Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, August 20th, 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 Justin Hornback Members absent: None Staff present: Tammie Clary – Community Development and Planning Director William Riddick, III – Town Attorney Mark Kluck – Planner Press: None Citizens: 5 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, explained that the Board members had been provided with three electronic documents for review: the agenda for the meeting, a version of the Historic District Guidelines Draft that included comments made by Town Staff, and the version of the drafted guidelines as provided by the consultants without any staff comments. Public Comments: Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that there were no members of the public that wished to make comment. Board Member Comments: There were no Board member comments. Material Change (Siding and Trim) – 106 North Mason Street – Landmark – Amy and Kirk Ring, applicants. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicants were seeking approval to change the material of the existing pine wood siding and trim around the entirety of the dwelling's exterior. He continued that they wished to use “Cobblestone” Hardie siding planks and “Iron Gray” Hardie trim boards, with the color of the Hardie material similarly matching the existing wood siding and trim. He noted Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 that the brick façade would remain as-is. He stated that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standing point and deferred to the BHAR for their architectural discretion. Amy Ring of 106 North Mason Street in Smithfield was present to discuss the application. She stated that she and her husband owned the property and as they were completing some renovation of the house, they became concerned with ongoing maintenance of the structure. She said that the use of the Hardie board would enable the look of the exterior to last longer, and that they had asked Jason Gioffre of Restoration Exteriors to complete the project. She added that Mr. Gioffre had experience working on other Historic District homes and had done good work. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there were currently shutters on the house. Mrs. Ring stated that there were previously shutters however they had to be taken down due to their state of disrepair. She said that they would eventually like to replace them but wanted to confirm with Mr. Kluck if they needed to come back before the BHAR to do so. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there were plans to address the cedar shingles on the front of the addition. Mrs. Ring acknowledged that the cedar shingles needed to be replaced, and invited any recommendations the Board may have as to who might be able to help them. She added that the gentleman completing the siding did not do roof work. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there were cedar shake shingles on the roofing. Mrs. Ring reported that there were cedar shake shingles on the rear and front sides while the top had architectural shingles. She stated that the top and roof over the original jail portion of the house had recently been replaced. She confirmed that she would like to replace the cedar shake shingles with the same material. Mr. Hill noted that architectural shingles would not stay on the sloped area as it was too steep. He made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Accessory Structure (Shed) – 206 Riverview Avenue – Non-Contributing – Jeffrey Smith, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to place a pre-built eight-foot by ten-foot (8’ x 10’) A-frame shed in the rear yard of the property. He detailed that the proposed shed would feature beige-colored T1-11 wood siding and a set of double barn doors with trim and roof color options. He said that the applicants had reported that the trim color could be green or white, and the standing seam metal roof color could be green, bright red, or beige. He said that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standing point and deferred to the BHAR for their architectural discretion. Jeffrey Smith of 206 Riverview Avenue in Smithfield was present to discuss the application. He said that ideally the color they would prefer for the shed was beige, with the roof colored brick red to be more subdued than a bright red color. Mr. Hornback noted that the proposed placement was down the embankment and was harder to see. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Smith why he had chosen a red roof when a brown roof would complement the colors of the house. Mr. Smith stated that he was amenable to using a brown color for the shed’s roof, adding that he could not recall why he had originally gone with the red choice. Vice Chair Hillegass agreed that the colors should mimic the color scheme of the main house. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Smith if he wanted to amend the color requested in his application. Mrs. Smith stated that he would like to amend his application to any of the recommended colors as it had not been his intention to make the shed stand out from the color of the house. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the amended application with the conditions of the metal roof being brown or burnished slate and the trim should be white to match the single- family dwelling. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. Sign (Wall Mounted, Non-Illuminated) – 409 Main Street – Non-Contributing – Spearpoint Investment Group c/o Tim Ryan, applicant. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to install a 42-inch tall by 28- inch wide (8.2 square foot) flat wall-mounted, non-illuminated sign on the front left exterior of the building. He stated that the proposed sign would feature a blue background with five (5) grey blocks for future tenants. He said that Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standing point and deferred to the BHAR for their architectural discretion. Jay Hassell of 16621 Scotts Factory Road in Smithfield stated that he was present to discuss the application as his business partner, Tim Ryan, was not able to attend the meeting. Mr. Hornback observed that it was a tasteful design that matched the colors existing on the structure. Vice Chair Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mrs. Abbott- Leaman seconded the motion. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the inserts on the sign would also be grey with blue lettering. Mr. Hassell explained that the tenants in the building had requested the sign to identify the front of the building. He continued that it was their intention to allow the tenants to have their business logo on the inserts and being responsible for their creation. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that what the Board was approving was the exact sign shown in the packet, but the tenants would be responsible for the way the inserts appeared. Mrs. Hess asked if they could ask that the tenants ensure that their inserts utilized navy blue or black logos. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board did not have a problem with the sign that the applicant was presenting; however, his concern was the additional five inserts conforming with the guidelines. Vice Chair Hillegass noted that it would look similar to what was in the old Stevenson Realty building where each business had their own sign. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney countered that Smithfield Station had multiple businesses listed on their sign, but all utilized the same style lettering and were made in the same place. He added that he had just wanted to be clear on what they were considering. The Town Attorney reflected that the inserts would be a very small palette for expression. Mrs. Abbot-Leaman thanked Chairman Gwaltney for his question because when she had seconded the motion made to approve as presented, she had been under the impression that all the inserts would have similar lettering and coloring as shown in the example. She suggested that they should specify use of single-colored logos on the sign inserts. 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 Tammie Clary, Community Development and Planning Director, reiterated that the Board members had received the first draft of the guidelines as well as the first draft of the guidelines that included Town Staff’s comments. She stated that she was present to get the Board’s comments on the draft and to hear their thoughts on its contents. She reported that the consultants would be returning in September to finalize the first draft and to hold a public hearing. Mr. Hornback stated that they needed to be more selective on the images that were included in the guidelines. He pointed out that in images that were used to show examples of materials that should be used there may be other materials in the background that were not acceptable. He used the example of the picture on the right-hand side of page 75 of the guidelines where a photo was included of a door frame in town; however, in front of the door is a railing type that is not recommended for use. He said that his concern was with applicants interpreting the whole picture as an example of what should be used. Chairman Gwaltney agreed that the railing type shown in the picture is the type of thing that needed to be addressed. Mrs. Clary noted that this type of comment was what Town Staff was looking for. Mr. Hornback acknowledged that the Board had pointed out that the colors chosen for the background of the text was too dark, but he related that he was partially colorblind, and he had a very hard time reading the draft. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman recalled that they had previously pointed out that the color usage was an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance nightmare. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that the consultants had used the colors as they were part of a Town-branded color scheme. He added that the Board had previously discussed that if those colors were used, the brightness percentage should be decreased to get the essence of the color without the intensity. He said that they had additional discussed the possibility of the border being at 100% saturation while the area containing text was at reduced percentage. The Town Attorney recalled that at the last meeting the Board had come to the consensus that the photos included of the old Courthouse in the Introduction was not a very dynamic way to open the guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that had been discussed, adding that he had also pointed that out personally to Mrs. Clary. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 Mr. Hornback reported that those notes were included on the draft with comments from Town Staff and the BHAR. Mr. Kluck advised that the draft was the same that was presented at last month’s meeting and had not been updated by the consultants. The Town Attorney inquired if the Historic District map included in the draft should be made larger. He pointed out that there were blank pages in the draft and questioned why it could not have an entire page dedicated to it. Mr. Hornback read from the included comments that the black and white photos in the introduction were not inviting. The Town Attorney reviewed that the discussion had been regarding introducing their product with a black and white photo of a structure that did not exist anymore did not hold much “wow-factor.” Mrs. Abbott-Leaman said that it made it seem that they were attempting to maintain a dated or shabby look instead of beautifully restored structures. Mr. Hornback noted that was a theme throughout the document and directed them to page 15 of the guidelines. He stated that on that page there was a historic photo of 117 South Church Street while the structure today no longer resembled what was shown. He questioned if that was something that they wanted to consistently carry through the document. Chairman Gwaltney said that he was unsure how far they wanted to go. He stated that the picture in question was identified as being from 1933, and he felt that was safe. He proposed that they could include photos of the buildings from different eras to what they looked like restored today in a “before and after” comparison to show the progression. He pointed out that the house