HomeMy Public PortalAbout2011.02.23 Business Meeting Minutes
LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
Monday, 23 February 2011
Town Hall, 25 West Market Street
Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dieter Meyer, Chair; Jim Sisley, Vice Chair; Richard Koochagian,
Parliamentarian; Teresa Minchew; Tracy Coffing; Edward Kiley; Paul
Reimers; Mary Harper, Planning Commission Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marty Martinez, Town Council Representative
STAFF: Annie McDonald, Preservation Planner; Jeannette Irby, Town Attorney;
Barbara Notar, Deputy Town Attorney; Scott Parker, Assistant to the
Town Manager; Tom Brandon, Capital Projects Department; Wendy
Walker, BAR Clerk
Call to Order and Roll Call
Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was
present.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Minchew moved to approve the December 20, 2010, and January 3 and January 19, 2011 meeting
minutes, as well as deferral of December 6, 2010 per the Chair’s request; Mr. Sisley seconded the
motion, and it passed unanimously 6-0-1 (Mr. Kiley absent).
BAR Member Disclosure
Regarding TLHP-2011-0003, Mr. Reimers disclosed having an ongoing business relationship with
architect Tom Gilbride and noted that the subject property w90as adjacent to his house, but stated that
neither issue will impact his ability to be impartial when evaluating the case. Regarding TLHP-2011-0004,
Mr. Sisley disclosed having an ongoing business relationship with property owner and applicant Barbara
Williams, but stated that it will not impact his ability to be impartial when evaluating the case.
Consent Agenda
Ms. Coffing moved to approve to the consent agenda, consisting of case TLHP-2011-0004, as submitted;
Ms. Minchew seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously 6-0-1 (Mr. Kiley absent).
THLP-2011-0004, 101 Loudoun Street SW, Applicant: Barbara Williams, re: replacement of metal roof –
Old and Historic District (H-1 Overlay)
Appeal of TLHP-2006-0109 (Dodona Manor Fence)
Ms. Irby discussed BAR role in appeal process as there had been concern among the board members
about their responsibility or role during the hearing. Mr. Meyer asked if the old review standard applied to
this case, to which Ms. Irby responded in the affirmative. She explained that the BAR can simply present
a statement about how the case was reviewed and handled and that something similar to the statement
read at the appeal of the Loudoun Street Fire Station would be appropriate. She also confirmed that the
meeting minutes are the official record of the body, so individual members are not required to testify at
the appeal hearing on their rationale for rendering a decision. Ms. Irby explained that the BAR can
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
23 February 2011 Page 2 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
appoint someone to speak on behalf of the board, and that the person does not necessarily have to be
the Chair. She stated that the role of the Town Attorney is to defend the BAR decision until Town Council
renders its decision to uphold the decision or determine whether or not the BAR was arbitrary and
capricious or acted in a manner contrary to the law. She stated that this standard is a difficult one to
prove.
Mr. Reimers asked if there was any role for board members other than the appointed representative, to
which Ms. Irby replied in the negative, unless a member wants to attend in support of the BAR and the
representative. Mr. Meyer noted having recused from the original case so asked if he should continue to
step back from participation. Ms. Irby replied that his recusal had no bearing on his participation in the
appeal, since the minutes of the original hearing are the official record. Mr. Meyer asked Ms. Irby
whether the original case should have come before the BAR in the first place, since the Zoning Ordinance
did not permit the fence to be constructed. Ms. Irby asked if the applicant had returned to the BAR
following resolution of the zoning matter, to which the BAR replied no. Ms. Irby stated that she would
review the matter and look at the timeline. She stated that the case was reviewed by the BZA, which
incorporated the BAR’s original decision.
Mr. Meyer asked if Ms. Minchew would be willing to serve as the BAR’s representative at the hearing, to
which she replied in the affirmative but added that there was a chance she would not be able to attend
due to an existing schedule conflict. Ms. McDonald noted that the staff report includes the entire case
history with a recent update by Brian Boucher regarding the BZA review. She stated she would provide it
to the BAR for review.
