Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held a special meeting on Wednesday, September 13th, 2023 at the Smithfield Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Members present: Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Julia Hillegass – Vice Chair Gary Hess Julie Hess Judith Lally Russell Hill Members absent: Justin Hornback Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director Mark Kluck – Planner Press: None Citizens: 2 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, reported that the consultants met with the Planning Commission last night to discuss the updates to the Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO) Guidelines. He additionally reported that the Public Works Department would pressure wash and chemical wash the Town Hall building to restore the brick. Chairman Gwaltney inquired if there was any update on the signage changes approved for Town Hall that had been discussed previously. Mr. Kluck said that there were no new updates. Upcoming Meetings and Activities Tuesday, September 19th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Tuesday, September 19th, 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – Cancelled Monday, September 25th, 3:30 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Wednesday, October 4th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Thursday, October 12th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, October 17th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Public Comments: There were no public comments. Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 Board Member Comments Vice Chair Hillegass summarized that at the most recent regular meeting of the Planning Commission there had been discussion with the consultants regarding updating the ECO Guidelines, which would run concurrent with the Historic District Guideline updates. She added that the Grange application had been withdrawn without prejudice but added that it would allow for it to possibly return for consideration at a later date. She explained that the reason she had attended the Town Council’s recent work session was that she had been invited by Mayor Bowman to participate in the Grange project’s discussion as a representative of both the Planning Commission and the BHAR. Chairman Gwaltney added that possible future review could be within the next year. He stated that he had viewed Vice Chair Hillegass at the work session and thought that she had represented the BHAR quite well. *Discussion Item* Historic District Design Guidelines Update Chairman Gwaltney explained that the process for updating the Historic District Guidelines would be facilitated by a consultant group, who would give a presentation on the process. Caleb Gasparek, Preservation Planner/Historian with Chronicle Heritage, stated that he had a short presentation regarding the update to the 2005 Historic District Design Guidelines. He reported that Chronicle Heritage was a cultural resource management firm, and with his experience namely being with design guidelines and preservation plans for cities. He added that his firm was partnering with Meredith Johnson of Johnson Planning & Preservation, who was working on the update for Smithfield’s ECO Guidelines. Mr. Gasparek reported that he was based out of Central Texas where he worked with communities that typically had a population of around 5,000 – 30,000, and his background was in historic preservation and urban planning. He reviewed an outline of what the presentation would cover, including why the update was being completed, where the process was currently, what the next steps were, his firm’s initial recommendations, and that they would conclude with a discussion section. Mr. Gasparek began by reviewing some of the reasons to update Smithfield’s existing guidelines. He reported that it was important to keep up with technological changes and updates in material, for example, the use of solar panels, different window materials, etc. He continued that updates would keep the document user-friendly and would allow for the opportunity to fix sections that may no longer apply in the district. He stated that the update would be able to address development patterns, regulatory changes, and changes within the Historic District. He stated that the consultants were currently early in the process of updating the Historic District Guidelines. He explained that he had visited the Historic District to take pictures and assess first-hand the area’s character. He continued that he had also met with Town Staff to discuss some of the initial recommendations and gather their feedback. He related that the next steps would be compiling the information gathered during the visit and creating a draft for the BHAR’s review. Mr. Gasparek explained his initial recommendations after reviewing the current guidelines and his in-person visit to the Historic District. He reported that the goal was to make the guidelines more user friendly and easy to follow. He reviewed the section in the existing guidelines on Subareas and listed his recommendations as: expanding upon the section, providing a better 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 overview of what made the subareas unique, identifying what the specific characteristics of each subarea were, identifying what architectural styles and streetscapes were found in them, and emphasizing that alterations/new construction should be sensitive to the subarea character. Mr. Gasparek continued with the recommendation that there should be clarification of the extent of administrative approval. He additionally recommended the expansion of the maintenance section to be more specific to material types and elements of structures. He reported that the Historic District Guidelines were currently organized with rehabilitation and new construction in the same section. Additionally, he suggested that the section regarding maintenance be absorbed into the rehabilitation section. He continued that there should be additional guidance for materials and types of appropriate elements for existing versus new construction. Mr. Gasparek stated that the section for building additions should be expanded, as currently there was no differentiation provided between residential and commercial structures. He continued by recommending guidance for alterations made to non-contributing structures and suggested that commercial and residential sections be separated. Mr. Gasparek reviewed that the BHAR members had been provided with a list of questions to get them thinking about changes they wanted to see. He reviewed that specifically the consultants wanted to know what changes they would like to see in the guidelines, what currently worked and what did not. Chairman Gwaltney asked for suggestions on how the members would like to proceed. Mr. Hess stated that he liked the idea of separating new construction from rehabilitation, adding that it would offer clarity to applicants. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out to the members that the current guidelines had been provided to them if they needed to refer to them during their discussion. He agreed with Mr. Hess’s previous comment. He gave the example of new construction in the district currently that they were allowing certain newer materials to be used on, but there were homes that were built in the 1880’s that were locked into the appearance that they should have. He summarized that a person who was starting a new construction had different concerns than someone who was renovating an existing structure. Mr. Hess reported that some of the citizens of the district had expressed to him that they felt the BHAR’s decisions were arbitrary. He pointed out that as they put the guidelines together, their reasoning for certain decisions may be obvious to them, but it might require additional explanation for others. He gave the example of an applicant not understanding why they could not install a vinyl window. Mrs. Lally said that she would like the guidelines to remain arbitrary. She explained that the BHAR had many times tried to make guidelines clear, also using the example of vinyl windows, and then the applicants would proceed with what they wanted regardless. She stated that she wanted to firmly make the statement that in certain areas there were very specific materials that would be approved. Mr. Hess stated that was along the lines of his statement. He said that it needed to be clear to applicants that a house that was built in the 1880’s look like a house of that era, reiterating that it was obvious to the members of the BHAR but may not be to others. He continued that they 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 should make it clear that they cared about the Historic District because without it, Smithfield would just be another little town. Chairman Gwaltney recalled that the BHAR had reviewed guidelines that were used in Suffolk’s historic area and given to the residents there. He stated that one aspect of that document that had stayed with him was that in addition to showing examples of what was appropriate in the area, they had provided example pictures of what would not be considered appropriate to the district. He questioned if that was something that they should think about adding to Smithfield’s guidelines. He recognized that they should not provide identifiable pictures of current district homes as what applicants should not do, and also should give an explanation as to why they recommended against the materials use. Mrs. Lally suggested that they might use pictures from another area altogether. She added that they often had to take an apologetic tone when they informed applicants that they would not approve vinyl windows or siding and wanted it to be clear up front, so they did not have to do that. Chairman Gwaltney said that the second part of his earlier comment dealt with “after-the- fact” applications. He related that frequently applicants came for approvals of that type and reported that they did not know what guidelines had said or they had spent thousands of dollars already on the unapproved changes. He added that the BHAR always attempted to work with residents, but there were some cases where they had to request that the unapproved modification be removed or taken down. Chairman Gwaltney recalled that the Board had tried in years past to have proactive educational outreach about the approval process with Historic District residents, especially new owners in the district. Mr. Hill recognized that it would not be an easy process but suggested the Board compile a list of what had previously been approved and what was acceptable. He acknowledged that as time progressed, the quality of some vinyl windows had gotten better, reviewing that they had approved that type of newer vinyl window for Trinity United Methodist Church. He pointed out that those particular windows were vinyl, were pre-colored, and the difference between those and wood could not be discerned when passing by. Mr. Hill summarized that he felt that some of the vinyl products needed to be seen in person before ruling them out. He gave more information on some different window brands including Andersen Woodwright and Nichiha. Mr. Hess said that would work if they asked for approval before-the-fact. Mr. Hill replied that many people did not know the appropriate process. Chairman Gwaltney said that the point was well made. He asked the Town Attorney for confirmation that in regard to an approved item list they would need to present them as previously approved and not as a list that the homeowner must choose from. He agreed with Mr. Hill’s earlier sentiment that the task of compiling a list of previous material approvals would not be a simple one. Chairman Gwaltney related his personal experience during the renovation of a house on Sykes Court and his opting to pursue vinyl siding. He stated that he had done so as the homes in that area were built in the 1940’s and all but two structures on the street had utilized vinyl siding. He said that consideration also needed to be given to the neighborhood in which requested changes would be made. He concluded that every application needed to be considered on its own. Mr. Hess maintained that every time an exception was made for cause it needed to be documented. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney replied that Town Staff had done well with documentation. Mr. Hill relayed that it was often hard for applicants to understand the Board’s justification in allowing vinyl in some cases but not others. Chairman Gwaltney said that Mr. Hess’s previous statement regarding documentation applied in that type of situation as well. He continued that if the decision was approved by a majority vote and there was abundant documentation pertaining to why the Board had come to reach it, then that would provide the justification for the result. Mr. Hill agreed with Chairman Gwaltney’s statement but reiterated that it was very difficult to explain the nuances between different decisions they had made. Mr. Hess stated that it was a shame that they could not require real estate agents to provide a copy of the Historic District Guidelines to prospective homeowners prior to their buying a property. He added that it was very sad to see some of the younger couples come in who did not know about the requirements. Mr. Hill pointed out that the more education was provided to the community the less of a chance there was of that occurring. Chairman Gwaltney continued the discussion of Mr. Gasparek’s questions regarding the existing guidelines. He asked the other Board members what changes they would like to see, what areas worked or did not work, and did they find the existing guidelines easy to follow. He related that he was unsure of how many people took the time to read the guidelines or even knew where to find them. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Gasparek if there were other localities with guidelines that were similar to Smithfield’s and gave the example of the Board’s preference on the use of specific window materials. Mr. Gasparek confirmed that there were. Mrs. Lally affirmed that in regard to what they wanted to see in the updated guidelines the answer was clarity. Mr. Hill agreed and stated that was the case for windows, siding, handrails, etc. He acknowledged that the Board could not explicitly tell a homeowner what they could install but providing them clear guidance of what had been approved prior would alleviate many issues. Mrs. Lally proposed that the wording used include “suggested but not limited to” or “previously approved but not limited to.” Mr. Hill gave the example of the Board having issues with residents of the Historic District installing fences backwards, but the guidelines not including in writing that the “good side” of the fence face outward. Chairman Gwaltney read the question asking if the guidelines were easy to follow and did they adequately prepare applicants to go before the BHAR. He stated that if applicants actually reviewed the guidelines, then they worked. Vice Chair Hillegass related that she was unsure if she had ever tried to access the guidelines from the Town’s website, as she had her own hard copy. She asked if the process to get to the guidelines was difficult. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney stated that if a person was familiar with the setup of the Town’s website that it could be done but added that he sometimes found the Town’s website hard to navigate. Vice Chair Hillegass said that had been her experience too. Mrs. Clary reported that Town Staff had been working with a new website provider who would hopefully assist in making the website more user-friendly. She showed the Board members that by choosing the “government” tab on the Town of Smithfield’s website, they could then choose the “Board of Historic and Architectural Review” tab to the left of the screen, which would then provide them with links to the Zoning Ordinance, Applications, the Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) Map, and the Historic District Guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney reported that when he had reviewed the guidelines that Suffolk used for their historic district, he noted that there was a better energy to the information, whereas Smithfield’s was just three columns of text. He recognized that when the guidelines had been written 20 years ago, they were great and were far better than having nothing in place. He observed that the existing guidelines from 2005 was designed to be in a book form and had been scanned to be online. He said that what they needed for the update was to have something that was designed to be put online. Mr. Gasparek reported that the updated guidelines would be designed for digital use, though residents could certainly print them out should they want to. Chairman Gwaltney said that he appreciated how Suffolk’s digital guidelines allowed for easier navigation of the information and quicker review of examples. He discussed the possible use of video for aspects of Smithfield’s updated guidelines. Mrs. Hess pointed out that there was a lot of color usage in Suffolk’s guidelines. Vice Chair Hillegass said that their presentation used a more contemporary design. Chairman Gwaltney stated that their design engaged the user to maybe delve deeper into the information presented. Mr. Hess referenced back to Chairman Gwaltney’s point about educating the residents, adding that most people came to the Town to visit or who were thinking of buying a home in the area likely stopped in the Visitor Center or tourist bureau. He asked if they should think about producing a trifold informational pamphlet about BHAR and their purpose in a positive fashion that would include a link to the Town’s website. Chairman Gwaltney stated it was a good idea, however he speculated that most people that went into the visitor center did not live in Smithfield or were planning to buy a home there. He reviewed that previously the BHAR members had gathered together educational information when they had attempted this type of update prior to the pandemic. He added that he did not know where the information had ended up. Mrs. Clary assured the Board members that once the guidelines were updated Town Staff would generate supporting marketing materials for their review. Mr. Hill asked if the Board would be revisiting any of the home classification information, relating that in the Historic District there were Contributing and Non-Contributing homes side by side. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney clarified that there would be no structure reclassification during the guideline updating process. Mr. Hill reported that there were still some issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Gasparek stated that the questions that were provided to the BHAR did not have to be answered in their entirety but were given to be used to get the members thinking about changes that they may want to see included. Mr. Hill advised Mrs. Clary that as they were working on the update to continue to reach out to Isle of Wight County Administration to update them on what was discussed. He reported that he had numerous phone calls from the County Inspector inquiring if they could proceed with final inspections. He added that he was unsure why they specifically were calling him. Chairman Gwaltney explained to Mr. Gasparek the relationship between the Town of Smithfield and Isle of Wight County. He reported that BHAR had jurisdiction over the Historic District within the Town, and applicants could appeal decisions they had made by going to the Town Council; however, if they wanted to build something a permit was needed through Isle of Wight County. He continued that they sometimes ran into situations where the County may permit certain things not knowing that the Town would not approve them. He summarized that there was a major disconnect between the Building Inspector for the County and the Town, adding that Mr. Hill had been working on the relationship between the two to provide a link in the process. Mr. Hill reported that in this locality a Zoning Permit was needed when acquiring a Building Permit. He continued that the Building Inspector had informed him that if the requirements that were needed were included on the Zoning Permit, then the County would be able to enforce them. Mrs. Lally gave a hypothetical example of the process explaining that a resident would go to the Town to discuss the scope of the work that was to be completed. She continued that if the Town then reported that no permits were needed then the applicant assumed that no permits were needed, and work began. She said that then there was sometimes the problem of the resident’s work being shut down by the County due to the correct permits not having been obtained through them. She advised that it would be better to inform people that needed to go to both the Town and the County when obtaining permits for major renovations. Mr. Kluck reported that the current process when issuing permits included Town Staff sending the email to the applicant as well as copying Plan Review at Isle of Wight County on the email. He stated that the County generally responded, keeping the applicant on the email, if additional permits were needed. He added that they also included the Town’s action letter in the Zoning Permit or Zoning Permit Waiver to ensure that the Building Inspector had an idea of what the Town’s expectations were as well. Mrs. Clary additionally reported that the Town’s permit department had switched over to using Munis software, meaning that when they issued a permit there was more space to provide a description of what was required on the permit itself. Mr. Hill stated that the update to the permit was likely why he had seen a decrease in phone calls. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 Mr. Gasparek shared that during his meeting with Town Staff today there had been discussion about expanding the section of the guidelines that covered what an applicant needed to do, including applying for permits. Mrs. Lally added that a more recent issue, likely due to the pandemic, was that applicants needed to understand that they, or their contractor, were required to attend the BHAR meetings in person when their application was presented. She stated that this would allow them to give more information if there were any questions about a project that the application had not made clear. She related that there had been several occasions where a decision was tabled due to applicants not being able to clarify an issue due to their absence during the presentation of their application. Chairman Gwaltney stated that during meetings he always inquired if the applicant was present to answer questions that the Board may have when applications were reviewed. He continued that if there were any questions that required answers, they were likely to table the application until the applicant was able to attend. He acknowledged that there had been changes made to the language used on meeting information regarding absence during application presentation. Mrs. Clary related that applicants were also notified that their application could be tabled if they were not present. Mrs. Lally pointed out that when the guidelines had originally been written, Town Staff did not put together the application information in such a streamlined way for review as they did currently. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the attention to detail regarding upkeep/changes in the district had increased, there were issues to consider now that were not present 30 years ago, and the cost of materials had certainly increased. The Town Attorney related that many times there were actions of a third party that created issues, using the example of a contractor who knew a permit was needed but did not bother to apply for one. He continued that put the Board in a position of having to decide whether or not to penalize the homeowner for the actions of a contractor. He stated that this led to the Board having to make bad decisions based on circumstances. Chairman Gwaltney gave an example of that situation happening within the last year. He summarized that the applicant had set the parameters themselves in the beginning, the Board had approved those parameters, and then the homeowner changed the design in the middle of the process. Mr. Hill added that the situation that Chairman Gwaltney was referencing had been corrected. He noted that there had been a similar example on Church Street but in that case the contractor had not applied for any permits and did not tell the homeowner. The Town Attorney recalled an example from 25 years earlier that had involved the unpermitted building of stairs. He related that all of the cases discussed were good examples of why the guidelines needed to be clear and detailed. He added that he felt that the diagrams that were found in the existing guidelines illustrated architectural details and were very helpful. Chairman Gwaltney listed out features present in the Suffolk Guidelines including the use of a variety of colors and aerial photographs. He confirmed that these types of upgrades would be seen in Smithfield’s updated guidelines. 