Board of Historic & Architectural Review

The Smithfield Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 17th, 2024 at the Smithfield Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Members present: Trey Gwaltney – Chairman Judith Lally Julie Hess Leigh Abbott-Leaman Justin Hornback Members absent: Julia Hillegass – Vice Chair Russell Hill Staff present: Tammie Clary – Community Development and Planning Director William Riddick, III – Town Attorney Mark Kluck – Planner Press: None Citizens: 4 Chairman Gwaltney welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Planner’s Report: Mark Kluck, Planner, recalled that there had been previous discussion regarding BHAR application fees and wanted to check where the members stood on the issue currently. He offered that they could push the discussion to after the review of the Historic District Guideline Update. He reminded the Board that the next Town Council Meeting would be held on Wednesday, October 2nd, due to the Town’s National Night Out event on October 1st. Public Comments: Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that there were no members of the public that wished to make any comments. Board Member Comments: There were no Board member comments. Detached Sign – 102 Underwood Lane – Contributing – Sara Edwards, applicant Mr. Kluck reported that the applicant was seeking approval to erect a 4-foot wide by 3-foot tall (12 square foot) detached wooden sign featuring a hand-painted logo and vinyl lettering. He detailed that the sign would be located in the existing post holders to the left of the front door facing Underwood Lane. He said that Town staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion with the condition that any approval be Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 contingent on the applicant receiving approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the proposed use of a school from Town Council. Sara Edwards of 205 Edgewood Drive in Smithfield stated that she did not have much to add to the Staff Report. She reported that the design for the sign was created by her daughter when the business started 3 years ago. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman confirmed that it would be placed in the same spot that the previous business at that location had their sign. Mr. Hornback 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 – 226 South Church Street – Landmark – Brian and Judith Lally, applicants Mrs. Lally stated that she would be recusing herself from the discussion and vote as she was one of the applicants. Mr. Kluck reported that the applicants were seeking approval to change the exterior color of the single-family dwelling to create a Painted Lady-style exterior to accentuate the various architectural elements of the home. He said that the primary color of the dwelling would be Smoky Salmon (SW 6331), with the applicants proposing to use a combination of one or two blues (Grandma’s Sweater or Aquarius (Benjamin Moore 787 or 788)), purple (Bottle of Bordeaux (Benjamin Moore 1357)), and pink (Foxy (Sherwin-Williams 6333)) to highlight the dwelling’s numerous architectural features such as the gable ends, eyelid dormer, columns, cornices, brackets, and carved wood panels. He added that the applicants provided a color schematic to illustrate the proposed color change and Town Staff recommended approval from a zoning standpoint and deferred to the BHAR for architectural discretion. Brian Lally of 226 South Church Street in Smithfield reported that when they had begun their renovation of the home 5.5 years ago, they had gotten a color palette approved by the Board, but had not gotten to the 6 gables of the house. He related that they had painted the south gable when the house had Hardie Plank siding installed, but the other more architecturally detailed gables did not have their interesting features highlighted. He stated that the front part of the home was built in 1860 with the back part being about 260 years old. He noted that most of the field of the house would remain Smoky Salmon, and they would like to have a pattern using the color Foxy, then Salmon, and then White to highlight the different moldings, fascia, etc. Mr. Lally reported that the frames around the windows and doors was comprised of anodized aluminum that was painted white and would last for many years. He continued that the windows themselves were colored cranberry, which he liked and wanted to bring up into the soffit. He acknowledged that he didn’t have some of the finer details finalized and would likely need to return to the Board to discuss what they ultimately chose. He related that there were many features that could be highlighted that could make it a signature home. Chairman Gwaltney acknowledged that there were different stages in the painting of the home. He asked when the painting of the “leaves” would be. 2 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Mr. Lally confirmed that he was referring to the feature that looked like leaves on the brackets. He said that it was his intention that the brackets have one of the main colors of the house, but the front face of the bracket have a different color to accentuate the curves. He added that most of the Painted Lady style houses utilized two or three different colors on brackets of the type they were discussing. Chairman Gwaltney related that the BHAR did not usually get plans with such detail in the planned color palette. He recalled that 23 years ago there had been a commercial building on Main Street that had very ornate architecture on the front of it, and the applicant had come before the Board