Board of Historic & Architectural Review

Tuesday April 11th, 2023 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, April 18th, 2023 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, April 18th, 2023, 6:30 PM 1) Planner’s Report: - The application for the proposed demolition of the accessory structure located at 111 North Church Street has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. - A Board of Zoning Appeals meeting is scheduled for 7:30 PM tonight. 2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities Monday, April 24th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meeting Monday, May 8th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, May 16th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Tuesday, May 16th, 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting 3) Public Comments 4) Board Member Comments 5) Gazebo Renovation – 228 Main Street – Contributing – Isle of Wight County Tourism C/O Judy Winslow, applicant. (Staff report, BHAR Application, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 6) Assorted Exterior Changes (After-the-Fact) – 349 Grace Street – Contributing – Karen England, applicant. (Staff report, BHAR Application, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 7) Brick Facade for New Construction – Lot 407 South Church Street (TPIN: 21A-01- 407) – Non-Contributing – Mike Wilda, applicant. (Staff report, BHAR Application, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 8) Fence (BHAR Approval renew) – 223 N Church Street – Non-Contributing – Ernest Dent, applicant. (Staff report, BHAR Application, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 9) Approval of the Tuesday, March 21st, 2023 Meeting Minutes (enclosed). 10) Adjournment ***ATTENTION*** 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, April 18th, 2023, 6:30 PM Applicant Isle of Wight County Tourism C/O Judy Winslow Owner Town of Smithfield 310 Institute Street Smithfield, VA 23431 Property 228 Main Street TPIN 21A-01-108 0.27 ac N side of Main Street 181’ NE of Institute Street and Main Street Classification Contributing (228 Main Street) Zoning Downtown (D), Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DN-R) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) Adjacent Zoning D, DN-R & HPO Project Description As a part of the ongoing Main Street Gazebo renovations (approved September 20th, 2022), the applicant is seeking approval for a color change of the Main Street Gazebo ceiling from white to light blue color known as “Bay View” from Ace Hardware. Additionally, to provide privacy to the rear of 224 Main Street (Beyond Main), the applicant is proposing to erect a six-foot (6’) tall, spaced wooden picket fence. The fence will match the fence style found throughout Hayden’s Lane and will be stained in a semi-transparent Gunstock to match the previously approved footbridge (Approved 2023- 03-21). The fence will feature a gate that will provide a means of egress and allow the tenant at 224 Main Street to bring the trash cans to the road on trash pickup days. The finished side of the fence will face out towards Hayden’s Lane. Finally, Town Staff included photos of the ongoing gazebo project, specifically highlighting the roof structure featuring copper flashing. 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.  3 C/O Judy Winslow X This application is to paint the ceiling of the gazebo a light blue shade and install a 6' tall, stained spaced, wooden picket fence. Proposed ceiling color for Main Street Square Gazebo The proposed fence will match the existing style of fence on Hayden’s Lane and will be stained in Gunstock to match the proposed footbridge  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 18th, 2023, 6:30 PM Applicant Karen England 349 Grace Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Owner Fred Midland LLC 355 Grace Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Property 349 Grace Street TPIN 21A-01-169 0.15 ac S side Grace Street 140’ E Cary Street and Grace Street Classification Contributing Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DN-R) & Historic Preservation Overlay (HP-O) Adjacent Zoning Downtown (D), DN-R & HP-O Project Description At its Tuesday, March 21st, 2023, meeting, the Board unanimously voted to table their decision for the After-the-Fact approvals for this property to allow time for Town staff to gather additional information for the exterior changes to the single-family dwelling. - The applicant replaced the vinyl siding foundation skirting that was previously installed to cover the brick foundation piers with a smooth white aluminum skirting. The applicant would like approval to keep the skirting white but has offered to paint the skirting “Vital Yellow” (SW 6392) from Sherwin-Williams, which is a color that closely matches the color of the existing vinyl siding. The foundation skirting is vital to ensure that wildlife does not use the crawlspace area for habitation. - The applicant replaced twelve (12) sets of two-over-two combined with one-over-one white vinyl windows (for a total of 24 windows) with twelve (12) two-over-two white vinyl double-hung windows. Before windows were replaced, two (2) windows (a one-over-one and a two-over-two) were in each of the twelve (12) thresholds. The applicant’s contractor removed both sets of vinyl windows and replaced them with Sunrise double-hung two-over-two white vinyl windows in the thresholds. The applicant has also replaced the brown trim material around all the windows with a smooth white aluminum trim material. Town staff has determined that all series of windows  manufactured by Sunrise Windows and Doors are made of vinyl material; however, this vinyl material similarly matches the Custom Vinyl Products windows that were installed in the Family Center addition of Trinity United Church located at 201 Cedar Street. - The applicant replaced the rear wooden deck that was painted grey, which featured white latticework between the handrails and deck boards instead of balusters. The new grey color Trex composite deck features white PVC railings to closely match the style of front porch railings and as well as featuring white PVC skirting. Additionally, the applicant has requested an amendment to a prior approval from March 21st, 2023, for a color change to paint the twenty (20) vinyl louvered shutters, all exterior trim on the house, and the porch flooring a deep blue color known as “Marea Baja” (SW 9185) from Sherwin-Williams. The applicant painted the front porch flooring in the previously approved “Georgian Bay” (SW “6509”) and found the color to be too bright when exposed to sunlight. All other previously approved (2023-03-21) color changes will remain the same, which include the following: - Repainting the front porch handrails from brown to a white color, “Pure White” (SW 7005), from Sherwin-Williams to match the existing white balusters and columns. - Painting the porch ceiling from a brown color to a sky-blue color known as “Aviary Blue” (SW 6778) from Sherwin-Williams. Zoning Recommendation Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to BHAR for architectural discretion. For inquiries, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov. 2  -�������������������������������������� .-i!!I..... � TOWN OF SMITHFIELD 310 Institute Street, PO Box 246, Smithfield, VA 23431 Tel: 1-(757)-365-4200 Fax: 1-(757)-357-9933 www. smithfieldva. gov BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) APPLICATION - Date of Application¥ Date of Meeting ____ In accordance with Article 3.M of the Zoning Ordinance, this application must be completed and all materials as requested below must be submitted to the town at least 21 days before the regularly scheduled BHAR meeting. If any new materials are submitted at the meeting, then the BHAR may table the application. The BHAR meets the 3rd Tuesday of the month (unless otherwise noted) at 6:30 pm in conference rooms A&B at the Smithfield Center, 220 North Church Street. D New Construction □ New Accessory Structure □ New Fence □ New Shed □ ;£Ei Siding Change ::j::�:::;;,:: "J§:?Ej' ° E:S: NOTE: The BHAR strongly encourages cement siding (i.e., "hardi-plank") as a more suitable alternative to vinyl siding. 30-y,aca-ect,ral sh gl la es. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Please submit roof, siding, brick, and color samples; window details; elevations of the structure; site plan/ survey, height of structure (if applicable); colored drawings (drawn to scale), refer to Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance for sign regulations. DECLARATION OF CONSENT: By signing below, the property owner/applicanUagent consents to entry upon the subject property by public officers, employees, and agents of the Town of Smithfield to view the site for purposes of processing, evaluating or deciding this application. w......-!!'�......::��........a.!:........-::_.......-.:::::......