Public Hearing Agenda
1. TLHP-2011-0003, 218 Cornwall Street NW, Applicant: Mark and Wanda Salser, re: new
addition and porch – Old and Historic District (H-1 Overlay)
Ms. McDonald gave an overview of the project, noting the scope of work in the 1980s addition,
explaining the changes that would occur to the 1980s construction and detailing the work on the
small mudroom addition to the east behind the bay window. She stated that the current project
was designed to address the fact that the 1980s addition had no intermediate space at the entry,
with the doors opening directly onto the family room. The new mudroom addition will provide that
space. She stated that the window openings will be reconfigured, the skylights removed, the roof
recovered in standing-seam metal, new window units installed, and a fireplace and chimney
added. The north elevation faces the hospital and Gibson Building. The revised design keeps
the 1980s roof pitch but reconfigures window openings along the north elevation and sides of the
addition. The window in the gable peak is fixed but appears to be double-hung. The new
chimney is tall but screened from view due to its position behind the house as well as behind
vegetation so that it does not adversely impact the building particularly as seen from the right-of-
way. The proposed materials are traditional or compatible, with wood siding, wood trim, and a
metal roof. The railing descending from the new mudroom addition is metal, but is consistent with
the style of the railing on the steps leading down from the back porch. Two sets of shutters are
proposed.
The applicant, Mark Salser, noted that the intent was to make the addition more compatible with
the historic character of the building. He explained that he’s restored other homes from that
period, and that his goal is to make it more in character with the historic district and character of
neighborhood. Mr. Reimers asked about height of the chimney to which Mr. Gilbride replied that
it was “right at code.” Commissioner Harper stated that beautiful things have been done to the
house so far. Audience member Peter Burnett asked about whether or not the applicant
considered adding shoulders to the chimney to take out the bulk, to which Mr. Gilbride explained
that it was possible but would cause the chimney to be four feet higher. Ms. Minchew said it was
a wonderful job so far. Ms. Coffing and Mr. Reimers thought it was a big improvement over the
work done in the 1980s, a point with which Mr. Koochagian agreed.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
23 February 2011 Page 3 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Mr. Sisley moved to approve BAR case TLHP-2011-0003 based on the facts stated in the staff
report. Ms. Minchew seconded the motion and it passed unanimously 6-0-1 (Mr. Kiley absent).
2. TLHP-2011-0005, King Street and Loudoun Street rights-of-way at Alleys and East End
Triangle, Applicant: Scott Parker of Executive Department for Town of Leesburg, re:
Downtown Improvements Project with sidewalk and amenity improvements in public right-
of-way, including sidewalks, plantings and various amenities – Old and Historic District (H-
1 Overlay)
Ms. McDonald began by stating that the application had nothing to do with the removal of parking
on King Street. She explained that there were two main areas of the downtown that were to be
considered: the alley walkways between the Town parking garage and South King Street and the
East End Triangle at Mom’s Apple Pie. She stated that temporary, non-fixed streetscape
furniture does not fall within the BAR’s purview. With regard to the current application, the BAR’s
purview is considered to include the metal archway features at the alley entrances, light fixtures in
the alleys, the dumpster enclosure, and the design and material for the retaining wall. The design
and installation of the sidewalks is determined by engineering requirements, so the BAR does not
have purview over them. Mr. Meyer asked why the BAR did not have authority to review the
sidewalk design, to which Ms. Notar replied that it was determined to be part of the public right-of-
way and was designed with consideration given to public health, safety, and welfare. Sidewalks
are included with curb and gutter, so are governed by the standards of the Public Works
Department. Ms. McDonald explained that, generally speaking, material in the right-of-way does
not fall within the BAR’s purview. Mr. Meyer replied that if such a feature was located on private
property, the BAR would have authority to review it, which Ms. Notar confirmed.
Ms. McDonald said the light fixtures in the pedestrian alleys were mounted on square poles and
are different from the streetlights that were previously approved by the BAR. She said that the
lights could not be mounted to the buildings, and that the arched arm with a pendant light was the
best solution for coverage over the walkways. She stated that the east end of each alley would
feature a black iron archway with a central pendant light. The southern archway must contain a
sign for Balls Bluff Tavern per an earlier easement from the property owner. She stated that the
post on which it is mounted could, however, be removed. The pedestrian alleys are to be
formally named Pearson’s Walk (in honor of the owner who donated the easement on the
southern alley) and Leesburg Walk (for the northern alley next to Caulkin’s Jewelers).