asking for approval for use of 7 different colors, which had been unheard of in Smithfield at that time. He related that the Board at that time, which was before his appointment, had made the wise decision to approve the architecture and the colors presented so the applicant could place the colors as the work was being completed to see what really worked in practice. He updated that the project was approved, had been completed, everyone liked it, and it had since been painted over. He recommended that since the current project was as detailed that the Board might take the same approach. Mr. Lally stated that the gables would have the Foxy, Salmon, and White as was on 95% of the home currently. Mrs. Hess stated that the colors chosen would bring out the features of the beautiful home and she liked the plan. Chairman Gwaltney reasoned that approving the palette up front would give the applicant freedom to choose what really worked. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman stated that the plan would bring a sense of completion to the polished look of the home. Mr. Hornback made a motion to approve the color palette as presented while giving the applicants the discretion to use the color palette that works best for the architectural features on the dwelling. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman seconded the motion. Mr. Lally reported that they were happy to come back and present the final looks that they decided on. Chairman Gwaltney called for a collective vote, with four members present in favor, and one member abstaining. The motion passed. *Discussion Item* Historic District Guidelines 1st Draft Review Tammie Clary, Community Development and Planning Director, stated that Town Staff had provided the consultants with the comments that had been made thus far on the first draft of the updated Historic District Guidelines. She asked if the Board could focus on comments they may have that were more difficult to articulate into words so that they could further ensure that everyone was on the same page regarding the first draft. Caleb Gasparek reported that he was one of the consultants working on the updated guidelines, and was present to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Hornback asked Mr. Gasparek if he had any questions about the comments provided that he wanted clarification on. 3 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Mr. Gasparek said that he had received the comments over the previous weekend and had looked at them briefly the day prior. Mr. Hornback noted that there was much space in the document devoted to information and logos for the National Park Service. He discussed the choice of images used, for example the image chosen for page 8 that showed a structure that was no longer in existence, and that the Board would like to highlight structures that were restored or maintained. He added that they did not want to show structures that would not be approved by the Board presently. Mr. Gasparek said that he could remove the historic photos. Mr. Hornback clarified that the use of historic photos was fine if the structure shown was presently maintained in an historic fashion. He related that the photo he was pointing out was a modification that was made to a historic structure that was not in existence in present day. He directed Mr. Gasparek to the illustration used on page 17 and noted that there was not enough text definition of what was being shown to convey the message of consideration of the visibility of exterior alterations. Mrs. Clary inquired if the Board would like to touch on the subject of the photos used in Chapter 1 and consideration of how inviting they were to the rest of the document. Mrs. Hess maintained that the document as a whole was too wordy, and even as a person who loves books, it was a lot to read. She agreed with Mr. Hornback’s comments regarding the amount of National Parks Services references, adding that removal of some of that content would likely cut down on the document length. She stated that the document felt like a National Parks Service brochure and did not have the feel of the voice Smithfield. Chairman Gwaltney said that the use of the National Parks Service logo lent some credibility to the publication but asked if there was an obligation to include it everywhere their information was used. Mr. Gasparek stated that it was common for design guidelines to be based off of the National Parks Service Standards. He said that he thought that it was important to include the information as there were many local standards, but there were also National Historic District guidelines to adhere to as well. He added that over time as alterations were made, they could affect the building’s ability to remain in the National Register and the district’s overall eligibility. He observed that the boundaries included on the National Historic District map included many more Non-Contributing buildings, especially on the north end. Mr. Hornback stated that there were no issues voiced with having the National Parks Standards included, but it was more about how they were being presented. Chairman Gwaltney clarified that he was not objecting to the information being included and having the logo included somewhere, but their comments had more been that the appearance was overpowering. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman stated that there were instances where the logo was included multiple times on the same page. Mr. Hornback stated that page 59 was a prime example of the point, noting that it had the National Park Service logo repeated four times in a row taking up a third of the page. He suggested that the logo could be included once and then a list of the briefs associated with the issue that was being discussed included in one block. 