-.::. Before Renovations During Renovations Sunrise Premier Omega 12 Plus Window Info  Grey Trex decking boards with White PVC handrails and balusters  White PVC deck skirting used on all three open sides of the renovated deck • Porch painted “Georgian Bay” with sample of “Marea Baja” (SW 9185) from Sherwin-Williams • All exterior trim, 20 louvered shutters, and the front porch flooring will be painted in the “Marea Baja” if approved. Current Color of Vinyl Siding Proposed Color for porch ceiling Repainting the columns and railings white  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 18th, 2023 6:30 PM Applicant Michael Wilda 122 Barcroft Lane Smithfield, VA 23430 Owner Michael and Kristin Wilda 122 Barcroft Lane Smithfield, VA 23430 Property 325 South Church Street (Lot 407) TPIN 21A-01-407 0.24 ac N side South Church Street 325’ NE Jericho Road and South Church Street Classification Non-Contributing Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DN-R), Historic Preservation Overlay (HP-O), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay (CB-O), Floodplain Overlay (FP-O), Environmental Conservation (EC) Adjacent Zoning DN-R, HPO, CB-O, FP-O, EC Project Description At its Tuesday, March 21st, 2023 meeting, the Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) conditionally approved the new construction of a single-family dwelling on Lot 407 South Church Street (TPIN: 21A-01-407). More specifically, the Board conditioned its approval on the following items: 1. All exterior siding shall be Hardie Board composite material, and the trim will be LP Smart Siding, 2. All proposed windows will be constructed out of a composite material, 3. The handrails on the front and rear porches will be a wrought iron-like material, and 4. The applicant shall return to the Board with the proposed brick color for the cladding of the concrete block foundation. The applicant has provided a sample of the “Portsmouth” style red brick from Triangle Brick that is proposed as the cladding material for the concrete block foundation for the Board’s review and approval. The brick is a warm red color. The middle small window (first floor) has been removed. Zoning Recommendation Town staff defer to the BHAR for the architectural discretion; however, the applicant must submit an approved site plan and all required applications to Town staff for a new single-family dwelling before construction can begin. Additionally, if any work is to be conducted from the right-of-way, a Right-of-Way Permit will be required. For inquiries, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov. “Portsmouth” style red brick (Applicant samples) Proposed “Portsmouth” brick finished product  BOARD OF HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BHAR) STAFF REPORT Tuesday, April 18th, 2023 6:30 PM Applicant Ernest Dent 223 North Church Street Smithfield, VA 23430 Owner Ibid. Property 223 North Church Street TPIN 21A-01-071 0.66 ac W side North Church Street 463’ NW of North Church Street, Thomas Street and Luter Drive Classification Non-Contributing Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DN-R), Historic Preservation Overlay (HP-O), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay (CB-O) & Floodplain Overlay (FP-O) Adjacent Zoning Downtown (D), DN-R, HP-O, CB-O, FP-O Project Description The applicant is seeking renewed approval to erect a six-foot (6’) tall salt- treated dog-eared wooden privacy fence in the side yards of the property, with the good side facing out. The applicant originally received approval from the BHAR for this project on May 18th, 2021. Zoning Recommendation Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint under the condition that the fence is painted white or stained and defer to BHAR for architectural discretion. For inquiries, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov. Proposed 6’ tall salt-treated wooden privacy fence.  The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, March 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 Justin Hornback Russell Hill Gary Hess Members absent: Laura Brown Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Tammie Clary – Director of Planning and Community Development Mark Kluck – Planner Jeff Brooks – Councilmember, Town Council Judy Winslow – Director of Tourism Press: None Citizens: 19 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed everyone to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, reported that there was no additional information to report at this time. Public Comments: Chairman Gwaltney reported that there were sign-ups for the public comments and requested that when the speaker’s name was called that they come up to the podium and state their name and address. Richard Fortier of 331 South Church Street in Smithfield said that he was present this evening to listen to what the BHAR had to say regarding the Wilda’s proposal for a new home on Lot 407. He said that he had concerns that he wanted to pass on before the proposal was presented. He reported that 331 South Church Street, where he lives, was built in 1885 and was classified as a Landmark Property in the Historic District. Mr. Fortier stated that he has lived in the home since 1987. He reported that he was concerned about parking in front of his property, as well as the Wilda’s property, during construction of the proposed home. He added that Lot 407 was a very narrow lot, and he wanted to ensure that his property rights were protected during the construction process. Mr. Fortier continued that he was also concerned about final parking places for the Wilda’s as the two spaces in front of his property are occupied by his family’s two vehicles. He Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 concluded that those were his concerns, that he was looking forward to having the Wilda’s as his neighbors, and reiterated that he wanted to ensure that his property rights were protected during the process. Bob Hines of 216 Washington Street in Smithfield observed that one of the items on the agenda was the footbridge at Hayden’s Lane. He reported that he had been told that there would be an opening in that area to allow performers utilizing the stage to be able to move to and from the area. He requested that a gate be included in the plans. He explained that he felt that leaving it open would ruin the ambiance of the path as it was a private little lane. He stated that having a gate placed there that could be closed when there were no performances or events going on would keep the lane private as it was before. Mr. Hines additionally stated that he has brought up the Pierceville property multiple times at several different board meetings and was always told that the boards hadn’t seen anything to review. He continued that Mr. Luter had shown plans for the development at a community meeting at Main Street Baptist Church, and anyone who had been there would know what he said. He reported that the information that Mr. Luter was trying to push through in the zoning originally was pretty much what he was going to be requesting, including four (4) story apartment buildings. He added that Mr. Luter had officially revealed that he would be selling the phase that included houses to a different developer. Mr. Hines stated that he knew that BHAR would have to approve the exterior appearance of the proposed buildings, and questioned where in the process their consideration would fall. He additionally asked if after the application officially came through, would BHAR review the elevations or would the Planning Commission, and if the building height would be considered part of the exterior design of the building. Vicky Adams of 107 Thomas Street in Smithfield said that her backyard was a very old barn. She reported that she is very familiar with it as she has looked at it every day for the past 7 years, adding that it had a personality all of its own. She compared it to herself as she ages. She described the character of the building including that the squirrels use the barn for a playground, and that there were pieces of metal from the roof coming off. She stated that the building had a story to tell and was also a piece of history. She continued that for all they knew the barn could have been there during the time that the Smithfield Inn was occupied by the Virginia Patriots. Mrs. Adams speculated that the Patriots would ride in on horses and need a place to store them, utilizing that barn. She stated that in a perfect world with unlimited money, she would like to see the barn turned into an educational facility with a gift shop and demonstration area. She acknowledged that today, that was not feasible. Mrs. Adams stated that she had a “Henry Clay Compromise” idea and suggested that it be made into a Ghost Barn. She explained that in Philadelphia there were “ghost structures” where the original historical homes that were no longer there due to fire, etc., kept an outline of the basic structure with an informational plaque that described what the structure had been, who could have utilized it, or what was done at that spot. She stated that used in this way it was a monument of information and knowledge. Mrs. Adams said that she didn’t think the barn should totally disappear, but maybe there could be that compromise where Smithfield Foods gives the Town a wonderful gift. Mrs. Adams expanded that she wanted to see the sunlight at some point in her backyard, but she did not want to see the barn removed because once it was gone, a piece of history was gone. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that no other attendees wished to speak during the public comment section of the meeting. Board Member Comments: Chairman Gwaltney stated that he wanted to address Mr. Hines’ earlier question and asked the Town Attorney to assist him in explaining the application review process for proposed developments in the Historic District. He reported that BHAR would review the plans for anything that deals with the exterior design elements. He clarified that BHAR did not address anything dealing with the building codes as they did not govern those aspects. He said that BHAR would not have any governance in the height of the buildings, but the Board would be able to weigh in if they felt that there was inconsistency in the heights. Chairman Gwaltney reported that any decision on whether a building could or could not be a certain height would fall on the Planning Commission after BHAR completed its review. He summarized that BHAR would have the first review of colors, trim, window style, etc., and then that information was passed on to the Planning Commission where then they discuss items such as building size, parking requirements, etc. The Town Attorney added that BHAR would assess if what was presented was appropriate as denoted in the Historic District guidelines. New Construction – Lot 407 South Church Street (TPIN: 21A-01-407) – Non-Contributing – Mike Wilda, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant is seeking approval to erect a new single-family detached dwelling located at 325 South Church Street (Lot 407). The proposed dwelling would feature a gabled roof covered by a pewter, gray-colored architectural shingle, preceded by white- colored Hardie board eaves (soffits and fascia). The second-story peak at the front of the house would feature a white vinyl octagonal window trimmed with white Hardie Board. He continued that the second-story peak located at the rear of the house will feature a circular white vinyl vent. The exterior walls of the house would be covered in “Evening Blue” (JH70-30) horizontally lapped Hardie board siding and white-colored Hardie board trim. Mr. Kluck reported that the house would rest on a concrete-walled foundation which will be clad in red “Williamsburg” style brick, a white colored balustrade, and white-colored wooden columns. The single-story front porch would also feature a gabled roof supported by white wooden or vinyl with woodgrain impression railings and white wooden square columns. He stated that the house would be accessed by a King’s Red colored composite front door. Mr. Kluck continued that the front of the house will feature a series of white vinyl fixed glass windows and two single-pane vinyl casement windows, with the sides of the home will have primarily one-over-one (1/1) double-hung sash white vinyl windows, and some basement and bath windows being fixed glass or casement design in a white vinyl material. He said that the basement will be accessed through a King’s Red colored fiberglass door. All windows will be bordered by white Hardie board trim. A two (2) car attached garage on the rear façade of the home will be accessed via a white-painted steel Craftsman-style garage door which will enter the 2 basement. The rear of the home will include a deck constructed out of treated lumber and 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 composite lumber material painted white and the wooden deck would be accessed by a white fiberglass door with no proposed windows. Mr. Kluck stated that as a part of the same application, the applicant proposed erecting a ten foot (10’) by twelve-foot (12’) by nine and one-half foot (9.5’) tall white wooden shed with a gabled roof adorned with pewter gray architectural shingles. He added that the shed would feature one entrance which will consist of a white-painted wooden door and will not feature any windows or trim materials. Mr. Kluck related that Town Staff defer to the BHAR for the architectural discretion; however, the applicant must submit an approved site plan and all required applications to Town staff for a new single-family dwelling before construction can begin. Additionally, if any work is to be conducted from the right-of-way, a Right-of-Way Permit will be required. Mike Wilda of 327 Jordan Drive in Smithfield was present to speak about the application and reported that he was excited to build a home downtown. Mr. Hornback inquired if the shed description was included in the application. Mr. Kluck stated that there was no rendering included of the shed. Chairman Gwaltney summarized that the description of the shed was present but in words only. He added that he was curious about where the placement of the shed would be on the property. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that there was no site plan included to review. Mr. Hornback asked Mr. Kluck to recap the shed placement. Mr. Kluck directed the Board members to page 9 of the PDF, which included a picture provided by using Google Earth. He stated that the proposed shed would be placed in the same line as the existing shed at 315 South Church Street in the middle of the property. Mr. Wilda reported that he did have a copy of the land survey if the Board would like to review the material. Mr. Kluck added that the handrails on the front porch would be made of wood or vinyl with wood impressions. Mr. Wilda stated that for the handrails they were additionally considering the use of wrought iron steel and presented a sample to the Board. He asked the Board members to let him know if they had a preference as to what the railing should be comprised of. Mrs. Lally stated that her concern was not with the rails but was with the use of vinyl windows. She related that the area in which the house would be built included houses that did not have vinyl windows. She acknowledged that the house would be new construction. Mr. Wilda reported that they were currently considering going with the Andersen 100 windows, which are made of composite materials. He stated that he had included vinyl in the application as he was still trying to calculate the cost of building the house and new construction was very expensive. Mr. Hill asked for confirmation that the Andersen 100 was a true composite window. Mr. Wilda replied that it was made of an Andersen proprietary material, was not made of vinyl, but was made of Fibrex which was a composite. He explained that the windows were very easy to repair if damaged. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mr. Hill inquired if Mr. Wilda had considered what grid size he would want in the windows. Mr. Wilda replied that the windows would have a standard grid size as illustrated in the photos provided. He added if the Board wanted to recommend a different grid size he would be happy to consider it. Mr. Hill specified that he was asking about whether the grid would be contoured or flat within the window. Mr. Wilda reported that it would be a flat grid in the window. Mr. Hill said that Andersen had a contoured grid as well that looked a lot better, even from the road. Chairman Gwaltney asked where they could be seen. Mr. Wilda stated that Saunders would have a sample to see, since they were Andersen dealers. Mr. Hill offered that if they did not, 84 Lumber would have samples as well. Chairman Gwaltney asked if Mr. Wilda had considered shutters for the house. Mr. Wilda explained that the house would only be 28 feet wide and would have 5 windows across the top. He added that if they did fit shutters in, they could only be 4 or 5 inches wide. Mr. Hess reviewed that one citizen had already expressed concern about parking issues associated with the proposed home. He stated that he would like to hear Mr. Wilda’s response to concerns about parking during construction and ongoing. Mr. Wilda stated that after construction parking on the road would remain as it is, adding that he did not think that alterations were allowed. He stated that during construction there was no way that the parking in front of the property was not going to be impacted. He reported that for the first couple of months there would be digging, and then they would utilize superior walls, which he was told would only take four (4) hours to set. He continued that once the walls were set and the foundation loads were done, then the construction drive would open up a bit. He acknowledged that initially during the first part of construction parking would be a challenge. Mr. Hess asked for confirmation that there would be a rear-entry garage. Mr. Wilda stated that was correct. He continued that once construction was complete there would be parking below and there were three parking spots in front of the property with one (1) available for his property and two (2) for the Fortier’s. Mr. Hornback asked if the plan was to utilize the existing driveway cutout. Mr. Wilda replied that there was an existing driveway cutout, but he wasn’t sure why. He reported that it was his understanding that the lot did not exist until 2018. The Town Attorney reported that the lot had always been in existence but had been reconfigured. Mr. Wilda confirmed that they would use the existing cutout, then carry the driveway down the property line. Mr. Hess inquired if the garage held 1 or 2 cars. Mr. Wilda reported that it was a 2-car garage, which took up the majority of the basement. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mr. Hill asked if the superior wall was ordered with a full brick façade going all the way up. Mr. Wilda explained that the wall had a brick ledge, so the brick would need to be installed the rest of the way up. Mr. Hill asked if the laid brick would be on the sides as well as the front of the house. Mr. Wilda stated that was correct. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if a site plan had laid out the turn leading into the garage. Mr. Wilda said that it had. Mr. Hill inquired what the fill on the front porch would be. Mr. Wilda replied that the porch would be made of concrete. Mr. Hornback stated that he would like to acknowledge that the BHAR had approved the previous owner’s application for a very similar construction on the same property prior to this current application. The Town Attorney recalled that the prior application had proposed a much larger house. Mr. Hill inquired if the wrought iron handrail would be used on the front and back of the house. Mr. Wilda confirmed that was the plan. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if Mr. Wilda had considered what side of the house the air conditioning units would be placed on. Mr. Wilda stated that there was only one option as the driveway was on the other side. Vice Chair Hillegass inquired if the Planning Commission would be reviewing the site plan for the proposed house next month. Mr. Kluck confirmed that they would not as this was a single-family dwelling. Mr. Hornback inquired if all the trees would need to be taken down on the lot. Mr. Wilda stated that there were three (3) trees on the lot currently. He reported that the trees that would be removed would be an old dogwood near the driveway that was already dying and a tall pine that was also dying. He confirmed that the tree on the right at the mouth of the driveway cut-out would not be removed as it was not on the lot. Mrs. Lally stated that she just wanted to confirm what the material the rails would be comprised of. Mr. Wilda stated that it was actually steel but had been given a wrought-iron finish. Mr. Hill made a motion to accept the application as presented with the following conditions: 1. All exterior siding and trim shall be Hardie Board or a composite material, 2. All proposed windows will be constructed out of composite material, and 3. The handrails on the front and rear porches will use a wrought iron-like material. Mr. Hill added that the only other concern he had was whether the brick that would be used on the foundation would have a historic brick appearance or a more 1950s type of red brick appearance. He added that the use of a bright red, flat-faced brick would make the property look strange. Mr. Wilda reported that he was not choosey on the appearance of the brick. He stated that it was Williamsburg Red and would bring a sample to Chairman Gwaltney or any other Board 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 member for review. He reported that he chose that shade brick as the previous Board approved the house plan that had included it. Kristin Wilda asked to comment, reporting that she and Mr. Wilda were owners of the historic property at 124 Main Street which was the old Gaming House. She explained that they had experience with improving historic property and felt honored to be a part of Smithfield’s history. She added that they were good caretakers of that property and would be good caretakers of the proposed house on South Church Street. Mr. Wilda reported that the trim would be LP Smart Siding and the house siding would be Hardie. Chairman Gwaltney recapped that there had been a motion made with three conditions listed. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. The Town Attorney offered that if the Board wanted to see the brick prior to construction then there was time for Mr. Wilda to come back next month and present a sample to them. Chairman Gwaltney added the condition that the applicant would also bring a sample of the brick they would like to use for the Board’s consideration. He confirmed with Vice Chair Hillegass that her second to the motion still stood. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Assorted Exterior Changes – 349 Grace Street – Contributing – Karen England, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant is seeking approval for a color change to the twenty (20) vinyl louvered shutters, all exterior trim on the house, and the porch railings. He stated that the existing shutters were a brown color which the applicant has requested to change to a dark blue color known as “Georgian Bay” (SW 6509) from Sherwin Williams. The applicant has also requested to paint all the exterior trim on the single-family dwelling in the same blue color as the shutters, “Georgian Bay” (SW 6509). He added that the applicant has requested to change the color of the front porch handrails from brown to a white color, “Pure White” (SW 7005), from Sherwin Williams the balusters and columns are currently painted white; the applicant will be repainting these items in the same color. Additionally, the applicant would like to change the color of the porch ceiling from a brown color to a sky-blue color known as “Aviary Blue” (SW 6778) from Sherwin-Williams. For reference, the existing vinyl siding on the house is a yellow color that closely matches “Vital Yellow” (SW 6392) from Sherwin-Williams. Mr. Kluck stated that the applicant was also seeking after-the-fact approval for assorted exterior changes to the following architectural features: - The foundation skirting that was previously installed was the same vinyl siding currently on the house that was turned vertically and cut to fit the opening. The applicant has replaced the yellow vinyl skirting with white steel skirting. - The replacement of twelve (12) two-over-two combined with one over-one white PVC windows with twelve (12) two-over-two white PVC windows. The applicant has stated that before the windows were replaced, two (2) windows (a one-over-one and a two-over-two) 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 were in each threshold. The applicant’s contractor removed both sets of windows and replaced them with two-over-two white PVC windows in the thresholds. The applicant has also replaced the brown trim material around all of the windows with a white aluminum trim material. - The applicant has replaced the rear wooden deck that was painted grey, which featured white latticework between the handrails and deck boards instead of balusters. The new grey color Trex composite deck features white PVC railings to closely match the front porch railings and will feature white PVC skirting. Mr. Kluck said that Town staff had issued a zoning permit waiver to repair and replace the front porch red brick step and front porch floorboards in the same color, material, and style. Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to BHAR for architectural discretion. Robert Bebermeyer of 355 Grace Street in Smithfield was present to speak about the application. He reported that he resides directly adjacent to the property. He reported that they wanted to make improvements to the property and that it had been vacant for at least 12 years. Karen England, executive assistant at Alesch Designs, stated that the Bebermeyer’s had contracted their firm to complete the renovation of the property. She reported that she had also brought the color samples if they wanted to see the actual colors that would be used. She explained that they had gone to Sherwin Williams as they had a section of colors that was specifically dedicated to Historical properties. Mr. Hess noted that the photos provided during the renovations showed that the shutters had been removed. He asked if they were planning on putting them back on the house. Mrs. England stated that the shutters had been removed so that they may be painted “Georgian Bay” blue and would be reinstalled. She added that the windows were made of a composite material that had been used prior in the Historic District. Mr. Hill stated that the biggest problem that he had with the house was the underpinning installed. He said there had to be a better option than what was used, adding that it had the appearance of a trailer skirt. He acknowledged that this was just his opinion but felt that it took away from the look of the home. Mr. Hill let them know that there was a product that was vinyl that looked like a brick that would serve the same purpose. He acknowledged that they had already installed a product, but he felt that as they were right on the street it was important to maintain appearance. Mrs. England asked if they should paint the skirting a different color. Mr. Hill explained that it was the entire appearance of the skirting that was an issue. He reiterated that it should be brick or of brick appearance. Mrs. England pointed out that it was vertically placed vinyl siding previously and that there had been changes made to the house previously that had not been approved. She described the use of two sets of windows in a single space as an example. She asked if there were any additional suggestions for the house skirting. Mr. Hill again suggested the use of vinyl with the appearance of brick. Mrs. England questioned if the use of vinyl would be allowed. 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mr. Hornback said that there was a certain amount of grandfathering in materials allowed, adding that there had been vinyl used before. He explained that using vinyl to replace wood was not appropriate. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if the applicant had considered painting the steel skirting a brick color. Mrs. England said that had been her question prior, but the indication was that she could not. Mr. Hill stated that painting the skirting would help, conceding that the opinion of not liking the appearance of the steel was just his own. Chairman Gwaltney said that the use of the color white in the skirting made it have the appearance of what might be found on a mobile home. He stated that the Board had frequently discussed painting cinderblock. Mr. Hill agreed with Chairman Gwaltney that painting the steel skirting a red or rust color would look better. Mrs. England proposed that it should look similar to the front porch brick color. Chairman Gwaltney said that since the skirting was down the sides of the house and not directly in front, painting it would make it the type of skirting much less noticeable. Vice Chair Hillegass asked Chairman Gwaltney if the Board should make consideration of the color change separate from the after-the-fact changes. The Town Attorney stated that separating the two was a good idea. Vice Chair Hillegass reported that she had seen the color palette presented on a few different houses before and made a motion to approve the color change for the shutters, all exterior trim, the front porch handrails, and the front porch ceiling 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 to approve the proposed color changes passed. Vice Chair Hillegass asked for confirmation that the windows were made of a composite material. Mrs. England confirmed that was correct, adding that they were polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and vinyl composite. Mr. Hess inquired if it was the Andersen 100 windows. Mrs. England said she wasn’t sure of the brand but did not think it was Andersen. She reported that the contractors that installed them had been through Nansemond-Suffolk. She added that the contractor had told her that all new window installations utilized composite material, it could be touched up easily, and there was a lifetime warranty. Mrs. Hillegass questioned if Town Staff had seen the windows. Mr. Kluck reported that the only reason the window change had been reported was that they had been listed as having been removed when the Town Staff asked what changes had been made to the house. 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Tammie Clary, Director of Community Planning and Development, clarified that Town Staff had not physically approached the windows to complete an inspection as completed in previous situations. Mrs. England said that the replacement windows had the same gridding as the previous windows had. Mrs. Clary reported that if the Board would like, Town Staff would go back out to the house and provide more detailed pictures of the windows. Vice Chair Hillegass pointed out that there were no pictures provided of the changes made to the back deck. Mr. Bebermeyer stated that he had a picture of the deck prior to its update. Mrs. England showed the Board a sample of the material used for the back deck. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she would feel more comfortable if the Town Staff completed a more in-depth inspection of the after-the-fact changes. She reported that the Board did not like after-the-fact approvals and she wanted to ensure that everything was done correctly. Mr. Bebermeyer apologized to the Board as he had been under the impression that if the windows were replaced with the same material and gridding that they did not need Board approval. He added that the deck had previously not seemed to be visible from Grace Street due to its age and color, so he did not know it needed to be approved as well. Vice Chair Hillegass made the motion to table the after-the-fact changes to allow Town Staff to conduct a site visit and review the materials. She encouraged the owners not to make any additional changes that had not gone through the approval process. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion to table the after-the-fact approvals passed. Mr. Bebermeyer asked for clarification on whether painting the skirting was part of the motion. Chairman Gwaltney replied that his impression was that the Board was in agreement to give the skirting color change a shot and encouraged him to start looking at colors. Vice Chair Hillegass recommended he notify the Board of what color he wanted to use. Mrs. England stated that they had an extra panel that they could paint as a sample and bring to next month’s meeting. Demolition of Accessory Structure – 111 North Church Street – Contributing – Smithfield Foods, Inc. C/O Amy McClure, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to demolish the dilapidated forty-four foot (44’) by twenty-six foot (26’), 1,144 square foot, wooden barn located at the rear of the property. In addition to the structure currently being overrun with vegetation, a portion of the metal roof is not adequately secured to the structure, due to deteriorated materials. He explained that the floor was also decayed, making it unsafe to enter the barn for maintenance or other purposes. The wooden planks are starting to rot and fall apart around the lower portion of the barn. He reported that Town Staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to BHAR for architectural discretion. 10 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Amy McClure of 200 Commerce Street in Smithfield was present to speak about the application. She stated that the structure was near the corner of North Church Street and Main Street, and acknowledged the sentiment expressed by Mrs. Adams during the public comment section that the barn was a cool-looking building. She added that she was unsure if the structure had any architectural value. Mrs. McClure reported that the barn was built in the 1900’s to store peanuts, and that there were five or so structures like it that were built at the same time. She said that the materials used to build the barn were not high-quality, mostly 1”x 8”s and 2”x 4”s, and was not built with any sense of durability or longevity. Mrs. McClure continued that in her review of the Historic Property Overlay online, it looked like the lot that the barn was on was classified as Contributing; however, the structure itself was not Contributing. She read from the ordinance that “Structures are Non-Contributing if they are in such poor condition that retention is difficult.” She summarized that with that in mind, the structure was Non-Contributing. Mrs. McClure said that the main reason for wanting to demolish the structure was for safety. She reiterated what had been included in the Staff Report that the roof was coming undone, the siding is falling off, and the floor had deteriorated so much that you couldn’t even walk inside the structure. She stated that she would be happy to answer any questions that the Board had regarding the application. Mr. Hornback recalled that in 2016 the proposal had come before the Board with a counterproposal to build a shed or smokehouse structure to replace the barn that was demolished. He inquired if there was any consideration for that type of plan this time around. Mrs. McClure stated that they were not going to build anything to replace the barn this time. She stated that Mr. Hornback was correct, and that it had been October 2016 that the barn was approved for demolition. She reported that Smithfield Foods loves to contribute to the health of downtown Smithfield, especially on Main Street, using the rehabilitation of the Christmas Store as an example. She added to this that the barn could barely be seen by the public from the street. Mr. Hornback informed Mrs. McClure that there was a guideline that addressed retaining existing historic outbuildings, and though the 1900s did not seem that long ago the barn was over 100 years old. He described the barn as being iconic to the Town. He acknowledged that the derelict state due to the lack of maintenance and upkeep that the barn was in was a safety concern, adding that could be said for many of the buildings in Historic Downtown. Mr. Hornback said that with consideration of the guideline’s perspective of retaining existing historic outbuildings, he was not in support of the proposal. Mrs. McClure reported that she had researched the guidelines to ensure she understood them, and the level of dilapidation of the building had made it lose its historical significance. Mr. Hornback stated that the classification of the building as dilapidated was subjective. He added that the guideline that he was citing was on page 49. Vice Chair Hillegass asked Mr. Kluck if the previous approval to demolish had an expiration date. Mr. Kluck replied that the project had one (1) year to start the project and then two (2) years to complete it. 11 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney surmised that if they received approval to demolish it would not take a year to get it down. Mr. Hess said that he thought the past approval was contingent on the owner building something in its place. Chairman Gwaltney reported that he had asked Mrs. Clary to pull the information from the previous approval to review, and it seemed that they had been willing to invest money in the project the first time. He continued that the idea of replacement seemed not to be the case now. Vice Chair Hillegass inquired about why the barn had not been demolished after the first approval had been received. Mrs. McClure stated that nobody seemed to know the answer and speculated that it might have had to do with budgetary constraints. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that the decision at the time had been very controversial for the BHAR and there had been many public speakers at that meeting. Mrs. McClure explained that maintenance could not be done due to how unsafe the structure was. She told the Board that there were items that were still stored in the barn that had been put in the by the Smithfield Inn and they could not be retrieved due to safety concerns. Mr. Hill asked how long Smithfield Foods had owned the building. Mrs. McClure said that she believed that they acquired the whole parcel in 1995. She reiterated that the lot was Contributing, but the structure could barely be seen from the street. Mr. Hornback explained to Mrs. McClure that the Board had reviewed a similar issue before and the land by itself could not be deemed Contributing. He continued that what made a property Contributing, was the structures that made them qualify for that classification. Mrs. McClure said that there were likely many buildings on the lot that did make the property Contributing. The Town Attorney confirmed that the Smithfield Inn was a Landmark property. Chairman Gwaltney asked if Mrs. McClure was in a position to speak for Smithfield Foods. The Town Attorney explained that Mrs. McClure was Smithfield Foods’s attorney. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he meant could she speak for the Company when asked if Smithfield Foods would be open to doing anything other than only demolishing the building. Mrs. McClure stated that she could take the issue back for review by the engineering department. She said that she did not think that they had a need to build anything at that site, but she did not know all of the Company’s plans at this time. Vice Chair Hillegass asked what would go on the lot after demolition, specifically if it would it be turned into additional parking. Mrs. McClure said that she thought they would just tear down the building and pave over the area. She added that currently people park there who aren’t supposed to so they might put signs up to allow engineers that work for Smithfield Foods to park in that area. The Town Attorney said that the problem that the Board faced called back to issues with the Pierceville property. He explained that the Town could not require Smithfield Foods to maintain the structure as the law did not permit them to do that through Historic Preservation. He added that a building official would likely condemn the building, which created another problem. 12 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mrs. Clary stated that part of the application from 2016 included a letter from Smithfield Foods indicating that they recognized the historical value that would be removed from the area, and they had proposed giving pieces of the barn to local people to use to add value to their own projects. Mrs. McClure stated that was presently not Smithfield Foods’ position. She reiterated that Smithfield Foods felt that the structure had lost its historical significance due to its dilapidated status. She added that they would be willing to possibly sell or maybe even give away the wood to artists. She emphasized that she could not promise that they would give away the wood, but she stated that she couldn’t imagine that they would want to sell it. Mr. Hess reported that the safety issue concerned him. He asked how the barn was secured. Mrs. McClure stated that she thought that it was currently secured by the use of a padlock. Chairman Gwaltney asked if Mrs. McClure could go back to the administration and present what the BHAR had communicated to see if they were willing to come back with any additional proposals. Mrs. McClure stated that she could take the information back to Smithfield Foods but given the large expense of the rehabilitation on the Christmas Store, she did not think that there was a high probability of coming back to the BHAR with a different answer. Mr. Hill outlined that Smithfield Foods had owned the property since 1995 and let the maintenance of the building go. He continued that now they wanted to demolish the building after having neglected it for nearly 40 years. Mrs. McClure pointed out that it also said in the guidelines that if the building was not constructed with a unique structure or built with unique materials then it was considered Non- Contributing. She stated that the barn was a prime example of this guideline. Mr. Hornback replied that the guidelines also stated that all buildings and structures should be preserved against decay, deterioration, and protected from structural defects. He stated that he understood there were contradictions within the guidelines. Mrs. McClure said that the 1 x 8’s and 2 x 4’s were not treated as they would be today. She added that she was unsure what could have been done to maintain the wood without replacing all of it. She added that 7 or 8 of these outbuildings were constructed, and only two of them were still in existence due to their rapid deterioration. Chairman Gwaltney said that made them all the more rare. Vice Chair Hillegass said that Mrs. McClure just stated what made the structures historically significant. Chairman Gwaltney repeated that seven years ago Smithfield Foods said that they would demolish the structure, get the materials, and then rebuild. He added that they had agreed to build an acceptable substitute. He stated that the point had been made by others that if buildings are neglected, they will all get to this point. Chairman Gwaltney agreed with Mrs. McClure’s earlier statement that the barn had been used for storage warehouse for peanuts and that horses could not have been kept in there as the floors were about 4 feet off the ground. He continued that the structure was one of the last of those particular buildings that remain in what is considered the former Peanut Capital of the World and that made him question if maybe extra thought should be 13 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 put into how it might be saved. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged the point made that the barn was not really visible from the street, but it was visible from other Landmark properties. He stated that perhaps with some extra care and restoration perhaps be an asset to the Town’s Inventory of Historic Buildings. He stated that he hoped that the concern shown by the BHAR, and members of the public present should be conveyed to Smithfield Foods. Chairman Gwaltney speculated that they could still say no, but he felt the BHAR was not doing their job if they didn’t request that Mrs. McClure try. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to table the agenda item to allow Smithfield Foods to come back with a plan for either restoring the barn or a plan to demolish the barn and erect a new structure. Mr. Hornback seconded the motion. Mrs. Lally stated that she was in agreement with Chairman Gwaltney’s assertion that it was a shame to tear down a peanut barn in the Peanut Capital of the World. She reported that she was also in agreement that the barn did not hold horses or livestock as they would not climb the stairs as shown. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion to table the item passed. Mrs. McClure inquired if she would need to complete an additional application. The Town Attorney reported that it was to be continued until next month’s meeting and that no additional application was needed. New Fence – 400 Main Street – Landmark – Clarence Shuler, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect a six-foot (6’) tall dog- eared wooden privacy fence on the property line between his property and 103 Cary Street. The six-foot fence will match the fence style of the existing fence located at the rear of the property, with the finished side facing the neighboring property on Cary Street. The applicant has also proposed adding a stain to the proposed fence that will match the existing fence and the trim color on the house once the fence is installed. Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to BHAR for architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that there was no one present to speak about the application. Mr. Hornback reported that the proposal was in accordance with the guidelines. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve as presented. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion to approve as presented passed. Footbridge to Hayden’s Lane for Main Street Gazebo – 228 Main Street and Hayden’s Lane – Contributing – Isle of Wight County Tourism C/O Judy Winslow, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that as a part of the ongoing Main Street Gazebo renovations (approved September 20th, 2022), the applicant is seeking to erect an arched footbridge connecting the Main Street Gazebo to Hayden’s Lane. The wooden footbridge will be a total of twenty-one feet (21’) long and will have a maximum elevation of twenty-four inches (24”) at its peak. The footbridge 14 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 will feature thirty-six inch (36”) to thirty-eight inch (38”) tall handrails adorned by two-by-two inch wooden balusters. The bridge, handrails, and balusters will be stained in a medium brown semi-transparent finish known as “Gunstock.” The landings at each end of the footbridge will feature red brick paths connecting the Main Street Gazebo, the proposed footbridge, the “LOVE” sign, and the existing red brick path harmoniously. The proposed red bricks will match the existing red brick path from the Main Street sidewalk to the front door of the Smithfield Times building. Town staff recommend approval from a zoning standpoint and defer to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Judy Winslow of 319 Main Street in Smithfield was present to speak about the application. She introduced the project manager for the application, Carter Williams. Mr. Hornback asked why the footbridge was arched. Chairman Gwaltney guessed that it was seen as more attractive that way. Mr. Williams agreed that was the reason. Mrs. Winslow added that there was a little gully there as well that the bridge needed to get over. Chairman Gwaltney reported that from his own review about a week ago the bridge would actually follow at an angle, which was not shown on the rendering. He asked if the plans had changed. Mr. Williams stated that the bridge would still be going at an angle. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out to the Board members that on the drawing provided where it said “new wooden bridge” instead of being straight, the bridge had a slight angle moving upward. Mr. Williams explained that the brick walkway would meander up to the bridge, and on the other side the brick walkway would fan out to Hayden’s Lane. He added that the bridge did not look as good straight. He said that there were many flat footbridges but having an arch in it made it more appealing. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she liked the arched bridge, but questioned if it was Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. Mr. Williams reported that it passes code. He further explained that there would be grit added to the paint on the bridge to provide traction when it is walked on. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that part of the bridge would go over a drain. He asked if access to the drain would be hindered by the bridge. Mr. Williams stated that he met with Public Works, and they were fine with the placement. He continued that all utilities had been marked, additionally he encouraged the Board members to go see the site for themselves. Mrs. Winslow reported that the construction had afforded the opportunity to sell additional bricks with names on them to the public as was done on Main Street, adding that they had already sold 150. Mr. Williams said that there were 3000 to sell. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if the construction would conflict with any planned future uses of the Smithfield Times building. 15 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mrs. Winslow said that the only other business that would be moved into that building would be the Town. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the proposed changes fit in with the Town’s plans. Mr. Williams stated that if a business was placed in that building that would be affected by the installation of the bridge, then that in turn would affect the stage, and then they might as well take all of it down. Mrs. Winslow stated that she thought that one of the main reasons that the Town bought the property was to maintain Main Street Square. The Town Attorney said that was correct. Mr. Hess asked if the decking would be made of wood or a composite material. Mr. Williams answered that it was made of wood. 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 were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. *Discussion Item* - Historic District Guidelines Mrs. Clary reported that she had included a summary of what had been discussed by the Board last month. She said that she would like to focus on the subject of item #5, looking into new construction materials and building improvements, specifically in the following areas: solar panels, composite siding, window materials, and gutters. She gave the update that Town Staff was in the process of gathering sample materials for the Board’s review. Mrs. Clary encouraged the Board to let them know if there were additional materials that they would like to discuss. Mrs. Lally said that in relation to solar panels, solar shingles were also available on the market. She suggested additional research into alternative solar modalities. Mrs. Clary reviewed that the Board had also discussed the creation of a list of zoning permit waivers/zoning permits that could be administratively approved by Town Staff, as shown in item #6. She summarized that this discussion had included: the replacement of three-tab shingles to architectural shingles in the same color, foundation work, fences (as long as the good side was facing out and stained or painted white), home backup generators, and solar panels for non- contributing properties. She reiterated that if the Board has any additional items that they wanted to include in this section, please let the Town Staff know. Mrs. Clary continued that the Board had also discussed the inclusion of statues, parking areas, and landscaping during the previous meeting. She added that she had included the Educational Outreach Sub-Committee Meeting minutes from May 2nd, 2016, as well as a list of all of the recent approvals of the BHAR with information on the materials approved. Mrs. Clary reported that she had also included brochures and educational information from the Historic Districts located in the City of Fredericksburg and the City of Suffolk. She explained that the brochures and guidelines were good examples of what she would like to generate for Smithfield once the guidelines were updated. 16 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mrs. Clary said that there had been discussion of the zoning permit waiver process and dealing with after-the-fact applications. She recommended crafting a documentation process where an applicant would need to provide before and after photos. as many times Town Staff was not aware of what had been there before changes were made. Mrs. Clary directed the Board members to page 50 of the PDF where the Suffolk, Virginia Historic District Guidelines handbook began. She pointed out that the table of contents included a Quick-Reference Table for Common Projects which gave clear guidance on where information could be found in the handbook. She added that Chapter 6 of Suffolk’s handbook addressed alternative materials and the considerations that could be made for evaluating alternative materials. Mrs. Clary pointed out that on page 63 of the PDF, Suffolk’s handbook included a table that included information on the recommended timeline for maintenance of architectural features and had illustrations of a thumbs up and down to show what their preferences were. Mr. Hess asked to discuss the topic of maintenance, as it had been a topic this evening with their conversation regarding the barn. He said that the Board would likely run into the issue more frequently as over time historic properties would deteriorate and there would likely be homeowners that did not want to complete maintenance or could not afford the repairs necessary. He inquired about what the Board, and the Town of Smithfield, could do to encourage the completion of maintenance as they could not force it to be done. The Town Attorney replied that it was a topic that had been discussed for quite some time but had not had much movement on the subject. He said that one approach to deal with the issue was for Isle of Wight County to authorize the deputization of a member of the Town Staff to become a building official. He continued the County did not have the time nor the inclination to enter into that process, and that they dealt with these issues on a case-by-case basis. He explained that they did not go looking for code violations, but if there was a complaint, then they would address the issue. The Town Attorney reported that if the Town had a deputized building official, then they would have the authority to carry out building code enforcement. Mr. Hornback asked if there were codes in place that would have addressed the barn issue covered earlier in the meeting. The Town Attorney said in that specific example probably not as it was an accessory structure. He reported building codes often address safety and habitability, but he felt that the Town having its own building official was how to gain some authority in these types of issues. He gave the update that there had been meetings scheduled that were canceled, but that he and the Town Manager had been working to have the process completed. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there was any way that the BHAR could help move the process along. The Town Manager recommended that he and Mrs. Clary would report the Board’s concerns at the Town Council Committees’ meeting. He said that with all the new construction on the horizon, the issue of having a building official in Town would need to be addressed at some point. 17 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney said that he understood why the Town needed a building official but was unclear as to why the County would say that they did not want to assist. He related that it seemed that it would be a way for the County to take extra work off their plate. The Town Attorney clarified that he was not saying that they were unwilling to complete the process. He explained that Mr. Drumheller was the County Building Official, and the hypothetical Smithfield building official would need to report to him. He continued that the mechanism of how that would be possible had not been figured out as it was cross-jurisdictional. Mr. Hill added that there was not just a building official, and there were likely several other support positions that would be needed which totaled up to a lot of money for the Town to spend. The Town Attorney related that code enforcement was an extremely tough job as well as difficult to navigate due to differences in personalities. Mr. Hill discussed nuances in construction on existing historical homes versus the codes that were written today and navigating enforcement. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he felt that there had been a start to this type of communication with the County initiated. Mr. Hill replied that he knew that the Town Attorney had worked on the issue prior. The Town Attorney explained that the issue had been an initiative prior to the Covid shutdown, then everything was upended, and it was not where it had been on the priority list. Chairman Gwaltney repeated his question of what could the Board do to help aid in the process. He said that there were examples of the Town and County sharing employees including the Tourism department. The Town Attorney explained that these types of issues were much different than what the County’s Code Enforcement does, adding that they address very obvious issues such as junk removal etc. He continued that the issues that they had been describing (house painting, broken windows, etc.) were not something that they frequently addressed. He outlined that it would be a different perspective for the Town to have a building official versus what they see at the County level. Mr. Hess expressed concern that they were sending a message to property owners in the Historic District that if they wanted a structure removed, all they would need to do was let it fall apart. The Town Attorney pointed out that in the long term, Town residents knew that the way things looked now was so much better than they looked 40 years ago. He said that people who bought these houses have instilled pride in their upkeep, and the incidences of neglect were mostly isolated. Mr. Hill stated that Smithfield was fortunate to have people come to Town and have the funds to fix up the historic homes. Chairman Gwaltney said that he hoped that the Town Attorney and Town Manager would be able to move forward with getting the Town a building official. Mr. Hornback asked for clarification whether the request for proposals (RFP) to rewrite the Historic District Guidelines had been awarded, and if so had the process begun. 18 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mrs. Clary reported that the RFP was awarded, and the kick-off meeting with staff would be held this week. She added that the purpose of the discussion tonight was to highlight some of the items that they would want included in the updated guidelines. She continued by directing the Board to page 70 of the PDF which was the start of a section that included examples of common porch components, door details, window arrangements, etc. She then moved to page 126 which included a detailed section on fence guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney said that he liked the design and layout of Suffolk’s Historic District Guidelines. He added that the look and feel of it gave a sense of excitement to be a part of a historic community. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that it had made great use of examples and illustrations of what materials and designs were preferred. The Town Attorney stated that Smithfield’s guidelines could do the same thing utilizing pictures and examples of appropriate designs present in the Historic District. He added that the diagram including different names and elements of a window was very helpful as the average homeowner may not be familiar with that information. Chairman Gwaltney reported that he liked the use of a spread sheet outlining common maintenance or repairs that included information on the steps necessary for approval of each item. He said that it answered common questions in a very user friendly and informative way. He related that in 2016 part of the discussion surrounding educational outreach in the community had been about not intimidating residents the guidelines. He added that the goal of the BHAR was not to scare people away from fixing their historic homes because they felt that they had to appear in court for approval or be chastised for after-the-fact considerations. The Town Attorney related that residents that had gone through the BHAR presentation and approval process reported that it wasn’t as bad as they thought it would be afterwards. He continued that it was really an issue of perception. Mr. Hornback added that there were some people who thought it was as bad as they thought it would be. The Town Attorney replied that often times those were the people who did not want to follow the appropriate guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney stated that frequently the topic of can a requested or completed change be seen from the street comes up during reviews. He added with that consideration in mind, shouldn’t the Board also consider people passing the back homes by boat on the water as well. He acknowledged that he was unsure how far they could go with that concept. Mrs. Clary pointed out that a boat would then be necessary for the Planning Department to be able to properly conduct that type of site review. Chairman Gwaltney said that as much as the Town is promoted as a river port community, he felt that it should at least be given consideration. The Town Attorney countered that he felt that the Board had considered that point of view in prior decisions. He inquired if there was an example of a property, they had reviewed that looked bad from the water. 19 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that the Board had put whole consideration in their decisions but added that there was nothing in writing that explicitly said that they should. Mr. Hess recalled prior discussions of applications where the view from the water was discussed. He asked if the view from the water was added to the guidelines, should then the view from a neighbor’s house behind a home be considered even if it was not able to be seen from the street. Chairman Gwaltney reported that he was comfortable with pushing for inclusion where the general public would be able to see a property. He continued that he felt the point should be recognized in the information and as the guidelines were being updated that now was the time to consider its inclusion. Mrs. Clary asked to point out the table on page 145 of the PDF that clearly outlined the documentation that was necessary for use of proposed alternative materials. She continued that this information would include comparisons of physical/visual characteristics, structural compatibility, durability, and sustainability between the original and new materials. Mr. Hornback reported that he agreed in principle, however felt that some of the comparison documentation would be challenging for the applicant to provide. He used the request for record of performance as an example. Mrs. Clary reported that Town Staff had been in agreement but pointed it out because the table captured some of the information that the BHAR consistently asks for during review. Chairman Gwaltney stated that a previous point could be made about much of the information contained in the example guidelines from Suffolk. He continued that often the guidelines are seen as requirements but should be looked at exactly what they were: guidelines. He stated that the document was to “guide” applicants as much as possible. Chairman Gwaltney added that he liked the inclusion of a resource guide of additional information listed at the back of the example guidelines. He pointed out that there was even information regarding approved products, adding that he knew that they had discussed that they could not include brand information so it would not be seen as an endorsement. The Town Attorney explained that a disclaimer could be used with that information. He asked if the Board felt the example was a good starting point. Mr. Hess stated that Suffolk was a larger city with more funding than Smithfield. Mr. Hill agreed but added that Suffolk’s Historic District was actually smaller. Mr. Hornback pointed out that many of the photos used in Suffolk’s guidelines were specific landmarks in the city. The Town Attorney stated that the Board would want to include examples from Smithfield that illustrated the design standards that they wanted to convey. Mr. Hornback stated that he did not want his home to be included in the examples of what not to do. He asked Mrs. Clary if there were any specific actions that the Planning Department was asking the BHAR to take. Mrs. Clary reported that the Town Staff had been impressed with Suffolk’s Historic District Guidelines and wanted to present it to the BHAR to see if similar information and format should be used as a starting point for Smithfield’s guidelines update. 20 Board of Historic and Architectural Review March 21st, 2023 Mr. Hess said that it was a great start and the other members agreed. Approval of the Tuesday, February 21st, 2023 Meeting Minutes: The Town Attorney recommended approval of the minutes as presented. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Hess 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 8:35 pm. ______________________________ ________________________________ Mr. Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Mark Kluck - Planner 21