicant requested the change to allow for a variety of finished exteriors between 156-206 Riverview Avenue and that all trim will remain white as previously approved. Mr. Kluck stated that the applicant was also seeking an amendment to prior approval for a color change to the front nine (9) pane window steel door from brown to a “Sea Foam Green” door featuring a fifteen (15) pane window. Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Alan Loree of 928 Le Cove Drive in Virginia Beach was present to discuss the application. He reported that the reason for the color change was that they had come to the realization that the houses that had received approval to be built on Riverview Avenue were set to be painted three (3) nearly identical colors within four (4) houses. He reported of the colors that he provided as samples, he did not necessarily have a preference, however if he had to pick it would be within the darker gray palette. Chairman Gwaltney verified that the plan would be for the house to have color but the trim to remain white. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Loree about which colors he preferred. Mr. Loree stated that if he had to pick, he would pick “Tundra Gray,” or “Timberland Suede.” Vice Chair Hillegass asked for clarification on if the requested change was for one dwelling or multiple dwellings on Riverview Avenue. Mr. Kluck clarified that the color change would be for one building, but it was to provide color variation on the new houses on the street. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 Mr. Loree explained that there were three (3) houses set to be a form of beige, and he wanted to fix that by changing one to a gray color. Chairman Gwaltney asked if he considered a more bold color than gray or suede. Mr. Loree reported that there were other houses on the street that had already utilized Green and blue colors in their palettes. Mrs. Brown stated that she preferred the “Timberland Suede” as it contrasted the colors more, but she was fine with all the presented choices. Mrs. Lally confirmed that not only would there be a color change, but the siding itself would be changed as well. Mr. Hill asked if the LP Smart Siding would be used on all of the other homes as well. Mr. Loree confirmed that was correct. He explained that the cost savings going from Hardie board to LP Smart Siding were significant. He stated that the LP Smart Siding was an engineered wood product and came with a lap behind the board that eliminated gaps when the boards expanded and contracted. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if there was any other color of green for the door. Mr. Loree reported that there was previously, but it had been discontinued. Mrs. Lally reported that she felt all of the colors provided were nice and thought that Mr. Loree should go with the one that he had picked. She confirmed with him that all of the colors were available. The Town Attorney informed the Board that they did not need to limit the applicant to just one approved color but could approve all the presented colors and let Mr. Loree choose. Chairman Gwaltney asked if Mr. Loree knew how long the Smart Siding had been manufactured for. Mr. Loree looked up additional information in the sales brochure and reported that the product had been in production for 20 years. He continued that it had a 5-year 100% warranty and a 50-year prorated warranty. Mrs. Lally made the motion to approve and allow the contractor to choose one of the four colors presented: Quarry Gray, Prairie Clay, Timberland Suede or Tundra Gray in the LP Smart Siding. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Mr. Kluck reminded the Board that the applicant was also seeking approval for the 15 – pane door painted Seafoam Green. The Town Attorney recommended that they consider the two approvals separately. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote on the approval of the previously listed colors of the house, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Chairman Gwaltney reported that the other item for consideration was the 15 – pane door painted Seafoam Green. Mr. Hill inquired if the door would be Seafoam Green no matter what color was chosen for the house siding. Mr. Loree reported that he would be leaning toward choosing one of the two grays for the siding, making it gray with Seafoam Green. He clarified that the door would actually be a 12-light 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 door, which would be 2/3 of the door having panes. He added that the image included was of a 15- pane door as that was the only image he could find that illustrated the Seafoam Green proposed. Vice Chair Hillegass made the motion to approve the twelve-light (12) door in Seafoam Green as presented. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. *Discussion Item* - Historic District Guidelines Chairman Gwaltney reported that the Board would be discussing a plan for updating the Historic District Guidelines. Mrs. Clary reported that the Town was moving forward with the Request for Proposals (RFP) for an update of the Historic District Guidelines. She requested that the Board members review the guidelines and give suggestions for areas where they felt updates were needed. She gave the example of the use of updated materials when repairing or restoring a historic home that weren’t available when the guidelines were last updated. She encouraged the members to send their suggestions via email or other communication so that the Town staff may organize their different thoughts and ideas when the time comes to meet with the consultants. Mrs. Clary reported that a basic outline of what would be updated had been formulated. She reported that some items that would be considered for update would be newer approved construction materials, guidelines on how to apply for waivers/permits, and flow charts demonstrating the approval process. Mr. Hess stated