4 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Mr. Gasparek stated that he understood, and it was easily done. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mrs. Clary how much of what was being discussed should be reinforcing the notes that Town Staff had already provided to the consultants. Mrs. Clary reported that she had written down some notes that she thought could foster some further discussion. She recapped that previously they had spoken about knowing the audience of who would be reading the document and using easy-to-read language. Mr. Hornback stated that the agenda items covered earlier in the meeting were good examples of what Mrs. Clary had reviewed. He questioned if it was easy to find the applicable information regarding what the expectations were for changing a sign or changing the color of a house in the document that they were reviewing. He said that there were a lot of examples and best practices to infer that information, but he felt the previous version of the document had been much more straightforward. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman stated that in the draft all of the information was contained in boxes and there was not free-standing text which made it harder to follow. She added that this also made the aspects that should be highlighted, the best practices for example, get lost in the document. She continued that the black text on a red background created legibility issues which she was unsure would meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. She observed that many people would be using the information digitally. Chairman Gwaltney said that he thought the overall document was more inviting than the previous document and that what they were commenting on was in an effort to fine-tune the information. He reiterated the Board’s concerns about the color used for the background to the text, and made the suggestion that instead of 100% intensity the color could be toned down to lower percentage in order to better read the text. He added that he was not against the use of boxes to separate information as perhaps other Board members were. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman said that the frequency of the use of text boxes stopped the eye from naturally moving through the page. Chairman Gwaltney stated that he liked their use because often the same topics were highlighted. He used the National Parks Service Briefs inclusion to illustrate his point, saying that every time the Parks Service logo was on a page it let the reader know that was where they could go for information. He added that they had previously discussed the inclusion of small text boxes that held tips from the Planning Department on certain topics. Mr. Gasparek reported that he thought what they had initially completed was similar to what Chairman Gwaltney was describing, but they ended up going in another direction. He said that he thought they could come to an agreement in middle, adding that they would look at the saturation of the colors used. Chairman Gwaltney said that there were places of empty whitespace within the document that had the appearance of their not having the information needed to fill the page. He directed them to page 40 to see an example of what he was describing. He emphasized that he did not like the inclusion of the text “This page left intentionally blank.” Mr. Gasparek stated that due to the placement of certain diagrams they had to have the blank pages in order to keep the layout formatted correctly. 5 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney stated that he understood the statement, but he did not consider that an excuse for their inclusion. He noted that it was just his opinion. Mr. Gasparek reported that they could remove the pages. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman asked if the document would be physically printed at all. Mrs. Clary reported that 10 copies would be printed. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman asked how the booking would be done. She noted that if it was going to be printed like a magazine the pages would be larger and done together on one sheet which was why sometimes there were pages left intentionally blank. Chairman Gwaltney stated that there would be page numbers at the bottom to clarify layout and there should be something included on blank pages. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman said that she was asking about the actual production, but with only 10 copies being printed she couldn’t imagine it would be an issue. Mrs. Hess stated that she liked the diagrams that had been included of the home types and their specific architecture. She stated that the way that those diagrams were very easy to read only made it more apparent that the diagram of street visibility from a bird’s eye view was harder to read. She asked if there could be an actual picture of property used to show what they were talking about. Chairman Gwaltney observed that there was a lot of subjectivity in their opinions about the draft, adding that there were some who didn’t mind the blank pages while he did. He pointed out that pages 77- 80 were devoted to different examples of doors. He stated that on the next page, 81, there was an example of multiple National Parks Service logos and suggested that they could be condensed. Mr. Hornback offered that there could be multiple brief numbers included in one box. Chairman Gwaltney noted that the number