Leesburg Walk will feature three freestanding light fixtures and gateway arch, but there are no
changes currently planned for the entrances to the Town garage. Pearson’s Walk has more
landscaping proposed on the west end and the same number and configuration of light fixtures as
Leesburg Walk. The dumpster enclosure (Mr. Kiley arrived) is a wood stockade-style enclosure
and is eight feet tall to fully enclose the dumpsters behind the restaurant. It will be finished with a
wood stain, but no detail on the stain was submitted.
East End Triangle features a low parterre or garden wall at a maximum of three feet in height on
the west side and roughly 18 inches on the east side. On the side facing Mom’s Apple Pie, the
wall steps down from three feet to roughly 18 inches to serve as a ledge for seating. The wall is
finished with a stone veneer. Mr. Sisley asked how much of the project area is in the H-1 Overlay
District, to which Ms. McDonald replied that all of it was within the district boundaries. She stated
that if even a portion of the East End Triangle was in the H-2 Overlay District, it would be
reviewed in accordance with the Old and Historic District Design Guidelines because the west
part of the wall was in the H-1 Overlay. Ms. McDonald stated that the difference in the light
fixtures in the pedestrian alleys—as opposed to the previously approved streetlights—better
defines the alleys as separate from the sidewalk realm. It is still obvious that the alleys are
pedestrian-oriented and open to the public. She stated that the design of the fixtures in the
pedestrian alleys is appropriate and compliant with the guidelines. She recommended approval
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
23 February 2011 Page 4 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
on the condition that lettering and details of the archway signs will be submitted to staff for final
review and approval, and mortar colour will be submitted prior to installation.
Mr. Parker, project manager of Downtown Improvements Project, and Ryan Bouma, with AECOM
(the project consultant) introduced themselves. Mr. Sisley asked if the Town has permission from
the George Marshall Foundation, the owner of the Mom’s Apple Pie property, to which Mr. Parker
replied in the affirmative, adding that the Foundation owns all the property from Mom’s Apple Pie
down to the gas station and that the Town has a license agreement to do the improvements. He
stated that the Town did meet with the George Marshall Foundation, which is supportive of the
work and project. Ms. Minchew asked about the lighting and how far from the streetlights will be
the closest walkway lights. Mr. Parker replied that the nearest one is across the street and Mr.
Bouma added that the height was not substantially lower. The difference would be a few inches,
but not so substantial as to create a difference in scale. He stated that the perceived colour of
the light would be the same, since they would be metal halide lights like the streetlights. Ms.
Minchew asked about the Balls Bluff Tavern sign, to which Mr. Parker replied that a sign was in
the easement agreement given by the property owner in 1980.
Mr. Reimers asked what was outside of the landscape wall at Mom’s Apple Pie, to which Mr.
Bouma replied ornamental ground cover instead of asphalt. Regarding the archways at the
pedestrian alleys, Mr. Reimers asked if the Town could adjust the alignment so that all of the
lights would be aligned in the center, to which Mr. Bouma replied that they had talked with the
manufacturer of the arm extension. He said that the cut sheet shows that they were designed
specifically to have some flexibility to enable the luminaires to line up appropriately. Mr. Reimers
asked about amber light instead of harsh white light. He expressed a desire to avoid commercial
parking lot lighting. Mr. Bouma explained that the lights are not high pressure sodium lights that
were more yellow colour. He said that the new lights should not have too great a glare since they
are only using a 7-watt fixture. It is the lowest level they can use to still maintain safety.
Mr. Koochagian asked about the centering of lights on the poles with the lights on the arch to
which Mr. Bouma said the goal was for them to appear to be the same height. Mr. Bouma
confirmed that the radius of the arm is different than the archway, but that the goal was for the
two different fixtures to appear complementary instead of matching. Mr. Koochagian asked about
the dumpster enclosure, expressing concern that the wood proposed to be used won’t last long,
particularly considering that it is next to the right-of-way. He recommended that the Town
consider using brick like the dumpster enclosure at Town Hall with steel gates, to which Mr.
Bouma replied that the design incorporates a wood structure to hide the dumpster but not draw
attention. He explained that masonry enclosures are more apparent and are sometimes not
desirable. He stated that the existing brick wall sticks out slightly and has been hit a few times,
so the idea was to attach the enclosure to a curb to help keep vehicles from hitting it.