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 Mr. Gasparek stated that they had seen the Suffolk Guidelines and were using them as an inspiration document. Chairman Gwaltney recommended using real life, local examples where they could and pointed out that there were a variety of home types that could be found in the Historic District. He added that if they decided to include pictures of what should not be done to go out of town to find examples. Mr. Gasparek reported that all of the architectural renderings that were currently found within the guidelines would be updated and that he had taken a multitude of pictures of homes in the downtown area to be used for examples. Mr. Hill stated that the pictures of the homes could have detailed information as to what materials were used in their renovation. He used the example of the Town Attorney’s home having Andersen Woodwright windows, whereas from the street they appeared to be the original wood windows to the house. Mr. Hess questioned if there should be a section in the guidelines solely dedicated to addressing homeowners who were in not in compliance with maintaining their property. The Town Attorney stated that the State Attorney General had told them that they did not have the authority to do that. He related that had been the issue with the previous Pierceville property structures. Chairman Gwaltney added that the Pierceville property structures had been one large maintenance issue. Mr. Hess stated that currently there were homes within the Historic District that had paint peeling, etc. and questioned at what point could someone step in. The Town Attorney reviewed that the issue had been discussed and was being addressed just prior to the emergence of Covid. He continued that due to the lockdown and ensuing meeting obstacles, the issue had been placed on hold. He explained that through the County’s building code they had the ability to enforce maintenance on property owners, but there were no such abilities with respect to maintenance through the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Town did not have its own Building Official. He concluded that what the Town really needed was its own building official. Mr. Hill speculated that getting that department started within the Town would be an expensive undertaking. Mr. Gasparek reported that there had been previous discussions regarding their forming a working group that would consist of two members from the BHAR to follow up with during the update of the guidelines. He stated that this way there would be a way to continue to gather feedback throughout the process and easily disseminate information. Chairman Gwaltney agreed and asked how Mr. Gasparek would like to handle picking the two members. Mrs. Clary stated that Town Staff was in agreement with this plan, and their recommendation was to have Vice Chair Hillegass as one of the two members. She reasoned that Vice Chair Hillegass was also involved in the ECO update, and this would allow for coordination between the two documents. 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 13th, 2023 Chairman Gwaltney stated that it would also be a good idea to have someone with contracting experience as part of the working group as well. Mrs. Clary agreed, and additionally recommended Mr. Hill join the working group if he was able. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out an additional aspect that he liked about Suffolk’s guidelines, noting the chart on page 24 of their booklet that detailed the difference between different types of doors and what type of home they could be found on. He reiterated that he liked the photos included on page 39 that compared appropriate awnings with not appropriate awnings. Chairman Gwaltney reported that frequently residents will talk to the Board members about their plans to alter their homes and then ask if they need to speak with the BHAR to complete their project. He said that he was unsure what the best way to answer those questions would be. He used the example of several years ago when residents expressed interest in placing large pieces of art along Hayden’s Lane, and one of the discussions surrounding this was whether or not that action would have to be approved by the BHAR. There was discussion regarding a previous example of wanting to place a statue in a driveway. Chairman Gwaltney said that he believed the outcome of the situation had been that the BHAR did not have jurisdiction over someone’s driveway. Mrs. Clary reported that Town Staff had issued a waiver in the case they were referencing, and the owner did not bring it to the BHAR. Chairman Gwaltney questioned if they should try to include items on the property that were not architecturally cohesive to the rest of the property. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Gasparek if things like driveways, sidewalks, etc. were things other localities covered. Mr. Gasparek stated that they did and pointed out that Smithfield’s current guidelines addressed those issues as well. Chairman Gwaltney reported that it had always been a question of his as to why the BHAR made rulings on fences and signs, but not on other decorative elements. Mr. Hess illustrated the point by using a hypothetical 1850’s home with a modern art installation in their yard as an example. Mr. Hill pointed out that there was an existing home on Church Street that had covered their front yard with rocks. Chairman Gwaltney stated that it was a point that should be discussed as they were updating the guidelines. Mr. Gasparek reported that those types of questions could be researched further by the working group. Mrs. Clary asked if the BHAR was looking to incorporate improvements to any properties to be under their purview, namely driveways, landscaping, etc. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that they would not include landscaping with that. Mr. Hill pointed out that the front yard was considered part of the landscape. Mr. Hess said that he was unsure if the issue could be worked out at that meeting, but he did feel it needed to be addressed. 10