of pages devoted to different window types was high as well. He stated that altering the colors of the text boxes would make a large difference. He asked if the consultant group took most of the pictures used in the document themselves. Mr. Gasparek stated that if there was no source listed with the picture then they had been photographed by the consultants. Chairman Gwaltney commented that in the section devoted to additions, the consultants had chosen a color that was very different than the standard palette of the rest of the document to illustrate what additions would be acceptable. He continued that in the illustrations of what additions were not appropriate, they had chosen the same red as was used in the text boxes. He recommended trying to differentiate between the two. Mrs. Hess recommended that elements that were seen, icons seen in different areas, should be uniform throughout the document and should not be included if they could not be. Mrs. Clary reported that the icons she was referring to had been an addition to the document made by Town Staff. Mrs. Hess recalled that information, but she wanted to reiterate that unless they could be used uniformly throughout the document then they should not be used in just a few areas. Mrs. Clary stated that Town Staff was in agreement and wanted something similar to be used uniformly; however, they had included examples where they could in a quick manner. 6 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Chairman Gwaltney said that he had noticed several comments directed toward layout, color, and design, but had not heard any discussion regarding the content. Mr. Hornback reiterated his earlier point that there should be more informative language on what the steps were for approval. Chairman Gwaltney recalled seeing a flow chart of the process. Mr. Hornback pointed out that it was at the beginning of the document on page 18. He suggested that they could possibly include references to review that page in the discussion about the different architectural elements. Chairman Gwaltney agreed. He said that residents would likely be using the guidelines as reference in completing one or two projects and wouldn’t be reading through the entire thing. He reviewed the previous discussion of including links that redirected the user to additional information in the digital form of the document. Mr. Hornback reported that he had received many comments through the years from residents in the Historic District where they communicated that they did not want to complete certain projects as they were not aware of the process to follow. He acknowledged that they could not give special guidance to every applicant but suggested that they could make the document more of a handbook instead of the more forceful “do” or “do not.” Mrs. Clary inquired what the Board’s thoughts were including a link to the flowchart throughout the document so that they may reference the process in multiple areas. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman stated that she thought it would be helpful. Chairman Gwaltney directed them to page 22 and asked Mr. Hornback if the chart that Town Staff had included after the fact helped narrow down where the reader should look for information. Mr. Hornback used the example of installing gutters to illustrate the issue. He noted that gutters were not an item that BHAR reviewed, but there was no clear sentence to impart that information in the guidelines. Chairman Gwaltney asked for confirmation whether there would be a way in the digital version of the document to have a search bar to enter keywords into. Mr. Hornback stated that there could be an index included in the back of the document. Chairman Gwaltney noted the amount of time that would take and that he was looking for a more technical way it could be done. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman confirmed that the document would be available as a pdf and related that pdf’s were searchable. Mrs. Clary directed them to page 6 where Town Staff had entered a quick reference guide, adding that gutters could also be included in that area. Chairman Gwaltney suggested that the table would need to have more points of interest added to it. He stated that not all users would understand how to search in a pdf and which function keys to use. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman said that they could also include instructions on how to search for keywords in the document. Mr. Hornback reported that he liked the inclusion of a quick reference table. 7 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Mr. Gasparek noted that in the final product there would be the ability to click on a subject in the table of contents and then be routed directly to the section it was covered in. Chairman Gwaltney agreed with the earlier statement that residents would not read the entire document when just looking up information regarding a single topic, and it should be more user friendly as a result. He added that there should be some element of fun to the guide, as the majority of people who fixed up older homes did it because they loved them. Mr. Hornback advised that some of the language used in the guidelines made it seem as though the reader could not bring new materials to the Board for consideration, but the Board was trying to be more inclusive of newer material alternatives. Chairman Gwaltney recalled that the Board had a discussion on language that could be used in place of “do not.” Mr. Hornback said that they had discussed using “avoid.” He observed that both “avoid” and “do not” were used throughout the document and recommended