HomeMy Public PortalAbout2013 11 04 BAR work sessiond �
LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Monday, November 04, 2013
Leesburg Town Hall, 25 West Market Street
Town Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Koochagian, Vice Chairman Teresa Minchew,
Parliamentarian Edward Kiley, Dale Goodson, Mark Malloy (arrived at
7:49pm) and Dieter Meyer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Reimers, Planning Commission Representative Doris Kidder and
Town Council Representative Tom Dunn
STAFF: Planning & Zoning Director Susan Berry Hill, Zoning Administrator Chris
Murphy, Preservation Planner Kim K. Del Rance and Planning & Zoning
Assistant Deborah Parry
Call to Order and Roll Call
Chairman Koochagian called the meeting to order at 7:00pm, noted attendance and determined that a
quorum was present.
Approval of the Agenda
Mr. Meyer moved to adopt the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Minchew.
Mr. Kiley offered a point of order. He asked why the Paxton stone and frame barn and Protective
Maintenance requirement was scheduled for discussion on the agenda when the Board does not have
jurisdiction and there is no Certificate of Appropriateness on file.
Ms. Notar stated this is a continuing discussion regarding the Protective Maintenance ordinance, for
which the Board does have jurisdiction.
Mr. Kiley withdrew his point of order.
The motion to approve the meeting agenda was passed by a 5 -0 -2 vote (Malloy and Reimers absent).
Disclosures
None
Discussion of recessed cases from Regular Business Meeting
a. TLHP- 2013 -0151 105 E. Market Street — Replace windows on non - contributing structure
Chairman Koochagian noted the public hearing for this case has been closed.
Ms. Del Rance stated since the last meeting, she has researched the approvals for this structure
and found that the structure did receive necessary approvals; however, there were no plans in the
record so it is not known whether the vinyl windows specifically received approval. She stated
the applicant would like to replace their 36 windows with vinyl replacement windows; however, if
vinyl is not approvable they request permission to replace the windows with metal clad. Further,
she stated the request to replace the wood siding was discussed at the previous meeting.
Mr. Goodson confirmed the applicant has decided to reuse the existing shutters.
The applicants, Reggie Jones and Beth Friedman of the Loudoun Abused Women's Shelter were
present and had no additional comments.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013
Page 2 of 10
It was the consensus of the Board that the request to replace the vinyl windows with vinyl
replacement windows should be considered replacement in -kind.
Vice Chairman Minchew provided the following finding:
1. The applicant is seeking to replace vinyl windows with vinyl replacement windows, which is
approvable as replacement in -kind of an original material that had been part of an approved
project.
Vice Chairman Minchew moved that TLHP- 2013 -0151 be approved subject to the application
submitted by Nicole Acosta dated September 19, 2013 based on the finding as stated:
The motion was seconded by Mr. Kiley and approved by a 5 -0 -2 vote (Malloy and Reimers
absent).
b. TLHP- 2013 -0153 1241 S. King Street (25 Greenway Drive) — Replace doors and brick steps
on front and back of contributing and National Register of Historic Places building
Chairman Koochagian noted the public hearing for this case has been closed.
Ms. Del Rance stated the applicant has brought brick samples for the steps for the Board's
review. She stated he applicant has also provided detailed information regarding the five doors to
be replaced and staff finds that request for a fiberglass replacement door to be approvable for the
garage addition door only with all other doors to be replaced with wood. She stated the wood
window that was proposed to be replaced by glass block has been destroyed and the applicant
seeks approval to replace the window with a new wood window of similar size and style. Further,
she stated her recommendation that the Board required that the applicant store the wooden doors
they removed for potential future reuse.
The applicant's representative, Andre Fontaine, was present and had no additional comments
Mr. Goodson verified the applicant did not provide grout samples. Further, he verified the
configuration for the wood doors would be identical to the configuration for the proposed
fiberglass door.
Vice Chairman Minchew confirmed the exterior doors will have new wood jambs versus the steel
jambs discussed at the previous meeting. She further confirmed the applicant will return at a later
time for approval of the railings for the front and rear steps.
Mr. Fontaine asked what information is needed for approval of the grout.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated the Board would like to verify a traditional color and thickness of
grout will be used.
Mr. Meyer stated a buff colored grout, formulated in compliance with National Park Service
standards for grout on historic structures would be approvable. Further, he suggested that a
sample be provided to staff for the record.
Mr. Fontaine stated the contractor plans to paint the face of the front brick stairs to match the
front stairs that were demolished.
There was further discussion regarding the wood replacement window with staff to confirm the
details of the window.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated she would be comfortable with the fiberglass door for the garage
addition; however, she would object to fiberglass doors on the rest of the structure.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013
Page 3 of 10
Mr. Meyer clarified approval may be granted for the use of fiberglass doors for all of the
requested entrances if the applicant can return with a painted sample that the Board deems is
indistinguishable from wood.