Mr. Parker said staff had considered brick, but that wood is easier to replace and maintain than
damaged masonry. Mr. Koochagian asked about shape of wall at East End Triangle, to which
Mr. Bouma replied that it is important to have a vertical treatment when arriving from the east,
since it gives a sense of welcome to the downtown and visually indicates that motorists should
slow down where the street narrows. The raised landscape area is shaped roughly like the
triangle on which it is located. The central tree is important and the wall provides a good
foreground for it. He said that the area is a rounded triangle so as not to appear too angular. Mr.
Koochagian asked about mortar joint, to which Mr. Bouma responded that the goal was to
minimize the mortar joints with a colour that didn’t contrast with the stone, unlike Mom’s Apple
Pie. Mr. Koochagian asked about size to which the consultant said pick earthy tone stones to
relate to other stone features within Town and blend in with the stone work crossing South King
Street crossing Stone Branch as well as foundations of houses in the historic district.
Mr. Kiley asked about the kind of wood that would be used for the dumpster enclosure, to which
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
23 February 2011 Page 5 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Mr. Bouma replied that it could be pressure-treated pine or ACQ lumber or stained cedar, but that
AECOM would discuss the final material with staff. He said that it would have a concrete base.
Mr. Meyer asked about the crosswalk material, even though the BAR does not have jurisdiction
over it. Mr. Bouma replied that it was no longer a raised walk due to drainage issues. He hadded
that a raised crosswalk would have to cover up the bottom stair to the Town garage, which would
be an awkward tie-in. Mr. Meyer asked about the garage entrance feature, to which the
consultant said it is not proposed at this time. Mr. Parker stated that if anything was decided,
they would bring the design back to the BAR for review. Mr. Meyer asked if there are any
changes from the original design, to which Mr. Parker replied that the ones presented are the
main ones. He stated that the kiosk sign would be a future application. Mr. Meyer asked about
the decorative medallions that were part of the original design, to which Mr. Bouma replied that
they would not be in the pedestrian walkways. The MLK plaques had already been placed in the
sidewalk. Ms. Notar said MLK plaques did not come before the BAR so any other plaques would
not be a structure within the guidelines. Ms. McDonald said that the decorative medallions are
basically public art and that Town staff still need to determine whether the BAR has purview over
public art and what impact the medallions would have on the character of the Old and Historic
District. Mr. Sisley stated that, as an original member of the group, it was the Public Art
Commission’s intent for the BAR to have purview over public art. Mr. Meyer added that the
medallions could have an impact. Mr. Parker stated that they are not part of this application.
Speaking as a member of the audience, Peter Burnett said that the stone work is easy to mess
up. He urged that the type of stone have precedents in Leesburg. He recommended using
native stone, not stone cut from somewhere else. Other stone used in new construction in the
area sticks out, such as on the building at the intersection of Loudoun and Harrison Streets,
because it has no precedent in Loudoun County, let alone Leesburg. He said it should be laid in
a traditional fashion. He stated that the dumpster enclosure should be made of better quality
material, like brick, instead of wood.
Speaking as a member of the audience, Stanley Caulkins reminded the BAR about the history of
the alleys. He said that they contain sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and gas lines. He said that
they are dug up for maintenance and so the Town should be cautious.
Regarding the East End Triangle, Mr. Sisley said that the site design guidelines for the H-1 and
H-2 Overlay Districts do not recommend installing a tree in a situation such as this. Mr. Bouma
responded that the telephone pole would be relocated and the power lines rerouted. He said that
one can see the Loudoun County Government Building looming over everything, but Mom’s
Apple Pie will not be obscured by the tree. He explained that installing the tree anchors the east
end of Town and frames the entry into the downtown. Mr. Sisley expressed his opinion that the
design runs contrary to the guidelines.
Ms. Minchew stated that the design was thoughtfully developed, but agreed with Mr. Burnett’s
comment about the choice of stone and installation method. She expressed concern about he
materials for the dumpster enclosure and how they would hold up, though the specific type of
wood used is not necessarily in the BAR’s purview. Ms. Minchew asked who would own the
dumpster, to which Mr. Parker responded that it is a private dumpster on Town property to allow
more trash from being put on the street on trash day and that the Town would be responsible for
maintaining the enclosure. Ms. Minchew expressed concern about the ornateness of the
archways and the inclusion of the Balls Bluff Tavern sign but added that this did not make the
project unapprovable. She added that the name Leesburg Walk seemed more generic and said
that this is a prime opportunity for a more meaningful name.