consistency in the messaging. Chairman Gwaltney asked for more information on why the consultants had chosen to use the black and white photo on page 12. Mr. Gasparek reported that they had chosen that specific picture as it was from the 1972 application form for “The Grove” to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the text box on that page was referencing the NRHP. Chairman Gwaltney reported that he like seeing the different transformation of the homes through the years, using the Wentworth-Barrett House’s picture dated 1933 on page 15 and then a picture of its current day on page 21. He said that he wasn’t necessarily suggesting a section of before and after pictures but using the same building at different time periods to illustrate a specific topic. He related that it would give a greater sense of the feel of the length of time the structure had been in existence. Mr. Gasparek stated that he would have to see what resources were available for them to use. Chairman Gwaltney informed him that the Isle of Wight County Museum had a lot of resources that they could use. He said that multiple members of the Board had enjoyed the inclusion of the historic paint samples on page 70. He encouraged the use of more samples of historic hardware, etc. Mrs. Lally asked if there should be the information about solar panels included in the guidelines. She acknowledged that since she had been serving on the BHAR it was not a subject that they had run into, but it was something that a recent member, Gary Hess, had cautioned that they may soon need to address. Chairman Gwaltney asked if that was a topic that the BHAR would need to figure out their stance on, then give the information to the consultants to include on one of the pages that were currently blank. Mr. Gasparek pointed out that there was a small section regarding solar panels included in the guidelines on page 106. He recognized that the information was broad currently and read “Solar panels should be installed in such a manner that their visual impact is minimized from the right of way. The side and rear of a building’s roof is often the most appropriate setting for solar panels.” 8 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Mrs. Abbott-Leaman reported that the use of solar products was mentioned 4 times in the document. Chairman Gwaltney agreed that the topic was of valid concern. He asked Mrs. Clary if the Town had a code that enforced of the use of solar panels. Mrs. Clary said that she believed that they were treated as accessory structures. Mr. Kluck added that most of what the Town reviewed was roof-mounted and not ground- mounted. Chairman Gwaltney recommended that they reach out to other Historic Districts to see how they handled the issue. Mrs. Clary reported that the subject was a current discussion topic for Certified Local Governments, and she would provide the Board with the information regarding what the other localities were doing. Chairman Gwaltney stated that they did not want to place the responsibility of including information that they had not given clarification on into the document. He noted that there was much information about their using the street view to govern the appearance of buildings in the Historic District, adding that he wanted people to be made aware that if they lived on the water that their home was visible by boat traffic. He questioned how much of that they wanted to incorporate into a regulation or could it only be governed to a certain degree. Mr. Kluck recalled that there had been previous discussion about having any alteration come before the BHAR. He pointed out that from some of the streets in the Historic District the backs of structures could also be seen from the road. Chairman Gwaltney said that he was specifically referring to the water. He speculated that homeowners on the waterfront might consider the backs of their homes as not being visible, but the BHAR wanted them to consider the water traffic that would see the other side as well. He agreed that any alteration should come before the BHAR for review. Mrs. Abbott-Leaman noted that on Church Street, houses were visible from behind on the other side of the creek as well. Chairman Gwaltney suggested that they could say in the guidelines that if a structure was publicly viewed from any angle, then alterations would be subject to BHAR review. He gave kudos to the consultants for their inclusion of the Town’s historic Sanborn Maps. Mr. Gasparek reported that the Library of Congress had digital copies of the maps available online. Chairman Gwaltney related that he liked the inclusion of anything that connected the present-day structures to how they were in the past. He noted that on page 123, the start of “Chapter 4: Guidelines for New Construction,” was the inclusion of a portion of the Sanborn Maps from over 100 years ago and said that he was unsure how that map tied into the topic of new construction. Mr. Gasparek stated that he wanted to show that new construction should mirror the historic nature of the area. Chairman Gwaltney offered that they could include what was at the site present-day to tie into the information on the historic maps. Mr. Hornback inquired what the next step in the process would be. 9 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Mrs. Clary stated that once the second draft was received Town Staff would then advertise for a public hearing to gather citizen input. Chairman Gwaltney asked Mr. Gasparek what other information the BHAR members could provide him with. Mr. Gasparek stated that he had taken down information and the minutes had held a lot of