Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, June 20th, 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 Julie Hess Members absent: Justin Hornback Gary Hess Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Mark Kluck – Planner Nadya Jaudzimas – Administrative Assistant Press: None Citizens: 6 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 were no sign-ups to speak. Board Member Comments: Vice Chair Hillegass gave the update that the Planning Commission had approved the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and rezoning of the Grange development. She added that they had also voted to send recommendations of approval for 5 of the 6 waivers requested by the developer, with the denial being the waiver of maximum height to allow for 4-story buildings. She stated that the application now moves to Town Council for consideration. The Town Attorney reported that it would be presented at the Town Council meeting scheduled for August 1st. Vice Chair Hillegass reported that one of the proffers that the developer offered was for the entire project, including the Homeowners Association (HOA), to conform to the Historic District Guidelines. She added that the BHAR would review that information should it pass. Board of Historic and Architectural Review June 20th, 2023 Covered Patio (Canopy) – 386 South Church Street — Contributing – Arthur and Karen Hitch, applicants. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicants were 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. He said that the canopy frame would be constructed out of wood and stained or painted white and would feature a gray metal roof which will match the roof of the single-family dwelling. He reviewed that at its Tuesday, May 20th, 2023 meeting, the BHAR tabled its decision for the application to allow for the applicants to provide additional information about the proposed project. Mr. Kluck reported that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to BHAR for architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if there was any present representing the applicant. Johnny Boyd of 10134 Pascal Place in Carrollton reported that the applicant had asked for him to be present to answer any questions as they were out of town. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he would read through the questions that Town Staff had sent to the applicant, and they would address each point separately. He began with “1. Will the underside of the proposed canopy be finished, or will the rafters be exposed.” He continued with Town Staff’s report that the applicant responded that he planned to leave the underside of the canopy structure uncovered and that he planned to stain or paint the exposed rafters white. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that no Board members had additional questions. Chairman Gwaltney continued with the next question of “2. If the underside of the canopy structure is covered, what material will it be covered with, and will it be stained or painted white.” He continued with the report from Town Staff that the applicant responded and said that he would cover the underside with T-111, plywood, HardieBoard, or another similar material if it were the desire of the Board to have the underside covered. He read that the applicant did express concerns about mold and rot occurring in the rafters if the underside was covered and not vented properly. Chairman Gwaltney stated that this was a moot point as the Board was okay with the canopy not being covered on the underside. Mrs. Lally asked for confirmation that the canopy would not be on an elevated surface and would just be over a concrete slab. Mr. Kluck confirmed that this was his understanding as well. Chairman Gwaltney continued with “3. Will the columns similarly match the columns that were pictured in the submitted attachments and verify if they will be single columns or branched columns.” He read that the applicant planned to use either 4” by 4” or 6” by 6” posts, whichever was deemed structurally appropriate, and the posts would be similar to the example provided in the attachments in that the posts will feature decorative branches. Mr. Boyd stated that he had told the applicant that they would not necessarily need to use the brackets as they were not key to the structure to be structurally sound. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he did not think that there was anything especially architecturally appealing about the angled brackets. Vice Chair Hillegass pointed out that there were similar brackets on the second story deck at the back of the house. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review June 20th, 2023 Mr. Boyd stated that he hoped that the applicant would not have the brackets if they were not needed. Chairman Gwaltney asked if Mr. Boyd knew if the posts would be 4” by 4” or 6” by 6.” Mr. Boyd stated that he did not but added that the applicant had not gotten information as to what would be required structurally yet. He stated that due to the structure’s length of 17 feet the applicant would either need a post in the middle or a structural beam of some type. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the Board was ok with the use of either size as it was required to meet code. He gave the reminder that the posts should be stained or painted white to match. Chairman Gwaltney read inquiry “4. Will there be any railings or spindles installed.” He stated that the applicant answered that there would not be any railings or spindles installed with this project and the canopy structure would be over a non-elevated surface. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented with the condition that the brackets on the posts were not installed unless they were needed for structural support. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Prior Approval Extension – 352 South Church Street – Landmark – Joseph Howell, applicant. Mr. Kluck stated that the applicant was seeking an extension of prior approval for assorted exterior changes to the single-family dwelling that were conditionally approved at the Tuesday, June 16th, 2020 BHAR meeting. He said that the applicant wished to finish making the following exterior changes to the single-family dwelling: (1) The replacement of the existing dilapidated tan-colored horizontally lapped wooden weatherboard siding with “Monterey Taupe” colored horizontally-lapped Hardie board siding. (2) The replacement of the existing dilapidated wooden trim, soffits, fascia boards, and crown moulding with Azek materials of a like color and appearance. (3) The replacement of six existing dilapidated wooden nine-over-nine double-hung sash windows (four on the second floor on the rear of the building, one on the second floor of the west façade and one on the first floor of the west façade) with Pella Lifestyle Series aluminum-clad wooden nine-over-nine double-hung sash windows with exposed muntins, which will match the color of the existing windows. Mr. Kluck reported that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for Architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the applicant was present to answer any questions that the Board may have. He additionally clarified with Mr. Kluck that the extension was requested due to time and not due to any of the materials originally approved having changed. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the extension as presented. Mrs. Lally seconded the motion. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review June 20th, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney asked the applicant if it was a reasonable amount of time to estimate that the changes will begin within a year and be completed within two years. Mr. Howell confirmed that it was. He added that the changes outlined would complete the restoration project for the Thomas Blow House. Chairman Gwaltney expressed that it looked good, and the Board was glad to see the work that had been done. He called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Accessory Structure (Detached Garage) – 337 Grace Street – Non-Contributing – Daniel Montgomery, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect a twenty-four foot (24’) by twenty-four foot (24’) by eighteen foot (18’) tall detached two-car garage on the property. He detailed that the detached garage would feature a black one-inch (1”) standing seam metal roof with a 12/12 pitch gable roof to match the roof pitch of the home and the proposed siding would be LP Smart Siding in Cavern Steel accented with Snowscape White LP Smart Trim. Mr. Kluck continued that there would be a total of three (3) windows installed in the detached garage; two (2) on the right side and one (1) on the left side. He added that the proposed windows would be Anderson Woodwright Double-Hung full-frame series 400 composite windows, which would be black in color and feature no grid pattern. He said that there would be one (1) entry door installed on the left side of the garage that would be a mahogany-colored stained fiberglass door featuring a four light window that would match the front entry door of the single-family dwelling. Mr. Kluk stated that there will be two (2) nine-foot (9’) by seven-foot (7’) traditional overhead garage doors that would be colored the same mahogany color as the entry door of the garage and home and would not feature any windows. He concluded that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Daniel Montgomery of 337 Grace Street in Smithfield was present to speak about the application. He thanked the members of the Board for their previous approvals for the renovation of the main house and reported that he gets daily compliments on the work done. He reported that the plan for the garage was to use the same material and roofing as what was used for the house. Chairman Gwaltney asked for clarification if the garage doors would be truly rolled up or were they rolled up on a track and rested overhead. Mr. Montgomery confirmed that they were overhead garage doors. Mr. Hill additionally confirmed that the garage doors would be visible from the street. Chairman Gwaltney verified that there would not be any windows in the garage doors. Mr. Montgomery reported that a large oil drum seen in the pictures was left by the previous owner and would be thrown out. He added that they were hoping to receive approval to be able to replace a section of the white pine fence that had rotted out as well. He asked if that replacement could be approved at the same time or would he need to return to another meeting. The Town Attorney stated that he did not think that Mr. Montgomery needed BHAR approval to replace an existing structure with the same material. Mr. Kluck agreed and added that, generally, a waiver was granted for that type of project. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review June 20th, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney asked for confirmation that location, height, and style of fence would remain the same. He said that Mr. Montgomery would just need to see Mr. Kluck in the Planning Office to receive the appropriate permits. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the application as presented. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Accessory Structure (Gazebo) – Lot 399 Main Street (TPIN: 21A-01-399) – Non- Contributing – Chip and Diana Mills, applicants. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect a fourteen-foot (14’) wide by nine-foot (9’) long by eleven-foot (11’) tall gazebo. He detailed that the structure would be placed on a two-foot (2’) tall, raised platform to protect the structure from potential flooding, bringing the overall height of the gazebo to thirteen feet (13’). He continued that the front of the structure will feature six (6) 4-lite white wooden doors, which will face the Pagan River. Mr. Kluck said that the rear of the structure would feature two (2) 28 ½” by 35 ½” rectangular white wooden windows with muntins that create a diamond pattern, the left and right sides of the gazebo would feature one (1) 28 ½” by 35 ½” rectangular white wooden window with the muntins creating a diamond pattern situated near the rear of the gazebo, and one (1) eight (8) lite white wooden window situated near the front of the structure. He reported that the gazebo would be adorned with wooden siding and wooden trim, all of which will be painted white. Mr. Kluck stated that the bell- cast style hip roof would feature cedar shingles, two (2) white ball finials, and a copper osprey weathervane. He confirmed that at the Tuesday, June 13th, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant received a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) Exception to erect this structure, as the parcel is considered to be located within an Intensely Developed Area (IDA). Mr. Kluck reported that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint with the suggestion that the applicant encloses the elevated platform with white wooden latticework, white horizontally attached wooden boards, or another BHAR-approved material and that the applicant constructs the structure in the footprint that does the least amount of disturbance within the 100-foot RPA as possible, and the applicant is required to comply with landscaping mitigation requirements. He informed the Board that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was in the process of updating the Town’s flood map, and we believe this location is projected to be located in a Limit of Moderate Wave Action area (LiMWA area). He continued that because of that information, staff request the structure is elevated and dry floodproofed according to FEMA’s standards. He reported that dry floodproofing included (but was not limited to), remaining less than 600 square feet in size, not used for human habitation, and used for parking and limited storage only. Mr. Kluck clarified that the applicant is not seeking any of these uses. The Town Attorney recommended that the applicant not install intricate latticework under the platform as when it floods marsh grass, etc. will clog it and be very difficult to keep clean. Chip Mills of 117 South Church Street in Smithfield was present to speak about the application. He reported that his original thought had been to have long, narrow strips that would allow the marsh grass to pass through easier, as is commonly seen in the Outer Banks. 5