shown in the picture from 1933 on page 15, the Wentworth-Barret House, was completely different from the picture of the present day at the start of Chapter 2 on page 21. He acknowledged that he did not know how many examples of houses in the Historic District throughout the years were available. Chairman Gwaltney said that it was great to show the houses in their different stages and uses, adding that there were pictures included early on in the guidelines of the Courthouse when it was used as a residence. He stated that the didn’t want to include pictures of grand homes that people would want to go see that were no longer in existence. The Town Attorney stated that Chairman Gwaltney’s point was illustrated by the use of the pictures at the start of the document in Chapter 1 as the buildings in the pictures did not exist in that way anymore and were not relative to the information contained within. He said that though it was interesting and fascinating, it did not promote their objective. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman suggested that the whole first page should be the map of the Historic District. Chairman Gwaltney speculated that most people would say that the Courthouse was the gem in the crown of the Historic District. The Town Attorney reiterated that it was a very interesting thing to include, however it was not in the right place or with the right context. He stated that the picture of the Courthouse in the Introduction did not have any information tying it to the Courthouse as it was seen in present day. Chairman Gwaltney said that he would like to see some kind of full-page picture to introduce the document. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 The Town Attorney said they could have a picture of the renovated Courthouse. Chairman Gwaltney suggested that they could include a wider street shot that included several historic buildings, especially considering that the guidelines were for the entire Historic District. He said that he did not like the idea of starting the chapter with just a picture and its caption. Mrs. Clary proposed that they could have an aerial shot done by drone possibly of Main Street or somewhere similar. Chairman Gwaltney stated that they could do that, but they may not get the detail by aerial shot that they could get from a picture taken on the street. He postulated that they could include a picture with more than one building, and then highlight a picture of the Courthouse currently, perhaps even with the re-enactors in historical costume. The Town Attorney observed that there was not one picture of the iconic Courthouse included in Smithfield’s own Historic Guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney agreed that the document was about the Historic District and as such should show the Historic District. He stated that he did not think that he saw in the draft a picture that represented Main Street or Church Street that gave a feel of the historic buildings in use today. Mr. Hornback reported that in the previous guidelines he liked their inclusion of different examples structures that were classified as Landmark, Contributing, and Non-Contributing to give the reader visual representation of their differences that was easy to understand. Mrs. Hess stated that some of the diagrams included were a little confusing, notably the diagram associated with “Visibility of Alterations” on page 17. She added that it was not appealing to look at. Mrs. Clary stated that they had included the shading in the diagram to illustrate the areas of Historic District properties that were normally visible from the right-of-way that would necessitate BHAR approval. Chairman Gwaltney admitted that without having read anything about the diagram he had thought that it was regarding doors at first glance. He stated that there was nothing with that diagram that alluded to its being a bird’s eye view of a property. Mrs. Clary explained that the diagram’s appearance had been inspired by similar information in Suffolk’s Historic Guidelines that the Board had said that they liked. She asked if labeling was added, could the diagram be kept in the document. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the information in Suffolk’s Guidelines had a reference or additional labeling to assist with the reader understanding where the point of view was within the diagram. Mrs. Clary reported that the illustration in the Suffolk Guidelines had more labeling including identifying sheds, backyards, decks, houses, driveways, sidewalks, etc. Chairman Gwaltney concluded that he thought additional labeling would help explain what perspective the diagram was being viewed in. He said that as he was viewing the section that the diagram in question was placed in closer, he found it the inclusion in an area that was explaining the steps of the BHAR review process. He stated that the visibility of alterations was an important topic to consider but felt that the diagram should be moved elsewhere in the document. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 The Town Attorney advised that it should likely be placed earlier in the document to show which areas of a property would be of most concern to the BHAR. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman agreed that a more clearly labeled chart would make more sense earlier in the document. Mr. Kluck asked how the Board felt about possibly having the diagram included as a previously discussed “Hamtown Hint” in the Introduction. Chairman Gwaltney speculated that the placement of the diagram within the review process steps was to illustrate that alterations in the areas shown would necessitate starting that process. Vice Chair Hillegass suggested that the diagram be moved to Chapter 3: Guidelines for Preservation, Alteration, and Maintenance. The Town Attorney added that they should also change the title of the diagram to something that was more user-friendly. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman suggested that it go towards the beginning as a property owner could see whether or not they would need specific types of reviews from the beginning. Vice Chair Hillegass directed the Board to page 50 of the drafted guidelines, titled “Guiding Principles for Preservation, Alteration, and Maintenance.” She observed that one of the bulleted points was “The greatest scrutiny shall be given to visible building elevations and features.” Mr. Hornback reasoned that Suffolk’s Guidelines appeared so different was they had distinctive structure forms in their diagram that made the perspective easily recognizable as homes to the reader. Chairman Gwaltney referenced Mr. Hornback’s earlier comment on inclusion of information regarding building classifications within the District, noting that on page 13 was information about Landmark, Contributing, and Non-Contributing Buildings. He added that there was text information but no pictures to detail the information. Mr. Hornback stated that the pictures were not required, but in the previous iteration of the guidelines there had been accompanying pictures illustrating each classification that gave the reader understanding of what differentiated each type without even having to read the text. The Town Attorney reported that after having reviewed the draft, he had three areas that he had questions about and felt needed discussion. He began with Chapter 3’s information on synthetic materials starting on page 62, noting that the section essentially says that they cannot be used. He stated that was not the BHAR’s policy as over the years the Board had evolved to point where they realized that owning historic homes was an expensive undertaking, and had developed comfort with the use of synthetic materials that they felt were acceptable. He reflected that sometimes putting wood back up was not the right thing to do, but what had been put in the guidelines essentially said substitution with alternative materials was not ok. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the original guidelines had similar text that they had just copied or done a variation of. The Town Attorney said that he did not think the information included on alternative and synthetic materials had not been taken from the previous set of guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney said that he did not mean exact wording but maybe just comments pulled from the original guidelines. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 The Town Attorney read “synthetic materials are generally appropriate for non- contributing buildings” directly from the Best Practices section on page 62. Mr. Hornback read “Do not… Replace existing wood features with synthetic replacements” from page 56, adding that this was something that they did allow. The Town Attorney read “Do not… Use synthetic materials on Landmarked buildings” from page 63. He estimated that he could count 50 applications where the BHAR had approved synthetic materials on Landmark buildings. Mr. Hornback stated that their approval of composite trim was one example. Mr. Hill noted three homes in the Historic district next to each other that he knew were composed of all composite materials, but walking by them they looked exactly like they used wood products. He stated showing pictures of those types of homes would show readers examples of what appropriate use of synthetic materials looked like. The Town Attorney reiterated that what was written as their best practices did not reflect accurately the BHAR’s current policy at all. Mr. Hornback reported that he thought that the information had been pulled from Preservation Briefs from the Department of the Interior. Mr. Kluck stated that Brief #16 covered the information regarding substitute materials but had been given the wrong number in the draft. Mrs. Hess suggested removal of the “Do Not” list but keep the “Best Practices” text as it was more helpful. The Town Attorney said that the idea had been to find ways to keep the historic character and appearance of the District, while giving residents more affordable and less maintenance intensive options. Chairman Gwaltney recalled that over the last few years the Board had many conversations regarding alternative materials and the increased expense to maintain the historic properties presently. He related that their views had been altered on using some types of alternative materials if they look and feel like original materials instead of letting the historic homes go to ruin due to higher costs for materials. He added that he did not feel that stance had been communicated in the draft. The Town Attorney confirmed that it was not included. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the Board’s philosophy on the maintenance of historic properties should be addressed in the forefront of the document. He said that he did not think the information in the draft was in sync with the Board’s current opinion on appropriate materials. The Town Attorney offered that they could include that the BHAR always encourage homeowners to use original materials wherever possible; however, also acknowledge that they welcome innovative uses for newer materials that maintain the historic appearance of the buildings. He noted that he did not think that the consultants had a good feel of what the Historic Guidelines for Smithfield should be. He added that given how much time the Board spent discussing windows the section covering them should be larger and explicitly, but nicely, say that they would not approve use of vinyl. Mr. Hill stated that they could list the types of windows they would consider. 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 The Town Attorney said that they could invite residents to call Town Staff to receive additional information on materials that met the BHAR’s criteria and had previously been approved. He added that wording would take away endorsement of any specific brands within the publication. Mr. Hornback asked if the Town had given the consultants the guidance to use Park Service information in the draft. Mrs. Clary reported that the Park Service information had been included in the previous set of Guidelines that Town Staff gave the consultants for reference. Mr. Hornback said that their inclusion in the draft document felt much more foundational. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman pointed out that the Preservation Briefs information did not always correspond to the information in the guidelines that they were placed with. Mrs. Clary reported that had been one of the comments they had given the consultants already. She updated that the consultants had stated that the section in question had already been updated but had not been updated as the first draft had been completed. The Town Attorney observed that the section on “Period Appropriate Roof Materials” contained interesting information, however, no one would be coming to the BHAR to ask for use of those materials as they were too expensive. He said that currently applicants asked for the newer version of standing-seam roofing, but even that was not historically accurate as the seam was too high. He speculated that no applicants would use slate, clay, stone, or wood shingles due to expense. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman added that even applicants who did want those types of historic materials could not find contractors who could do the work. The Town Attorney summarized that the guidelines gave options that were very expensive which applicants would not consider, and did not give any information on cheaper alternatives that the Board would consider approving. Chairman Gwaltney stated that there were some design elements in the draft document that were consistent throughout that he liked. He recommended that they include in the introduction information that references that the Board understood the expense involved with owning a historic home, and they were more open to consideration of products that may not have been acceptable for use in the past. He suggested that they could include different classification levels within each category that illustrate which materials were preferred, were not a first choice but ok for use, and which were not acceptable. He noted that vinyl windows would be in the not acceptable classification of materials. Mr. Hill gave the reminder that the Board had previously approved hundreds of different vinyl windows in the Historic District, namely in houses that were new constructions. He noted that difference was harder for people to understand. He added that he felt that the guidelines should be the uniform for the entire Historic District, no matter which street the structure was on. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that they should not give lists of brands, but that a list of approved materials should be included in each category. He reiterated his endorsement of having a rating system for each type of material so that homeowners had a better idea of what would be approved. 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 Mr. Hornback cautioned that multiple ratings in multiple categories had the potential of becoming very complicated. He asked if they should just remain with listing materials that were acceptable and materials to avoid. He added that the language used instead of “Do Not” should be softened to “Avoid” or along those lines. Chairman Gwaltney said that it had sounded like the Board did not just want to have a “yes” or “no” column. Mr. Hornback pointed out that they used the wording “Avoid” in new construction, and “Do Not” for existing historic structures. Chairman Gwaltney stated that in new construction there were more opportunities to use other materials. Mr. Hornback countered that they were trying to make the point that the BHAR would consider many more options as materials had advanced. He reiterated his earlier comment that the descriptions with the photos included needed to be more accurate, using the photo of 303 Main Street on page 126 as an example. He pointed out that the description of that picture included that the building had asphalt shingles and when in reality they were slate. Mrs. Hess stated that she agreed that “Do Not” should be softened, adding that then items would not need to be rated. Mr. Hornback said that he agreed with the idea of the rating of materials in principle but felt in practice it would complicate the document. He stated that the encouragement of the use of original materials should be a narrative theme throughout the document, but also include allowance for select synthetic materials to also be considered. The Town Attorney advised that a statement that the Board acknowledges that there was continuing development of new, innovative materials that were becoming more appropriate for use in historic districts, and that the Board was willing to consider those materials as they evolved on a case-by-case basis should be included. Mr. Hill listed changes within the brands of composite siding brands that were available now versus in 1999. The Town Attorney pointed out that the two largest “No’s” that the Board dealt with were vinyl siding and vinyl windows. He stated that they should be listed as materials to avoid as they were generally not appropriate materials to be used in the historic district. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the term “Less Desirable” should be used as the counterpart to “Best Practices.” Mr. Hornback said that “Less Desirable” was not strong enough. Chairman Gwaltney noted that they kept revisiting the different product names and that he knew that they should avoid their inclusion. He asked if at a later time should the Board begin to compile a list of the different approved products in the Historic District. Mr. Kluck explained that Town Staff did have a running list of approved products. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the narrative for each architectural feature should include information on the best practices, followed by its counterpart with whatever wording they decided on, and then include the note to contact Town Staff for more detailed information on approved products. He added that they should also include the note that every application was reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 10 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 Mrs. Abbott-Leaman asked if they could include a link to an ongoing list that was updated by Town Staff. She acknowledged that there would be a print version of the document but speculated that the majority of people would be accessing the information electronically. The Town Attorney advised against that as it had the appearance of endorsing products. He suggested that they use wording that explained to readers that they could contact Town Staff for a list of prior materials and products that were approved for applications in the Historic District. Chairman Gwaltney stated that though it was not a competition, that process was also beneficial in illustrating which applicants cared enough to find out exactly what they needed to do. The Town Attorney stated that the information should be more along the lines of “things they might consider” as they were previously approved, but every application was case by case. He said that the whole idea of having Historic District Guidelines was to help people, and he did not feel that what they had been present with did that. Mrs. Hess stated that the document included many pages, and that readers may lose interest. Chairman Gwaltney observed that applicants would not read through the whole document to find out what they should do if they were just replacing their windows, which also illustrated why they did not need a picture of the back of the courthouse in the beginning of the document. He asked if once the document was made available online, would users be able to click on a topic and go directly to that point in the guidelines. Mrs. Clary said that was how Town Staff would like for its inclusion on the website to be. Mrs. Hess reported that the icons that had been included next to the headings for certain architectural features, for example the fence icon next to “Fences and Walls,” did not need to be included. Mrs. Clary explained that the icons had been a Staff recommendation and was why there were only a couple included. She stated that the idea had been to use imagery to draw focus instead of having to read through all of the text. The Town Attorney discussed the uninspired appearance of the flow charts included in the draft. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman added that she felt that applicants would come to the application review already frustrated or confused. Chairman Gwaltney said that they attend with their defenses already up. Mr. Hill noted that most applicants were receptive to suggestions for use of alternative materials given by the Board. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman stated that the clearer the guidelines were then the more likely they would be to be receptive in that way. Mr. Hornback reported that frequently someone has driven around the Historic District and wants to do exactly what they see without checking the guidelines at all. Mr. Hill agreed that in many cases people would ask their neighbors before they read the guidelines. Mrs. Clary reported that it was Town Staff’s recommendation that the information on the flow chart be condensed. The Town Attorney asked them to consider who the document was being written for, what information would they read, and how would that information be received. 11 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 Mr. Hornback agreed with the Town Attorney and observed that if he went to the windows section, it was not readily apparent what type of replacement windows should be used. He added that the information could be inferred by reading the recommendations and “Do Nots.” Chairman Gwaltney directed their review to the chart contained on page 65 “Historic Features and Substitute Materials.” He stated that he was unsure if the chart was a good way to convey the information on substitute materials. Mr. Kluck reported that the chart used had been a part of the National Parks Service Preservation Brief #16. Mr. Hornback recommended that a consistency check be completed throughout the document. Chairman Gwaltney asked if the chart contained some information that would help them get their point across about different materials. The Town Attorney stated that it did contain information that was applicable, but it was hard to understand. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the appearance of the chart scratched the surface of the direction the Board wanted to go. The Town Attorney related that the best information included in the chart was in the italicized paragraph that was very hard to read below the physical chart. Chairman Gwaltney said that if they liked what it said they could increase the font and make it more legible. He suggested that they make a note for the information’s inclusion in a more obvious way. He continued that one thing that he felt was very interesting was the historic paint charts on page 70 and 71. He recommended that they use a wider variety of house colors in the example photos instead of using variations of green. He additionally advised against having all of the interesting paint information kept on one page, suggesting the example that they keep the paint chart top picture and place with two of the houses on the next page, then place the bottom chart with the other two sets of houses on the next page. He noted a similar issue of there being 6 pages straight of door diagrams that were not broken up with images of front doors. Mr. Hornback stated that the appearance of the Preservation Briefs was too much of a dominant feature. He pointed out that they were largely sized, and in some cases stacked right on top of each other. Vice Chair Hillegass agreed and said that the document had begun to look a National Parks Service document. She stated that it was fine to have those briefs referenced and links to them included in the back as a resource; however, it did not look like the Town of Smithfield’s document. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Hornback’s point that there was the appearance of too many some areas, but he liked the idea of their inclusion in smaller hint boxes, i.e. their previous discussion of “Hamtown Hints.” He said that he liked the idea of having a link within the documents digital format that took to the Preservation Briefs page. Vice Chair Hillegass suggested that it be branded to the Town. Chairman Gwaltney postulated that there was a way to change the visual design to make the National Park Service logo smaller and limit the number to no more than two briefs per page. 12 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 Mr. Hornback reported that there could be a list of the Preservation Brief numbers, but only include the logo once. Chairman Gwaltney proposed that they could be separated out and redesigned so that under the Brief name there wasn’t the large space of open coloration. The Town Attorney asked for confirmation that the Preservation Brief text boxes were designed to be links to information. Mrs. Clary said that they were. Chairman Gwaltney continued that the boxes did not need to take up so much of the page. He asked if they were required to use the National Park Service logo. Mr. Hornback stated that as a government entity they were not required to include the actual logo. Chairman Gwaltney said that they may end up wanting to include it in some way as it did lend credibility to the statement made. He added that in the Introduction there could be a prompt to look throughout the publication for the National Park Service Preservation Briefings. He said that the prompt could be to click on the logos to be taken to the Park Service’s website to learn more about the corresponding topic. Vice Chair Hillegass directed the Board to page 10 in the Introduction where a text box with information about the inclusion of the Preservation Briefs had been included. She suggested not including the National Park Services logo to ensure that the information came from the Smithfield BHAR and then gave the reader access to go review the Preservation Brief referenced on their own. Mrs. Clary confirmed that Town Staff had recommended differentiating the difference between what was the Town of Smithfield’s guidelines and what was the National Park Service’s. She said that they had wanted the logo, but did not want it quite so large, to indicated that when the logo was seen it linked to additional information. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman agreed with the suggestion that there should just be one logo even if 2 or 3 of the briefs were listed. The Town Attorney reported that in the text box regarding the Preservaion Briefs on page 10 there was no inclusion of the information that the logos were interactive and if they were clicked on then the reader would be sent to the corresponding article by the National Park Service. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he was not against the consistent use of the Park Service’s logo as he felt that once the reader had identified that clicking on it would take them to additional information, then they would know exactly what it meant for the remainder of the document. Mr. Hornback emphasized that if the Town of Smithfield wanted to differentiate their information from the Secretary of the Interior and National Park Service then Chapter 3 would need to be heavily revised. He summarized that the Town had a small introduction in the beginning of the document where the history of the Historic District was discussed, but not much else of the document was Smithfield’s voice. Chairman Gwaltney asked if it there could be the inclusion of the “Smithfield BHAR’s Standards for Preservation” versus the heavy emphasis on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 13 Board of Historic and Architectural Review August 20th, 2024 The Town Attorney suggested that they could acknowledge that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation were the gold standard to be respected and that they were important; however, the Town’s Historic District had evolved and discuss the accommodations that they would consider making. Mrs. Clary recommended that pages 48-49 should be relocated to the beginning of the document near page 10 where the Preservation Briefs were explained. She continued that then they document could progress into the Town’s guiding principles for preservation, alteration, and maintenance thereby ushering in the section regarding use of newer materials. Mr. Hornback and Mrs. Abbott-Leaman voiced their agreement with that recommendation. Chairman Gwaltney reported that pages 48-50 contained large amounts of text that contained some repetitive information that he surmised readers would already have a grasp of. He noted that he liked the definitions on page 51, adding that they should be moved more towards the beginning of the document as well. Mrs. Clary stated that Town Staff was in agreement that the information on pages 48-49 should be moved to the front of the document. Vice Chair Hillegass stated that she also was in agreement. Mr. Hornback recommended general consistency throughout the document, pointing out that there was conflicting information regarding synthetic siding materials on pages 62 and 63. The Town Attorney asked Mrs. Clary if the consultants had been given the older 1990 version of the Historic District Guidelines. Mrs. Clary explained that they did not have a digital version of the document, but that she had sent them some of the images that had been used. The Town Attorney reported that the 1990 version had been award-winning. He read from the section regarding roofing. He praised the use of plain English to give information and guidance to the reader. Chairman Gwaltney asked the Town Attorney how many pages were in the previous version. The Town Attorney reported that there were 99 pages. Chairman Gwaltney asked if there were any additional copies of the 1990 version available. Mrs. Clary reported that Town Staff just had two copies. Mr. Hornback asked Mrs. Clary if they had provided enough feedback and comments. Mrs. Clary observed that there had been comments made regarding the length of the document. She inquired if there was any information in the draft that the Board members did not think needed to be included. Vice Chair Hillegass reiterated that she did not want to see so many National Park Service logos. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he liked the idea of breaking some of the information up and make it more visually appealing. The Town Attorney pointed out that in the older version of the guidelines pictures of what was actually present in the Historic District was used to illustrate the different topics. Chairman Gwaltney asked who had published the older version that they had been referencing. 14