Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 16th, 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 Russell Hill Judith Lally Gary Hess Julie Hess Members absent: Justin Hornback Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Mark Kluck – Planner Jeff Brooks – Town Councilman Press: None Citizens: 1 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, reported that there were no new updates at this time. Public Comments: Chairman Gwaltney reported that there was one sign-up to speak. Jeff Brooks of 320 Grace Street in Smithfield reported that he wanted to welcome Julie Hess to the BHAR and added that she was a great addition to the Board. He stated that her husband was recently recommended for appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) but had not been sworn in yet. Mr. Brooks stated that there were many meetings in the Town that went very long, so he would just say welcome to Mrs. Hess. Board Member Comments: Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board would like to echo Mr. Brooks’s welcome to Mrs. Hess. Vice Chair Hillegass reported that the Planning Commission had been reviewing the application for 10 Grange and gave the reminder that the BHAR would eventually have review of the plans as well. She added that there would be a Special Work Session for the Planning Commission held on May 24th, 2023, at 6:30 pm. She encouraged all to attend and stated that the public was welcome to come observe. Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 16th, 2023 Accessory Structure (Shed) – 214 Institute Street – Contributing – Scott Bachman, applicant: Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking to erect a ten-foot (10’) by fourteen-foot (14’) by twelve-foot (12’) tall shed adjacent to the existing detached garage. He said that the shed will feature a gambrel roof with “Williamsburg Grey” architectural shingles, with the walls of the shed clad in a cream color vinyl siding that would match the existing house. He continued that the proposed shed would have a total of one (1) wooden window in a one-over-one configuration that would be on the left side of the shed facing the house. Mr. Kluck stated that the shed would also have two (2) three-foot (3’) wide wooden doors painted the same color as the proposed vinyl siding. He pointed out that the shingles and siding would match the shingles and siding currently affixed to the single-family dwelling. He explained that the exterior walls of the single-family dwelling were currently clad with a mix of Hardie Board composite siding and clapboard siding, and the detached garage was clad with vinyl siding. Mr. Kluck said that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney asked if anyone was present to speak regarding the application. Scott Bachman of 214 Institute Street in Smithfield was present and stated that he did not have anything to add to the Staff Report. Mr. Hill inquired if the house had vinyl siding. Mr. Bachman reported that the house siding had a mixture of Hardie Board and clapboard siding. Chairman Gwaltney speculated that he was not just enlarging the existing garage as there was a tree that was in the way. Mr. Bachman stated that this was correct and added that if he did enlarge the existing garage, it would not meet setback requirements as the existing structure had been grandfathered in. Chairman Gwaltney stated that if the tree was removed, he could add on to the garage. Mr. Kluck explained that if he utilized that plan, he would need to go before the BZA for approval to enlarge a non-conforming structure. Mr. Hill stated that he was not in favor of the use of vinyl siding on the proposed garage, but pointed out that the garage was not technically visible from the street. He added that the Board had turned down vinyl siding for sheds numerous times, and repeated that it would be hard to see from any vantage point. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if the structure was pre-made. Mr. Bachman reported that it was not, and David at Smithfield Lumber would handle the construction. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the roofline of the proposed shed was different from the A- frame roofline on the existing structures on the property, and wondered if it would look like a pre- fab shed bought at Lowe’s that was placed in the yard. He questioned the Board members on their feelings about allowing the vinyl siding, but requesting the roofline be changed. Mrs. Lally asked about an A-frame façade with gables. She acknowledged that the proposed roof design would give more storage space. She reported having more of an issue with the plan to use vinyl siding. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 16th, 2023 Mr. Hess suggested that the style of the proposed garage should replicate what was currently on the property. Mrs. Lally speculated that if they allowed the proposed shed to be constructed as planned, then it would look like sheds that could be bought anywhere, which would prompt others to buy them, and then they would permeate throughout the Historic District. Mr. Bachman said that the structure had not been built yet and the plan could be modified. He added that he had no problem with having an A-frame roofline. The Town Attorney reported to the Board that the Guidelines stated that the new outbuildings design was “to be compatible with the style of the major building on the site, especially in details in roof slope.” Mr. Hess said that he was still concerned about the use of vinyl siding. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Bachman if he would be opposed to using Hardie Board or some other product on the garage in place of vinyl. Mr. Bachman stated that he was unsure about what the cost difference would be, citing that as a concern. He reported that the plan at this time was to build the garage off-site and then move it in place on skids. He added that he had not spoken with the builder about using a different material. Mr. Hill acknowledged that the cost would be higher, adding that it would not be too bad as it was a small building. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Hill if he had an estimate of what percentage higher the cost could be. Mr. Hill stated that he did not at that time. Chairman Gwaltney thanked Mr. Bachman for his willingness to change the roof slope and style. He asked the Board members to include the change in their motion. He suggested that Mr. Bachman may want to check the price difference between Hardie Board versus vinyl siding. Mr. Hess suggested that this may be a situation where they would like the applicant to check the price difference with their builder to get the answer and then report back to the Board at the next meeting. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Bachman if there was a time limit, he was working with. Mr. Bachman replied that he would like to have the shed sooner rather than later. The Town Attorney inquired if the price difference would change the Board’s opinion of the use of vinyl. He emphasized that the Board needed to treat all applicants fairly and consistently in their decisions. Vice Chair Hillegass agreed and stated that the Board had turned down vinyl many times before. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the application contingent on the design of the roof line being changed from the proposed gambrel roof to an A-frame and the siding material being changed to Hardie Board, wood, or another composite that was not vinyl or metal. Mr. Hess seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 16th, 2023 Assorted Exterior Changes – 378 South Church Street – Contributing – American Contracting LLC C/O Travis Cooke, applicant: Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval for exterior changes to the single-family dwelling, including color changes for the siding and trim, and replacing windows. He stated that the applicant would like to change the color of the existing yellow siding to a light gray color known as “Pearl Gray,” and the color of the light blue trim to white. He continued that the front door and exterior porch light would be black. Mr. Kluck continued that due to age and rot, the applicant would also like approval to replace eighteen (18) white six-over-six (6/6) double-hung windows in the home; these windows are a mix of wood and vinyl (wood outnumbering vinyl). The applicant has provided three (3) options for replacement windows and would like approval of all three options. The new windows will be double-hung and feature the same six-over-six (6/6) grid pattern as the existing windows. 1) The first option is a PerfeXion Gold window, a vinyl window manufactured by Norandex. 2) The second option is an Impervia window, a fiberglass window manufactured by Pella. 3) The third option is an Architect Series – Traditional Wood window, also manufactured by Pella. This series of windows provides an inside wood finish with the exterior surfaces clad with aluminum. Mr. Kluck reported that the Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the applicant or a representative was not present to speak on behalf of the application. There was a brief discussion on the history of who had owned the property prior. Chairman Gwaltney recommended that the Board discuss the windows and the proposed house color separately. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the proposed color changes to the home 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. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the Impervia and the Architect Series of windows, both by Pella, presented, but not the PerfeXion window by Norandex choice. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Covered Patio (Canopy) – 386 South Church Street — Contributing – Arthur and Karen Hitch, applicants: Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect a twelve-foot (12’) long by seventeen-foot six-inch (17’ 6”) wide by ten-foot (10’) tall wooden canopy over a portion of the existing concrete patio located in the rear yard on the right side of the property. The canopy frame will be constructed out of wood and stained or painted white. The canopy will feature a gray metal roof which will match the roof of the single-family dwelling. He included that Town Staff 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review May 16th, 2023 recommended approval from a zoning standpoint but deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the applicant or a representative was not present to speak on behalf of the application. Mrs. Lally reported that the applicants had spoken with her regarding the proposed changes. She relayed that she had recommended that the applicants not include vinyl in their plan. She added that they had told her that, pending the outcome of the BHAR meeting, the applicants would then confer with prospective contractors regarding pricing. The Town Attorney inquired if the Board felt they could review the proposed canopy without more detailed information. Chairman Gwaltney speculated that it would be two white columns with a gray metal roof on top. Mr. Hess said that the canopy would cover the side patio. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he was sure, without a cover, that the patio could get very hot in the sun. Mrs. Lally stated that the applicant had reported that the picture included was of another property but was similar to what they wanted the canopy to look like. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he was not sure that the picture helped with the comparison as it looked like the front porch of a cabin in the mountains. Mrs. Lally stated that the applicant had said their goal was not to have to sit in the sun. Mr. Hess inquired how visible the canopy would be from the street. Mrs. Lally said that it would be slightly visible. Mr. Hess posed the question that if the roof matched the roof of the house, how notable would the canopy be? Chairman Gwaltney stated that he did not feel that the proposed canopy was any more out of place than the balcony that was currently at the back of the house, which had been grandfathered in. Mrs. Lally stated that the applicant had also mentioned that it would not be visible when the trees were in full foliage; it could not be seen even from the marsh. Chairman Gwaltney asked the Board if anyone registered concern that the part of the canopy that would be most visible would be the underside of the roof. He added that if they approved, exposed beams would look like the porch of a cabin, or should the Board specify how the underside was finished? He added that the example provided depicted a very minimal style. Vice Chair Hillegass agreed that the example was too rustic. Chairman Gwaltney added that historically this house would not have had a porch of that style. The Town Attorney said that the applicant should tell the Board what they wanted in more detail. Mrs. Hess pointed out that the pictures provided did provide information that the “structure will either be painted or stained white with a gray metal roof to match.” 5