information for him. He confirmed that there was an audio recording of the meeting that would be made available. Chairman Gwaltney thanked Mr. Gasparek for his attendance and participation in the meeting. He stated that though they gave critical remarks, it was the consensus of the Board that they liked the basic look and concept of what the consultants had prepared. He asked when the next time the consultants would be present at a BHAR meeting would be. Mrs. Clary stated that it would be dependent on how long it took to address the comments, and currently there were tentative plans to have the public hearing in November. Chairman Gwaltney confirmed that Mr. Gasparek would also be present during the public hearing. Mr. Kluck confirmed that the date of the regularly scheduled BHAR meeting in November would be Tuesday the 19th. Additional Discussion: Potential Application Fee Mr. Kluck asked the Board if they would like to further discuss the possibility of enacting an application fee. Mr. Hornback questioned if they were actually considering the action. Chairman Gwaltney stated that the suggestion had been made. Mr. Kluck noted that a BHAR application was the only application in the Town that did not have a fee associated with it. Mrs. Hess asked how much the proposed fee would be. Mr. Kluck stated that was one point they would like to discuss. He reported that the application fee cost ranged widely across Hampton Roads, recalling that he saw a $25 initial fee and then something outrageous like $850 for after-the-fact approval in Norfolk. Mrs. Lally said that she could understand why it was recommended that they consider the action, but her recollection was that the fee they had previously discussed could be a fee associated with an after-the-fact applications. Mr. Hornback reported the fact that the Historic District was only location in Town where an application had to be submitted for changes due to where they resided. Mrs. Clary reported that they were not looking at making the fee huge, but the idea was to encourage people to get their projects together and organized so that they did not have to return repeatedly with changes. Chairman Gwaltney questioned if a fee like $35 would stop people from repeatedly changing what they wanted to do. Mrs. Hess asked if they could just make a strong suggestion that applicants get more organized. 10 Board of Historic and Architectural Review September 17th, 2024 Mrs. Clary emphasized that Town Staff were currently doing that. Chairman Gwaltney asked if applicants would be charged every time they wanted to present changes. Mrs. Clary stated that was the idea. Mr. Hornback said he understood why the process could be tedious for Town Staff. He asked for clarification whether Smithfield was the only locality in the area that did not collect application fees or if the BHAR approval application was the only Town application that did not have associated fees. Mrs. Clary reported that Lynchburg did not require a fee. She stated that Staff was thinking about an initial fee in the $10 range with a larger fee collected after the fact as Norfolk did. She confirmed that Norfolk had a $25 initial fee with an $840 after-the-fact fee. Chairman Gwaltney inquired what fee might anger the residents. Mr. Hornback answered that any fee would anger them. Mrs. Lally stated that residents were already required to come before the Board for approval, and that the addition of a fee associated with the application added insult to injury when trying to start a project. Chairman Gwaltney said that they could see Staff’s reasoning behind their suggestion. He related that he did not feel amenable to the prospect of an application fee after having discussion about attempting to make BHAR information fun and friendly. He asked Town Staff if there was any other area in Town where the residents had to pay a fee not to reside there, but to make any changes to their property. He continued that the residents who chose to live in the Historic District had chosen to do so with the knowledge that they would have to spend additional money on home upkeep and questioned if they really wanted to charge them $10 if they wanted to change the color of their front door. Mrs. Hess asked if this type of action was part of Mr. Kluck’s job description. Mr. Kluck answered that part of his job description was to act as Staff member to the Board. Mrs. Clary reported that when they first looked into the topic at other localities, they had done so knowing that they wanted a significantly lower fee, around $10. She added that the fee might allow them to get more promotional materials in order to offer additional education as the Board had previously discussed. She reported that she understood if the Board had no interest in enacting a fee, but they had wanted to bring it for discussion after having noticed that many other localities had application fees. Chairman Gwaltney stated he would rather find some other way to fundraise to be able to afford promotional materials. Mr. Hornback said that he understood that Town Staff was attempting to address the multiple repeat applicants. He speculated that a small application fee every few months would not stop someone who was already spending a large sum to pay for a home in the Historic District. He asked if they actually had the ability to charge a fee for after-the-fact alteration approvals. He observed that the Town seemed to be selective on their enforcement. Mrs. Clary pointed out that the Town had one Code Enforcement Officer for the entire Town of Smithfield. She stated that they encouraged people to bring issues to their attention. 11