Ms. Coffing agreed with the comments on the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Reimers agreed that
pressure-treated wood should not be used, since it would look worn after one summer. He said
that if wood is used it should be clear cedar, but masonry is preferable. Mr. Reimers expressed
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
23 February 2011 Page 6 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
his thought that the tree was approvable.
Mr. Koochagian echoed previous comments about the material for the wall at the East End
Triangle, but said that he was less concerned about the tree. The consultant explained that the
tree would be a six-inch caliper specimen. Mr. Koochagian said that a wood dumpster enclosure
would look bad within one year and recommended looking at the surrounding area. He said that
a brick structure with iron or steel ornament would look the best and become part of the public
right-of-way. Ms. Notar said staff would consider the comments, but that the materials used
simply had to be appropriate to the historic district. If wood is approvable, the BAR probably
cannot disapprove its use. Ms. McDonald added that when the BAR reviewed the revised design
guidelines, they simply recommended the use of wood, but did not dictate the specific kind of
wood used. She stated that the kind of material should not bear on the Board’s decision. The
BAR should consider whether the material is appropriate for the application as it stands right now.
Ms. Notar clarified that “does not hold up” cannot go into the decision, to which Mr. Meyer replied
that it was understood and part of normal process to then look at the guidelines. Mr. Kiley said
members can suggest and opine, adding that tree would be dead in three years unless dug in a
very deep hole.
Mr. Meyer said that the wood dumpster enclosure would disappear more than would a more
substantial structure. Some successful projects have enclosures that are in keeping with the
adjacent building to coordinate, with one such example being at Station Auto Wash. He
suggested that if brick is the predominant material in the area, perhaps the enclosure should be
of brick. He agreed that the stone work on the wall should be consistent with stone in Town, but
that they need to make sure that the BAR’s decision is based on the guidelines. Mr. Parker said
that the BAR’s comments have a lot of validity. Mr. Meyer said that the BAR could defer the
dumpster enclosure and stone work, with general consensus on tree and planter island. Ms.
Minchew agreed with the assessment, but not the approval as it is.
With regard to the stone, Ms. McDonald expressed that she would be comfortable
administratively approving the final design of the stonework, with consideration given to the use of
native stone versus cut semi-manufactured stone, colour and joint treatment, how it is laid, and
the size and treatment of the joints. The Board found deferring the final decision to staff
acceptable.
Mr. Reimers asked about the use of pressure-treated wood to which Ms. Notar said that it is
acceptable. Ms. McDonald said that historically, wood would have had some sort of treatment or
finish applied—such as a stain—so untreated or unstained would not be considered appropriate
but that some materials have to weather for about a year before being finished.
Ms. Coffing moved to approve BAR case TLHP-2011-0005 with the following conditions
• Details on the letters for “Leesburg Walk” and “Pearson’s Walk” will be submitted to staff for
final review and approval.
• Details on the sign attached to the Pearson’s Walk gateway feature will be submitted to staff
for final review and approval.
• Staff will review and approve any alternative proposal for the masonry wall, mortar color and
joint treatments at the East End Triangle based on the comments presented by the BAR.
• Staff will review and approve any alternative dumpster enclosure design based on the
comments presented by the BAR.
Ms. Minchew seconded the motion and it passed unanimously 7-0.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
23 February 2011 Page 7 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Administrative Agenda
Adoption of the CY2010 Annual Report: Ms. McDonald presented the BAR’s 2010 Annual Report for final
adoption, stating that the Administrative Approval statistics would be included in the portion of the report
about the Planning & Zoning Department. She explained that this year, the Planning Commission, EAC,
BZA, and BAR reports would be combined into a unified report offered by the Planning & Zoning
Department.
Mr. Koochagian moved to adopt the BAR Annual Report as presented by staff; Mr. Sisley seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously 7-0.
Town Plan Review – 2005 Heritage Resources Element (adopt final recommendations for distribution to
Planning Commission): Ms. McDonald explained that all of the BAR’s recommendations have been
incorporated into the Heritage Resources Element and are presented for the BAR’s consideration in a
linear format. She explained that some of the recommendations, specifically those dealing with
enforcement, could be impacted by the upcoming reductions in force that will be announced next week.
