Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 19th, 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 Gary Hess Julie Hess Judith Lally Russell Hill Members absent: Justin Hornback Staff present: William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney Mark Kluck – Planner Press: None Citizens: 2 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, reported that the October Planning Commission meeting would be held on Thursday the 12th, due to a scheduling conflict with the Smithfield Center. Public Comments: Chairman Gwaltney reported that there were no sign-ups to speak. Board Member Comments: There were no Board Member comments. Color Change (Siding & Front Door) – 325 South Church Street – Non-Contributing – Michael and Kristin Wilda, applicants. Mr. Kluck stated that the applicants were seeking approval for a color change to the Hardie siding and the front door of the single-family dwelling that had been approved for new construction at the Tuesday, March 21st, 2023 BHAR meeting. He detailed that the applicants would like to change the color of the Hardie siding to a lighter shade of blue known as “Summer Nights” and reviewed that the color of the siding that had been previously approved was a dark blue color known as “Evening Blue.” Mr. Kluck added that the applicant would also like to change the color of the front entry door from a deep red color known as “King’s Red” to a blue-gray color known as “Slate Tile” (SW7624) by Sherwin-Williams. He pointed out that a sample of the previously approved colors and the requested new colors were provided to the Board members for review. He Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 reported that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standing point and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Kristin Wilda of 327 Jordan Drive in Smithfield was present to speak about the application. She reported that the address that had been attributed to them was incorrect. She gave the update that the color that had initially been chosen looked more gray in color and she had wanted to try something different. She said she went directly to the Hardie Plank company and was able to pick from a different line of colors, eventually choosing “Summer Nights.” She brought a physical sample of the color for the members to review. Mrs. Wilda continued that the railings of the front porch would be wrought iron metal, and though they did not have shutters on the home, the trim would be white. Chairman Gwaltney asked for confirmation that the only color changes requested were to the front door and the siding. Mrs. Wilda confirmed the changes. Mrs. Lally made a motion to approve the application as presented. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote; all members present voted aye with none opposed. The motion passed. Assorted Exterior Changes – 215 Washington Street – Contributing – Frank and Nikole Simmons, applicants. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicants were seeking approval for assorted exterior changes to the single-family dwelling which included the following: 1) Replace the existing two-inch by four-inch (2” x 4”) single handrail and posts with a set of handrails on both sides of the front porch steps with new handrails and spindles featuring the same handrails and turned-post spindles that existed on the front porch railings. 2) Add a “ripped down” turned-post column to the left and right side portions of the front porch abutting the dwelling to better secure the railings. 3) Change the color of the front door from white to forest green to match the shutters and metal roof. Mr. Kluck reviewed that Town staff had issued a zoning permit waiver for assorted like-for-like exterior repairs to the home which included repairs to the front porch railings and turned-post spindles, foundation repairs with no footprint changes, repainting the faded forest green metal roof in the same color, and replacing rotten and damaged fascia boards and repainting them white. He said that a copy of the waiver had been provided for review, and Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standing point, deferring to the BHAR for the architectural discretion. Nikole Simmons of 215 Washington Street in Smithfield was present to answer questions that the Board may have. 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 voted aye with none opposed. The motion passed. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 Assorted Exterior Changes – 209 Clay Street – Contributing – Mesa Construction C/O Marvin Smith, applicant. Mr. Kluck stated that the applicant was seeking approval for assorted exterior changes to the single-family dwelling, which included the addition of a deck and front porch renovations. He detailed that the applicant would like to erect a ten-foot (10’) by twelve-foot (12’) wooden deck addition to the left side of the single-family dwelling. He reported that the proposed deck, railings, and framing will be stained with a semitransparent stain known as “Fruitwood.” Mr. Kluck continued that the applicant was also seeking approval to change the color of the front porch deck boards to match the proposed deck and replace the existing columns. He said that the front porch deck boards were currently painted a blue-grey color and were deteriorating due to age and lack of structural support. He reported that the applicant was proposing to replace the structural elements and deck boards, and they would be stained with the same