that one point that had stuck with him was that more often than not when people purchase homes in the Historic District they have no idea of what is required for approvals. He compared this with buying a house in a newer residential area and the Real Estate agent is required to give information about Homeowner’s Associations. He inquired how this information could get to buyers and if this needs to be introduced via legislation or through Isle of Wight County. Mrs. Clary stated that one section that the staff were looking at inclusion of was “How to Live” in the Historic District which would include requirements, what to be aware of, etc. Mr. Hess surmised that the realtors would likely resist as it might deter prospective buyers, but that it should still be addressed. Mrs. Lally stated that the Board had not been approached about the installation of solar panels, but that it was likely to be a subject to come up and as such should be addressed as well. Chairman Gwaltney recalled back to years ago on the Board when they had discussed a plan for educational outreach about living in the Historic District. He summarized that there had been some very good ideas taking shape for the program, but it was halted because they took on the larger job of reclassification within the Historic District and then after that had been completed Covid hit, stopping everything. He reviewed that there had been talk of outreach to real estate companies, information at hardware stores, and mailers sent to residents with information. Chairman Gwaltney speculated that there was some of the items discussed kept in records with the information that had already been gathered. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 The Town Attorney related that the suggestion of approaching realtors would be extremely difficult as they are not required by law to disclose Historic District Guidelines. Mr. Hess suggested that they take a look at other Historic Districts around the State to see how they handle this situation. He additionally suggested that they see how State’s Historic Board handles these types of situations. The Town Attorney reviewed that the process that was in place currently for the Historic District for approval was not difficult or complex. He stated that the biggest part of the process that needed to be reviewed was the preferred construction materials. Mr. Hill agreed, adding that materials were constantly changing with products increasingly becoming better. He related to when he had brought a sample of Anderson Composite windows to the board for the first time, and described how they had been used across the Historic District since they carried the same weight as true wooden windows. He added that the Town had to adapt to allowing that type of window. Mr. Hill reported that it is the same for him with Hardie siding, as it is good quality and has been around for 45 years. He related that there were homes that he had placed it on in 1999 that have never needed to be repainted. He admitted he was not a fan of Smart Siding as he felt that it was just an engineered piece of plywood. Mr. Hill reported that he had spoken with Mark Drumheller, Assistant Director of the Department of Community Development Inspections for Isle of Wight County, about whether the County could mandate what the BHAR presented. He related that he had explained that the Board was updating the Historic District Guidelines, and Mr. Drumheller had stated that the County would not have a problem with following those guidelines, but they would need a copy to become familiar with them. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that Mr. Drumheller was approving the codes, not necessarily the guidelines. The Town Attorney added that the zoning permit could include what was contained in the guidelines. Mr. Hill stated that the guidelines were not included currently was the point that Mr. Drumheller had made. The Town Attorney gave the hypothetical situation of gaining an approval, with the zoning permit including language that resembled “This zoning permit is approved upon the following conditions…” then Mr. Drumheller would be able to enforce those conditions. Mr. Hill agreed with the Town Attorney, adding that if it was written on the zoning permit when it arrived at the County, then they would ensure it was followed. He related that he thought that was the Board’s best avenue to get people to do what they say that they will do. Mrs. Clary reported that the action letter that the applicant received was included with the zoning permit when it is sent to Isle of Wight County. She added that it is specifically sent to Central Permitting, which is just their Plan Review. She suggested that Town Staff could start to reach out to Mr. Drumheller directly with the conditions highlighted in the action letter and advise him that they correspond with the zoning permit. Mr. Hill recalled a recent issue where an approval was given for a plan for outside stairs with landings on a Historic District home, and the owner still had the contractor complete the work 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 that was not approved anyway. He related that he had been called by the County to see who the contractor was that completed the work as they had failed inspection multiple times. He related that the Board really did not have much authority to carry out enforcement, but including the County in the process would give them much more strength. He stated that he had done this for a living, and a person was not going to beat code enforcement. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board would need a truer part of the code enforcement process. The Town Attorney stated that he would review it with Mrs. Clary, but the zoning permit should say that the zoning permit is issued upon the following conditions, copy of which are attached to exhibit A. Mr. Hill reiterated that as a Board, they did not have much enforcement authority. He added that most people listened to what they requested they do, but there were some people who were not likely to comply. He used a house in Riverview as an example that had not had an inspection completed on it since it was framed-in and now was up for sale. The Town Attorney asked Mrs. Clary if the consultant would be using information that was already available for the guidelines or would they start from scratch. Mrs. Clary reported that part of the RFP was specifically to update the guidelines with materials and application procedures. The Town Attorney reported that one beneficial part of the existing guidelines was that they included examples of the historical architectural styles and drawings that included why things should be done a certain way. He advised against excluding that existing aspect of the guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney echoed the sentiment and added that he hoped that they don’t lose what they already have. Mrs. Clary clarified that the goal was to build upon what was already in place and then expand from that foundation. The Town Attorney reported receiving feedback that residents had appreciated the visuals that were provided in the guidelines currently. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board is consistently introduced to new products and technologies, where they frequently relied on Mr. Hill’s expertise as a contractor in reviewing. He questioned if there was a way that the Board could reach out to companies providing the different materials and products and request samples to become better educated. He continued that this allows the Board to recommend different options to applicants who were having difficulty complying with the guidelines. The Town Attorney advised against promotion of specific products. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged the Town Attorney’s point. He stated that frequently they are approving products that they did not know about prior, using the approval of the LP Smart Siding earlier in the meeting. Vice Chair Hillegass reported that the Board then sets a precedent for the next applicant who needed to utilize that type of product. Mr. Hill reminded the Board that they had approved use of LP Smart Siding before on a house on Clay Street. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 The Town Attorney reported that LP Smart Siding is popular in beach communities as Hardie plank, which is made of concrete, does not hold up well in high-wind environments. Mr. Hill reported that there was an even newer siding on the market called Nichiha that was similar to Hardie plank but did not come pre-finished. Mr. Hess agreed that there should not be promotion of products, but he felt that if they were going to deny an application they should be able to provide information on possible alternatives. Mr. Hill stated that the Board should know what they have approved in the past. Chairman Gwaltney questioned if they could provide a list of products that had been approved in the past. Mrs. Lally pointed out that there had been many different circumstances surrounding some of their approvals in the Historic District. She stated that it often depended on the area, whether the material was grandfathered in, etc. She added that just because a product had been previously approved did not mean it should be approved in every situation. Chairman Gwaltney reported that it was also difficult to sometimes remember some products that they had approved. He reiterated if that data was recorded in a referenceable way it would be beneficial, whether provided to the public or not. Chairman Gwaltney reported that he often fields questions regarding non-structural or non-architectural construction within the Historic District, using statuaries, trees, and parking areas as examples. He questioned how far other Historic District Boards were able to go in their reach. The Town Attorney reported that it was not within the Board’s jurisdiction. Mr. Hill asked if the guideline that a tree within twenty-five feet (25’) of a structure and can possibly cause damage can be taken down with authority by the Historic Board was still correct. Mrs. Clary reported that usually Town Staff is contacted by the applicant and typically the tree is leaning or clearly could damage the structure, so the zoning permit waiver is issued for the tree’s removal. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he was not pushing for the expansion of their reach, but just wanted to ask the question as they were looking at updating the guidelines. He gave the example of their voting on the placing of the painted pigs placed around town, and that he was pretty certain there was no mention of such approval necessary in the guidelines. Several members discussed previous Board involvement with applications that did not involve structures or fencing. The Town Attorney pointed out that there were aspects included in the zoning ordinance that did let the Board have approval power of these different elements. He read directly from the ordinance “to extent which a building, structure, or a pertinent element will be harmonious or architecturally compatible with other historic buildings within the subject overlay.” He added that the Board did have the authority, but they had to look for it. Mr. Hill inquired if that meant a driveway would fall under that category. The Town Attorney questioned how far the Board wanted to go with their involvement. Mrs. Brown pointed out that there were also sections in the ordinance that referenced off- street parking and landscaping. 