Mr. Meyer stated that the BAR’s recommendations should still be included, a point with which Mr.
Reimers expressed agreement.
Mr. Koochagian said that under the Objectives section, the acronym UGLA should be defined and asked
about action for Objection 6 to which Ms. McDonald reiterated having intentionally left out because that is
something the Town already does.
Mr. Kiley moved to recommend the PC adopt the BAR changes as provided at the meeting with the
additional comment that the BAR report will include definitions for all acronyms; Mr. Sisley seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously 7-0.
Nominations to the Joint Architectural Review Board (due March 31st): Ms. McDonald said the final
nominations can take place at the March 21st business meeting. She provided background information on
the JARB, explaining that the collaborative effort with other design review boards in Loudoun County is
now in its fourth year. She stated that last year was the first year that the JARB partnered with the
Loudoun Preservation Society to hold the event at the Birkby House. She explained that past award
recipients in Leesburg included China King, Shoes, the Town (for the Depot Court bus shelter), and the
Norris House carriage house. Ms. Minchew added that the program takes the place of an awards
program that Leesburg used to hold. Ms. McDonald explained that this year’s program included a new
category for People’s Choice, which is intended to draw nominations from outside the locally designated
historic districts. Ms. McDonald stated that in nominating a project for the JARB awards, the project has
to be completed but that there is no timeframe for how long ago the project should have been finished.
Ms. Minchew requested having a list of what had been nominated in the past but was not awarded. Mr.
Reimers and Ms. Minchew recommended nominating the Birkby House complex. Mr. Meyer stressed
that any nominations should meet a high standard and a project did not have to be nominated if the BAR
did not consider it to be worthy. He agreed that the Birkby House was worthy if done within the last
decade. Mr. Reimers expressed that it should receive a legacy award for stewardship. Ms. McDonald
noted that well designed signs had also been nominated and received awards
Staff Approvals: Ms. McDonald said that no administrative approvals had been issued since the BAR last
met but that a few that had been submitted, adding that the numbers were down.
General Discussion (additional): Mr. Meyer indicated that he had received an email from Debi Parry
about the creation of an arts district being on the Town Council’s agenda fro March 8th for possible
adoption. He added that it is roughly the same area as the historic district.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
23 February 2011 Page 8 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Mr. Meyer said that accurate meeting minutes are very important, and over the course of last year they
have been almost verbatim. He asked if that is appropriate and whether they should be streamlined to
incorporate primarily the motion and discussion. Ms. Minchew said that the minutes have gone back and
forth between different recommendations from the Town Attorneys. She expressed gratitude for the
current minutes, which she believes are an improvement. She stated that she understands Mr. Meyer’s
point and said that they matter most when BAR decisions are appealed. She said that if decisions are
challenged that it is better to have more information in the minutes. Ms. McDonald added that the
minutes are very important when researching past cases, to which Mr. Sisley replied that they are good
for establishing precedent and a basis for the BAR’s decision. Mr. Sisley said other boards do not have
the same amount details.
Ms. Minchew said in the future, the BAR may only want basic highlights but not the full discussion and
should not go back to the previous format of only the case and motion. Mr. Reimers said that it was
important to have detail on the Leesburg Central application. Ms. McDonald said that transcribing the
minutes can be difficult if board members go off on tangents, so it is important to keep discussion to the
case and make sure that sentences have clear beginning and end. Ms. Harper said that the Planning
Commission’s discussion in the minutes is easy to follow and that it includes the basic information. Mr.
Meyer asked about the level of detail in the Town Council minutes, to which Ms. Minchew responded that
the BAR looks at cases in more detail.
Mr. Sisley asked if the owners of Leesburg Central were diligently pursuing that project, to which Ms.
McDonald replied that the owner may have encountered legal issues that could stall the project for an
extended period of time. She said that she would forward the BAR members an email that had additional
details. Ms. McDonald emphasized that there is no sunset provision for a project once construction has
begun.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:25pm.
NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING:
Monday, March 21, 2011 at 7pm
Town Hall Lower Level Conference Room 1
25 West Market Street
Leesburg, VA
Dieter Meyer, Chair
Annie McDonald, Preservation Planner