Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, July 16th, 2024 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 Russell Hill Julie Hess Leigh Abbott-Leaman Members absent: Justin Hornback Staff present: Tammie Clary – Community Development and Planning Director William Riddick, III – Town Attorney Mark Kluck – Planner Judy Winslow – Isle of Wight County Director of Tourism Press: None Citizens: 1 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, reported that Town Staff had received the first full draft of the updated guidelines that would be discussed later in the meeting. Public Comments: Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that there were no members of the public that wished to make comment. Board Member Comments: Vice Chair Hillegass reported that the Planning Commission was reviewing the updated Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO) Guidelines and recommended that the BHAR members might also want to review them. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the BHAR had access to the updated draft of the ECO Guidelines. Tammy Clary, Community Development and Planning Director, reported that she would email the draft to the BHAR members for review. New Fence – 239 Cary Street – Non-Contributing – James Jones, applicant. Board of Historic and Architectural Review July 16th, 2024 Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect a four-foot-tall wooden fence in the side yards of the property. He detailed that the fence would be constructed to match the design of the existing porch rails to include the spindles instead of traditional fence slats and the fence would be stained with a natural color stain within one year of installation to allow the wood to season. He stated that Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standing point and deferred to the BHAR for the architectural discretion. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that the applicant was present to answer any questions that the Board may have. He asked if the fence would go all the way up to their neighbor’s property. James Jones, representing 239 Cary Street in Smithfield, explained that he was putting up the fence on one side in order to protect the children who resided at the home from the neighbor’s dog. He clarified that there had not been any incidences of aggression; however, he was considering the breed of the dog and how young the children were. He reported that he was putting the fence on the other side following the concrete of the driveway from the back deck to the garage. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out that in the rendering of the fence provided, the side that did not have a deck looked as though the fence went directly up to the neighbor’s home. He questioned if Town Staff had checked on the property lines in question. Mr. Kluck explained that he had, and had done the illustration to demonstrate what the fence could look like. He acknowledged that it was not an exact rendering. Vice Chair Hillegass asked if the fence would be attached to the neighbor’s garage. Mr. Jones stated that it would not, but would be placed right beside it. He added that they also wanted to ensure that the children did not wander to the street. He stated that he did not include fencing for the back of the yard in his request as it was his understanding that was where new development would be built eventually. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that Mr. Jones was acknowledging that at some point in time he would likely be putting up a back fence as well. Mr. Jones said that was correct. Chairman Gwaltney asked the Board members how they would feel if Mr. Jones installed a 4-foot fence with spindles that matched the deck and then years down the line wanted to install an 8 foot privacy fence in the back of the house. He specified that he wanted their opinion on having a yard that utilized two types of fencing in it. Mr. Jones stated that he was unsure what would unfold with the new development. Chairman Gwaltney said that he understood Mr. Jones’s point, but he wanted to give him a heads up on what he might run in to in the future. Mr. Hill added that there was a house 2 or 3 doors down that had a 6 foot dog-eared privacy fence behind it. He stated that any fencing that was placed beyond the back corner of the house to the rear of the property could be 6 foot or whatever they chose. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged Mr. Jones’s point that he did not know what was going to built on the land behind his house. The Town Attorney stated that a back-facing fence was not the application that was currently being considered, and pointed out that installing a fence in the back of the property would not be visible from the street. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review July 16th, 2024 Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application 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 passed. Color Change - 222 Institute Street – Non-Contributing – Judy Winslow, applicant. Mr. Kluck stated that the applicant was seeking approval to change the exterior brown accent color of the single-family dwelling to green, specifically True Value “Felt.” He reported that the areas where the color would change included the fascias, frieze boards, rakes, shutters, trim around the windows, and the front porch area, including the door, porch post, and handrails. He noted that the tan-colored siding was not proposed to change colors. He continued that Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standing point and deferred to the BHAR for their architectural discretion. Judy Winslow of 222 Institute Street in Smithfield was present to answer questions from the Board and reported that the house trim had not been painted since the house was built over 30 years ago. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Hill 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 1st Draft Review. Chairman Gwaltney reported that the draft received was the first update to the guidelines, and that he hoped that the Board members had been able to review the document. He said that he had been glad to see the notes given by Town Staff on the version sent. He stated that he would let Mrs. Clary take over the discussion to orchestrate how she would like them to proceed. Mrs. Clary explained that Town Staff had provided their initial comments regarding the draft. She stated that there were some talking points that they wanted to address during the discussion. She noted that the draft currently did not feature a section on gutters, and she asked if the BHAR would like to see an isolated section on the subject. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he wanted the discussion to be an open one, and wanted the members to say what they wanted to. Mrs. Clary gave the reminder that there had been previous discussion about half-round and round guttering being administratively approved. Chairman Gwaltney said that he felt that the subject of gutters should at least be a topic included in the guidelines, at least to say which types would be accurate to the style house that it was included on. Mrs. Lally agreed with Chairman Gwaltney, and related that there were some homes in the Historic District that chose to use drop-down gutter systems which did not correspond to the time period in which their homes were built. Mrs. Clary offered that they could include a chart. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review July 16th, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney added that it could cover the different types of gutters, what periods they were found in, and what materials they were made from. Mrs. Clary continued by reporting that the previous set of guidelines discussed parking accommodations, paving, and landscaping. She added that the topics were not highlighted in the updated guidelines. She asked the Board members if those items were areas that needed to be included in the updated guidelines. Mr. Hill inquired if those areas would fall under the jurisdiction of the BHAR as it had nothing to do with the home on the property. He acknowledged that they do review fences on properties. Chairman Gwaltney said that the Board had discussed parking pads and driveways previously, namely if they should be concrete versus brick. He pointed out that with the updating of the guidelines, the Board could decide whether or not those topics would be under the BHAR’s purview. The Town Attorney said that was correct. Mr. Hill felt that those areas fell under Zoning responsibility, and asked the Town Attorney if there was anything odd about BHAR reviewing them. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mrs. Clary if Town Staff considered parking pads and driveways structures on the property. Mrs. Clary recalled that they had discussed the issue when a home on South Church Street installed a parking pad. She reviewed that they had issued a zoning permit waiver as they did not have any guidance on the situation. Mrs. Hillegass also pointed out that there was a home on Grace Street that had a brick installed to even their walkway up with the sidewalk, and though it looked nice, she did not think that they had received the appropriate permissions. She recommended that some guidance made available regarding acceptable design, etc. Chairman Gwaltney agreed and reiterated that now was the time to outline exactly what elements would be under the BHAR’s purview. He noted that if the Town had driveways classified as a structure, then he thought that it would carry the same weight as a fence or a shed. Mrs. Lally posed the question that wouldn’t the Board want to have a say if someone wanted to install an asphalt driveway. The Town Attorney stated that what they could have control over was materials visible from the street. He pointed out that Cypress Creek and Gatling Point had standards that addressed exposed aggregate as an example. Vice Chair Hillegass suggested that they include walkways in the section. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he felt that the BHAR could at least weigh in on design considerations. He used the example of having a concrete driveway pad placed in front a house that was built in the 1790’s. He acknowledged that some of what they were discussing would need to be written as it did not currently exist in the guidelines. Mrs. Clary inquired if the Board members would feel differently about the concrete parking pad if it had been completed in brick. Chairman Gwaltney said yes. Mrs. Hess added that the concrete could have been stamped at a minimum. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review July 16th, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney stated that he felt that they should have weighed in on the options available, and that was why it should be included in the update. Mrs. Clary reviewed that the guideline could include that driveways, parking, and walkways should consist of stamped concrete or brick. Chairman Gwaltney added that it should be appropriate to the house on the property. The Town Attorney related his experience with stamped concrete and its appearance versus plain white concrete. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mrs. Clary if she could draft language regarding driveways, parking, and walkways for their review. Mrs. Clary confirmed that she could. Mr. Hill reported that there many options to modify concrete, even after the fact. Mrs. Clary concluded that a guideline would be to avoid white concrete. Chairman Gwaltney suggested that they could specify their recommendation for the different style classifications of houses in the Historic District. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman said that would be helpful as they could not assume that someone buying a home in the Historic District knew the material or look that would be most appropriate to the age/style of the house. Mrs. Clary directed the Board members to page 14 of the draft. She reported that initially the consultants wanted a blue outline highlighting Historic District, but Town Staff had asked them to include the color coordinated HPO Map. Vice Chair Hillegass recommended the inclusion of a key to discern between Landmark, Contributing, and Non-Contributing properties. Chairman Gwaltney added that they should include a year noting when the map was completed. Mrs. Clary next directed the Board members to page 97 of the draft guidelines which addressed 2-story additions. She asked if the Board would even consider approval of the examples that were included by the consultants. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the guidelines currently addressed 2-story additions in any way. Mrs. Clary stated that she did not believe that it did. She said that when Town Staff reviewed the draft they thought that the examples provided did not seem like additions that would be approved by the staff. There was general consensus from all present that the “appropriate” examples in the draft did not look good. Chairman Gwaltney asked the Board if they would want the examples removed from the guidelines entirely, or if they wanted the consultants to find better examples. The Town Attorney stated that there could be an architect that could make the examples look much better. Vice Chair Hillegass offered that a good example to use that existed within the Town was the addition to the Old Jail on Mason Street. Mrs. Clary reported that Town Staff’s suggestion to the consultants was to remove the examples provided. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review July 16th, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney said that he was ok with that. He pointed out that people would design whatever they wanted, and the bring it to the BHAR for review of whether or not it was appropriate. The Town Attorney pointed out that giving the consultants bad advice to begin with was not a good first step. Mr. Hill stated that he was in agreement that there should not be any examples given so that they must bring their design for review. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he felt that it was good to keep the text at the bottom of the page that stated, “The side or rear of the building is the most appropriate location for new additions,” but was in agreeance with the Town Attorney that the pictures included did not look good. The Town Attorney asked what the difference between Colonial and Colonial Revival house designs were. Chairman Gwaltney responded that it was likely just date of construction. The Town Attorney pointed out that there was no information included for Colonial architecture though there was much found within the Town. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he had also noted that the Bungalow style was also missing from the draft. The Town Attorney asked what period the Tynes House was categorized as being in. Chairman Gwaltney reported that it was in the Federal period. The Town Attorney said that the Tynes House was older than the Federal period. Chairman Gwaltney observed that the Federal period was after the Revolutionary War. The Town Attorney mentioned out that in the draft guidelines, the style of architecture listed during the period of 1700-1780 was Georgian. Mr. Hill related that he was working on a home that was built in the 1820’s that had many of the characteristics found in the Williamsburg Era, detailing that the house had tapered rake boards, even on the flat side, which was something that he had never seen in Smithfield. The Town Attorney said that the way that draft was written, it seemed that the oldest type of architecture found in the Town was Georgian, which was not true. Chairman Gwaltney reported that the Mary Jackson House was built in 1760, and was definitely a Dutch-Colonial house, as was the Doggett House. Mrs. Clary inquired if the Board members would like the addition of a Colonial section. Chairman Gwaltney said yes. The Town Attorney speculated that the consultants had just picked up what had been done for the previous iteration of the guidelines. Mrs. Clary continued to page 101 in the draft guidelines where one of the “Best Practices” listed for accessory structures stated: “It is generally appropriate to remove non-historic accessory structures as long as their removal does not damage the primary building or the surrounding landscape.” Chairman Gwaltney suggested adding to the statement that it was “sometimes appropriate” and then “with the approval of the BHAR” at the end of the statement, emphasizing that it was sometimes acceptable. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review July 16th, 2024 The Town Attorney said that if a structure was falling to pieces and did not look ok then it may be appropriate to remove. Mrs. Hess added that if the landowner also was not taking care of the property. The Town Attorney also pointed out that the quote included the specification of “non- historic.” Chairman Gwaltney stated that he felt that they needed to be cautious using a statement like that in the guidelines as it opens up to the possibility of other structures being removed. The Town Attorney asked if they wanted to include language that would make people try preserve non-historic structures. Chairman Gwaltney said that he did not want to give readers the impression that it was ok easily remove structures from the Historic District. Vice Chair Hillegass agreed that they did not need to make a loophole that large. The Town Attorney questioned if they wanted to enforce preservation of structures that had just been around a long time, but were not historic in nature. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he did not want to prohibit their removal, but he did want to enforce that residents needed to come and discuss removal with the BHAR. Mrs. Hess stated that she agreed with the wording that Chairman Gwaltney had suggested. Mrs. Clary directed the members to page 103 of the guidelines for the discussion of the best practices for Streetscape Elements. She read the last point: “The installation of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) ramps to existing historic buildings should minimize damage to historic elements and be compatible with the site and building. The preferred location of ADA ramps are to the side or rear of the main building.” Chairman Gwaltney observed that it did not mention that ramp placement needed to come before the BHAR for review. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that ramp placement may be site specific due to space restrictions on some lots. The Town Attorney reported that with ADA compliance in mind, if the only place the ramp could go was in the front of the building, then that was where it would go. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman said that was also covered on the next page of the guidelines that showed a ramp in the front with landscaping to compliment it. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he felt many of the guidelines given were not entirely about the BHAR approving or not approving changes, but it was also about educating property owners about the properties and why there were certain preferences on how things should be done. Mrs. Lally inquired if once a ramp was on a Historical home was it grandfathered into the guidelines or was there a request that could be made to remove a ramp once it was no longer needed. The Town Attorney said that there was no time limit needed for ramps. Mrs. Lally additionally questioned if the look of the ramp needed to comply with the guidelines outlined, for examples the spindles on the ramp matching those on the porch. The Town Attorney said as long as the ramp was not intended to be a permanent feature. He used the example of metal temporary ramps used for injuries, etc. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review July 16th, 2024 Mrs. Clary reported that on page 52 of the pdf of the agenda inquired if the Board liked the use of “Porky’s Pointers” to have a running theme for points of interest in the guidelines. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that they did not need to decide on the name at that point. Mrs. Clary said that she had pointed out the areas that they wanted feedback on from their own in-depth review. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that in the color palette chosen for the guidelines, the darker colors were too dark for her. She asked if the style of the guidelines match the style used by the Tourism Department. Chairman Gwaltney said that he had the same thought, and had suggested maybe toning down the colors from 100% down to 40%. He additionally offered that maybe the boarder color around the text be 100%. Vice Chair Hillegass advised checking on the requirements of documents being ADA compliant, using the example that if there was a picture that there be text with it describing what could be seen for visually impaired persons. Chairman Gwaltney pointed out that the picture on page 51 of the guidelines could not be dated correctly, even if it was coming from the Library of Congress, due to the age of the cars shown in it. He asked if that could be looked at closer. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she liked having the additional information and resources offered by listing the Preservation Briefs throughout the guidelines, but she did not like having the National Park Services emblem repeatedly included with them. Mrs. Clary updated that Town Staff was in agreement, and had requested that the information be included on a smaller scale. Chairman Gwaltney recommended that the Introduction and Chapter 1 needed to rearranged. He added that he liked the idea of interesting facts and tips throughout the guidelines, and suggested that some be the BHAR’s tips, and then some be information from the park service. He gave the idea for use of “Hamtown Hints,” and questioned why there were intentionally blank pages included in the draft. He liked the historic paint chart included and wanted to see more things like that included. The Town Attorney observed that most people who completed applications to the BHAR did not ask for traditional asphalt shingles. He suggested that as the Board was against the use of that type of shingle, they should consider including in one of their tips that applicants consider using 30-year architectural shingles, adding that they could include some more guidance to the homeowners on acceptable materials. Chairman Gwaltney reiterated that they should be looking at the guidelines as an educational tool. Mrs. Clary explained that the same document would be placed on the agenda for full discussion at next month’s meeting, which would give the members time to go through the draft and organize their comments. Chairman Gwaltney proposed that the members send emails to the group with information of what they liked and did not like about the drafted guidelines to provide Town Staff with additional documentation. 8