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 The Town Attorney repeated the question of how far the Board wanted to go. He used the example of someone wanting to build a concrete driveway and asked if the Board would want to dictate what materials could be used. Chairman Gwaltney stated it would depend on how harmonious it was with the historic buildings. Mrs. Lally stated that it had more to do with someone installing something and not coming before the Board first to request approval. Vice Chair Hillegass concurred and asked how they could eliminate the after-the-fact applications. Chairman Gwaltney revisited the point that they had tried to do that a few years ago with the educational outreach. He gave the example of information being dispensed to new Historic District residents by the Town when they are applying for services. Mrs. Brown reported that she owned property in the Portsmouth Historic District and just last week they received cards in the mail informing them of what link to go to, to see the updated codes. Chairman Gwaltney referenced that there is usually this type of information included in the Town’s informational mailers, but he was unsure how many were actually getting read. He questioned if it was really so complicated to reach out to the owners of the Historic District properties with guideline information. Additionally, he asked if this would require their asking for a budget for the postage necessary. The Town Attorney reported that they could ask for a budget and explain why it would be necessary. Mrs. Lally inquired about who the Board should approach about financing for the mailing of the brochures. The Town Attorney reported that the only body that could appropriate money was the Town Council. Mrs. Clary reported that it could be included with the budget requests. Mrs. Brown reported that she had sent Mrs. Clary notes that she had made while reviewing the Historic District Guidelines. She asked Mrs. Clary if she could forward the information to the rest of the Board for review and recommended that they incorporate any additional comments. Mr. Hill recalled that in the guidelines it did not include that the “good side” of fences must face out. He added that this was a requirement in many neighboring localities and should be clearly written in the guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney stated that though he was unsure it was necessarily a guideline issue, he would love for the Board to be able to communicate to the public more. Mr. Hornback agreed that there was much misinformation within the Historic District about approvals. Chairman Gwaltney reiterated the need for educational outreach in the community. He outlined the possibility of having monthly excerpts of the guidelines sent to the residents to keep them better informed. He stated that he wanted the BHAR to be seen as friendly and approachable. Mr. Hill stated that he felt that the Board’s reputation in the community had improved. 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review February 21st, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney discussed that the community will frequently reach out when there is a project that they do not think should be approved, adding that he and Mr. Hill will often field phone calls questioning if they had been reviewed by the Board. Mr. Hess stated that he would like to address the authority of the Board in the updated guidelines. The Town Attorney reported that the Board can tell residents how they can repair or update their property, but the Board could not make them comply. He continued that the Board could require them to use certain materials. He used the previous owner of the Pierceville property as an example, stating that they could request a homeowner to repair a property, but they could not make them. Chairman Gwaltney asked for confirmation if the Town was in the process of formulating a required maintenance process. The Town Attorney reported that prior to the pandemic, he had been in talks with the Isle of Wight County Attorney about the ability of the Town to get a Deputy Building Official which would allow for better enforcement of the building code. He clarified that a Building Official could enforce guidelines in a way that the BHAR could not. Mr. Hill stated that there were houses that were dilapidated with siding coming off the sides that the Board really could not do anything about. Chairman Gwaltney stated that for a time the Board thought that they could. Mr. Hornback inquired what the threshold was for a property to be considered blighted. The Town Attorney reviewed that the dilapidation of a structure needed to be more severe than just needing paint to be considered blighted. Mrs. Clary reported that in order to be considered blighted, a structure would need to be unsecured, and missing doors and windows. She added there were four (4) aspects of criteria that they would need to meet outlined in the Code. Vice Chair Hillegass inquired if there was a timeline they could be given on when the work sessions would be held. Mrs. Clary reported that there was no additional information to give at this time, and reported that the RFP for the Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO) and Historic Property Overlay (HPO) was six (6) to nine (9) months for completion. Chairman Gwaltney encouraged the other members of the Board to respond to questions and information sent by the Planning Department keeping an open line of communication during the update process. Mrs. Clary reported that Town staff would collect the Board’s thoughts and ideas, organize them, and keep the consultants focused on certain areas of the guidelines to help facilitate the process. She asked the Board to consider different waiver alternatives that could be included that they were comfortable with so that some issues could be taken care of administratively. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mrs. Clary if she anticipated another discussion session after Town staff organized all the comments made tonight. Mrs. Clary reported that an outline of what was discussed could be prepared for the Board to review and then confer further prior to their meeting with the consultants. 10