semi-transparent “Fruitwood” stain as the proposed deck. Mr. Kluck stated that as a part of the front porch deck board replacement project, the applicant would like approval to replace three (3) four-inch (4”) turned- posts with three (3) six-inch by six-inch (6” x 6”) “Fruitwood” stained square wooden columns. He reported that the applicant was also seeking approval to completely remove or replace the scrolled brackets with four-inch by four-inch (4” x 4”) angled brackets. Mr. Kluck added that Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint provided that the applicant or owners complete a Boundary Line Adjustment to vacate the property line bisecting TPINs 21A-03-E009 and 21A-03-E010, with deferral to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Marvin Smith of 10283 Newport Street in Battery Park was present to discuss the application. He reported that the porch was in rough shape, and he had done much work on it. He added that he had done work on the porch 6 years ago, but the tongue and groove boards had already rotted. He said that as a result they would be trying to stain the wood instead of paint, with plans to have the side deck and front porch match. He continued that they had chosen to change the columns as the house directly next door had the same type and they wanted to differentiate between the two homes. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Kluck had questioned him about the removal of the scrolled brackets, to which he had replied that he would be willing to install angled brackets to the square columns to give them the same architectural feel. He explained that the existing columns were painted and had deteriorated. He added that he felt that the spindle columns did not match the size of the porch. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Smith to confirm the size of the columns that were being proposed to replace the current spindle columns. Mr. Smith stated that they had proposed to use 6”x6” columns, with the existing columns being 4”x4”. He pointed out that the existing columns were also not centered on the porch. Chairman Gwaltney speculated that if the columns were not centered that it was likely due to their being originally connected by a railing. Mr. Smith reported that he had worked on the property before, and could verify that it was not due to that. He detailed that previously he had taken the soffit out and then reattached the porch to the roof. He added that when they had completed that project, he had told the owner of the property that the floor system was the main contributing issue. Mr. Smith said that he had spoken 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 with the property owner, Milton Cook, regarding vacating the lot line and the finality of such a decision. He acknowledged that all the lots were very tight in the area of the house. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the entrance from the house onto the side yard deck was designed that way due to it being a window that would convert to a door. Mr. Smith reported that there was a door in that spot currently. Vice Chair Hillegass asked Mr. Kluck if he would discuss why the Town would like to vacate the lot line. Mr. Kluck explained that the proposed design and placement of the side yard deck was too close to the property line. Vice Chair Hillegass pointed out that the property was classified as “Contributing” and the modifications proposed for the front porch would take away all of the architectural features that allowed it to meet that standard. She concluded that the changes requested did not match the architecture of the house nor the architecture of the neighborhood, and she was against those changes. Mr. Smith asked Vice Chair Hillegass if she could specify what parts did not match the architecture. He additionally asked if they wanted him to replace the columns with a scrolled type. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she thought that he should replace with what was currently there. Mr. Smith said that the house currently had a blue deck on a yellow house that did not match. Vice Chair Hillegass clarified that she did not care about the staining of the floor of the deck, but she was concerned with the proposed design of the columns and brackets. Mr. Smith stated that he was fine with replacing the scrolled brackets on the columns. Vice Chair Hillegass added that she did not like the idea of 6” x 6” square posts as columns and in her opinion they did not work with the house. Mr. Smith stated that in the paperwork that he had the house had originally been classified as “Non-Contributing,” which he had shared with Mr. Kluck. He recognized that he could see where the house could be considered “Contributing.” He pointed out the columns on the front porch were structural and the size columns currently on the home would not meet code. He said that the columns should be 6” x 6” and added that he could probably find plastic structural columns with a metal post in the middle that had a spindled design. He noted that the brackets were not structural. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that the brackets were just ornamental, but the front porch was 99% of the architectural integrity of the structure. He stated that if they approved the side yard deck as presented, it would not match the design elements on the front porch. He added that he would like to see the deck railing spindles match the scrolled columns of the porch. Mr. Smith reported that he could use a polyvinyl chloride (PVC), spindled railing on the deck that would complement the columns on the front porch. He pointed out that the other houses on that street were a hodge-podge of different materials and designs. Chairman Gwaltney said that what had been proposed was lessening the historical attributes of the house and neighborhood. He recognized that there were areas in the Town where the architecture had not been monitored, had been reduced, or had disappeared completely. He 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 added that there were similar houses that were on the historical focal points of Church Street and Main Street, and it was unfair to allow things in one area of the Historic District and not others. Mr. Smith stated that the historical architectural attributes needing to be included were based more off opinion. Chairman Gwaltney agreed that their needing to be re-included was his opinion. Mr. Smith related that in the historic area of Battery Park where he lived there was a large mixture of scrolled architecture mixed with squared-off architecture. He stated that he was an advocate of keeping with the look of the neighborhood. Chairman Gwaltney inquired how the Battery Park Historic District monitored the different architectural nuances of the area. Mr. Smith stated that it was left to the people who lived in the neighborhood. He said that he had tried to buy the houses that were for sale when he could so that he could keep the neighborhood looking congruent. He summarized that the Board would like for him to use a vinyl white spindled railing on the deck that would match the spindled columns that he would use on the porch, and then stain the deck boards. He stated that he could not paint them as that would not work. Chairman Gwaltney asked if he had ever used colored stain. Mr. Smith stated that he had, but it did not look good and certainly did not look historic. Chairman Gwaltney reviewed that Mr. Smith was not receiving pushback from the Board regarding the plan for the deck boards. He stated that the concerns that they had raised were the removal of the historic attributes on the house and then replacing them with a style that was more suited to a beach cottage. Mr. Smith asked if he should then leave the existing rotted spindle columns but replace the deck boards. Chairman Gwaltney stated that did not sound like a wise choice. Mr. Smith asked for clarification what the Board was asking for. He added that there was difficulty in purchasing what they were suggesting. Chairman Gwaltney said that he had 6” x 6” turned-posts at his home. Mr. Smith reported that he did too, but from what the Board members had said 6” x 6” was not acceptable for use. Mr. Hess and Chairman Gwaltney clarified that they had said that the 6” x 6” squared posts were not acceptable. Chairman Gwaltney added that having a turned 6” x 6” post would still give architectural integrity and examples could be found all over the Town. He related that he had only gotten his posts through architectural salvage so he was not that familiar with the cost of new posts or even where to find them. He reported that the Board’s goal was to restore a home in the Historic District at least to the level it was or to improve it somehow. He added that this particular proposal seemed to be going in the opposite direction, architecturally speaking. Mr. Hill asked if the railings that were on the sides of the front porch currently had turned spindles. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 Mr. Smith stated that they were, but it was in a more modern 1980’s fashion. He said that he was unsure if there had ever been railings across the front, adding that the porch was not 30 inches off the ground, so it did not even need a railing. Chairman Gwaltney said that the Board was not pushing for railing on the front porch. Mr. Smith said that railing on the front porch was not needed and repeated that he could add turned-post columns to the front porch plans. Mr. Hill stated that there was turned-post columns that were available, but warned Chairman Gwaltney that it would be made of a vinyl material, which the board had generally not allowed in the Historic District. He added that those types of posts also had a steel core. Mr. Smith reported that he had used that type of column previously. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed with Mr. Hill that the Board had approved such columns before. Mr. Smith recalled that previously when he had been before the Board they were staunchly anti-vinyl. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that they were not fond of the use of vinyl materials. Mr. Smith related that when he previously used the turned-post made of vinyl they looked very similar to wood. Mr. Hill agreed that it would be hard to differentiate between the two materials. Mrs. Lally asked if they would be keeping the ornamental columns against the house. Mr. Smith stated that he had not planned to, but he could buy an extra turned-post in vinyl and cut it in half. He explained that the house had aluminum siding with the windows having metal wrap, so he did not like the idea of putting wood on the house that would have to be painted. He pointed out that the only place on the house currently that could be painted was the front porch. He offered to send the Board members an email of the turned-posts for their review prior to installation. He additionally proposed taking the existing ornate brackets, cleaning them, and then reinstalling them. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Hill what his opinion on the proposal was as he was the most familiar with the products that they were discussing. Mr. Hill made a motion to conditionally approve the application with staff recommendations and completion of the following items: 1. The proposed deck and front porch were stained the same semi-transparent “Fruitwood” stain. 2. The applicant uses three (3) vinyl six-inch by six-inch (6” x6”) turned-posts featuring an internal metal post to replace the three (3) front porch four-in by four-inch (4”x 4”) wooden turned-post columns. 3. The decorative, scrolled brackets featured on the existing columns were replaced in kind. 4. The railings and spindles used for the proposed deck and front porch shall incorporate a turned-post design. Vice Chair Hillegass seconded the motion. The Town Attorney recommended ensuring that the applicant was in agreement. Mr. Smith stated that he understood where the Board was coming from and was ok with the recommendations. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Smith if the homeowner would be happy with the recommendations. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 Mr. Smith stated that the homeowner would be fine. He reported that prior to turning in the application, he and the owner had considered proposing use of a vinyl railing, but had not gone with it due to his previous experiences with the Board not liking vinyl materials. Mr. Hill said that this happened to be a situation where it could not be maneuvered around. He acknowledged that use of turned-wood posts on the front porch would rot in 4 years. He continued that in this particular situation the Board had to be more flexible. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board’s goal was to keep the Historic District houses intact as long as they could. Mr. Smith stated he was in full agreement. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. 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 forty-four foot (44’) by twenty-six foot (26’), 1,144 square foot, wooden accessory structure located at the rear of the property. He said that in addition to the structure currently being overrun with vegetation, a portion of the metal roof was not adequately secured to the structure due to deteriorated materials. He added that the floor was decaying, making it unsafe to enter the accessory structure for maintenance or other purposes and the wooden planks were starting to rot and fall apart around the lower portion of the accessory structure. Mr. Kluck reviewed that the application was tabled at the Tuesday, March 21st, 2023 BHAR meeting to allow the applicant to return with a plan for restoration of the structure or a plan for demolition and replacement of the structure. He continued that on Thursday, April 20th, 2023, the applicants requested to withdraw their application from consideration. Mr. Kluck stated that the applicants had submitted a new application request for the demolition of the accessory structure and Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint, deferring to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Amy McClure of 200 Commerce Street in Smithfield reported that she was present as a representative of Smithfield Foods. She said that she did not have any information to add to the staff report, and that the structure was just a dilapidated barn that needed to be torn down. Chairman Gwaltney reviewed that this was the third application made regarding the barn. He recalled that the first application ended with the Board giving approval of a plan to rebuild a similar structure in the barn’s place, and the second application being tabled to allow the applicant to decide whether to demolish and replace the structure or refurbish the existing structure, which led to the applicant withdrawing the application. He stated that the Board was very familiar with the property and asked if there was anything that had changed that may alter the Board’s previous rulings. Mrs. McClure reported that nothing had changed from Smithfield Foods’ perspective, and with no room in their budget to rebuild the structure they were asking to tear it down. Mrs. Hess asked how long Smithfield Foods had owned the property. Mrs. McClure stated that she was unsure as to when they acquired it. Chairman Gwaltney asked when the first application was reviewed. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 Mr. Kluck said that the first application had been completed in 2016. Mrs. Hess asked if that was when the property had actually been acquired and questioned if the structure had reached this state under Smithfield Foods’ stewardship. Mrs. McClure stated that she did not think that there was evidence that the property had been any different when they purchased it than they way it was currently. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he could vouch that when it was bought, it had not been as bad as it was currently. He related that he had previously been in the building when it was being used by the Smithfield Inn, but acknowledged that was a long time ago. He added that 10 years ago the Smithfield Inn used the barn to store dining room furniture and catering items. Mr. Kluck reported that the Isle of Wight County Property Assessment reports showed that the property transferred to ownership by Smithfield Foods in 1995. Chairman Gwaltney stated that was also when Smithfield Foods had bought Smithfield Inn. He reported that Smithfield Foods had owned the property with the barn for decades. The Town Attorney reported that it was important to note that by law, the owner could not be made to build a new building or made to refurbish the structure. Chairman Gwaltney stated that they were not making anyone do anything. The Town Attorney said that he was giving the reminder that the Board did not have the power to do either thing. He added that Mrs. McClure also had the right to appeal the decision with the Town Council. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the Board only had the ability to accept or deny the application. Mr. Hess reported that he was not in favor of the demolition of any structure within the Historic District with the exception of structures that were safety hazards. He said that he felt that they were at that point with the barn in question. Chairman Gwaltney recalled that the Board had been against the demolition of other historic properties, including Pierceville. He said that despite the undesirable attributes the structure had he would find it difficult to approve tearing it down. Vice Chair Hillegass said that they had reviewed the property two times previously and nothing had changed, which left her not inclined to change her position. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he was in agreement. He added that it was difficult to watch a property owner let a structure get to that position in light of the fact that they may have the means to prevent it from reaching that point. He speculated that in the case of the Pierceville property, the owner had been in a different financial position. He said that he did not want the Board to be put in the position where it was their decision on whether or not to allow the structure to be torn down, especially considering that their purpose was to keep that from happening. Mr. Hill recalled that he had made a similar point during the last review about Smithfield Foods asking the Board to vote to demolish something that they had owned for some time and its condition was due to lack of care. Mrs. McClure said that they had not asked her any questions and she would be happy to answer any questions they had. Mrs. Hess asked if there was a reason why they hadn’t taken care of the structure. 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 19th, 2023 Mrs. McClure reported that it was Smithfield Foods’ position was that the shed had no historical value and was not extraordinary in any way but was simply old. She said that no one could point to when it had been built, but it was constructed using modern nails and 2” x 4”s. She agreed with the Town Attorney’s statement that they were under no obligation to maintain the property. Mrs. McClure said that Smithfield Foods’ intentions were not relevant to the fact that the property was dilapidated and was not contributing to the historical nature of the neighborhood, which was the wording in the guidelines set forth by the BHAR. She reviewed that last time she was present before the Board they suggested that she return to Smithfield Foods to see if there was money for the building in their budget and she stated that they should not be treated any differently than other applicants just because they were a company. Mr. Hill said that he agreed with her statement. He pointed out that the barn had been built just like the barns at Windsor Castle Park. He added that the barns at the park were of the same style and era, and they had all been fixed. Mrs. McClure said that she had not seen any evidence of that, but if she had she would take it into consideration. She gave the reminder that the barn was dangerous, recalling that a public speaker at the last meeting had reported that her grandson had broken into the structure. She additionally explained that there were items in the barn that the Smithfield Inn had stored there, but could not remove because it was too dangerous. Mrs. Hess asked if the history of the building was known. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that it had been a peanut barn. Mrs. Hess stated that the charm of a small town is that there were things that did not have to be seen from the road to be discovered. Mrs. McClure explained that it was on private property, and the Historic District Guidelines said that the structure must be visible from the street. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that it was not an architecturally grand structure and was not in a prominently visible position in Town. Vice Chair Hillegass pointed out that there was a lot of traffic in that area and people were able to see the structure when utilizing that area to park when accessing local businesses. Mrs. McClure acknowledged that was true, and added that there was supposed to be no parking in that area as it was considered trespassing. Vice Chair Hillegass reiterated that nothing at the property had changed and she was not inclined to approve the application. Chairman Gwaltney agreed and stated he was unsure as to why the Board would change their position. Mrs. McClure reported that last time she presented the application to demolish the structure the Board had asked her to investigate if there was money in budget to refurbish the building, and the answer was that there was not. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to deny the application as presented. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Mr. Hess asked what the next step would be in the process if the Board denied the application. 9