Mr. Kiley confirmed the applicant does accept staffs proposal that the old wood doors be kept.
Mr. Fontaine stated door number 3 was in disrepair and was thrown away by the contractor.
Vice Chairman Minchew verified no evidence was found that the doors were original to the house.
There was further discussion regarding the brick samples provided. It was the consensus of the
Board to approve the more traditional looking Cushwa brick.
Vice Chairman Minchew verified no evidence was found that the stairs were painted historically
and suggested that the applicant not paint the brick stairs.
Chairman Koochagian verified the doors will be painted.
Vice Chairman Minchew provided the following findings:
1. The subject property is a contributing resource in the Leesburg Old and Historic District
2. The steps and railing to be removed are not original to the building.
3. The age and prominence of the five panel; four lite doors is not determined and is unlikely
that they are original exterior doors of the historic property.
Vice Chairman Minchew moved that TLHP- 2013 -0153 be approved subject to the application
submitted by Valerie Stalnaker dated September 20, 2013 and amended November 4, 2013,
based on the findings as stated and the following conditions:
1. Door #5 is to be fiberglass as submitted and will be painted to match the trim, or as otherwise
approved by staff.
2. Doors #1 -4 are to be of similar design to door #5, but constructed of wood and painted to
match the trim, or as otherwise approved by staff. A cut sheet for the door is to be provided
for the record.
3. The grout for the stairs will be a Buff colored grout of a traditional recipe and applied in a
traditional manner, all of which is to be approved by staff prior to installation.
4. The railings for the staircases will return to the Board for approval.
5. The replacement window will be constructed of wood with true or simulated divided lites with
a 7/8" muntin or to match the existing windows on the building. Details to be confirmed by
staff and a cut sheet provided to staff for the record prior to installation.
6. The steps will be constructed of Cushwa Brick #103 Georgian as submitted at the November
4, 2013 work session.
7. The vertical side faces of the brick stairs may be painted to match the house, but it is
suggested that they remain unpainted which would also be approvable.
8. It is suggested that the doors which were removed from the structure be stored for possible
reuse on the property.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Meyer and passed by a 5 -0 -2 vote (Malloy and Reimers
absent).
c. TLHP- 2013 -0154 203 South Street SE — Replace wood windows only (no trim or jambs)
with vinyl replacement windows. Discussion from site visit several days before meeting
Chairman Koochagian noted the public hearing for this case has been closed. He stated there
was a site visit on Saturday which was attended by the applicant, Mr. Goodson, Mr. Malloy and
himself. He stated they were able to tour the upstairs from the inside and around the exterior of
the house to view all of the windows in question.
The applicant, Tunis Campbell, was present.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013
Page 4 of 10
Chairman Koochagian stated it was noted during the site visit that some windows had been
previously replaced, some windows were in solid structural shape and others had rotted sashes
and /or sills. Further, he stated there was also a variety of applied sheet metal placed to try and
protect the wood, which may contribute to further deterioration.
Mr. Goodson stated the windows appeared to be repairable overall; however, a few windows
were noted where repairs could be onerous.
Mr. Malloy stated his opinion that extensive repairs would be required for a majority of the
windows to restore the windows and to make the operable. He stated it would be appropriate to
allow the windows to be replaced with a suitable historical equivalent.
Mr. Campbell stated he would like to replace the windows with vinyl windows to improve fuel
efficiency. He stated vinyl windows were installed in his home and he noted reduced utility bills.
Further, he stated he would be willing to keep the five windows on the front of the structure if the
Board would allow him to replace the other windows with vinyl.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated she was ill Saturday and unable to attend the site visit. She
asked if there might be five salvageable windows on the structure to be placed in the front so that
the board could allow the sills and sashes on the other windows to be replaced with wood.
Mr. Goodson stated he did not measure the windows; however, they appeared to be uniform in
size. He stated there is a large window on the back which is in poor condition and he would be in
support of a replacement window at that location. Further, he stated he believes there would be
enough sashes to salvage for the front and west elevations.
Mr. Campbell stated the windows are all the same size, except the four windows in the rear.
There was further discussion regarding the condition of the existing windows.
Chairman Koochagian noted it appears surface mounted storm windows could be installed.
Mr. Meyer stated he visited the site the previous Saturday and noted the condition of the
windows. He stated it would be a large undertaking to repair these windows and then install
storm windows over them. He noted his support for allowing replacement of the windows in this
particular case and stated that an alternative type of window could be approved if the applicant
can prove that it is indistinguishable from wood.
Chairman Koochagian confirmed the replacement windows have a frame inset that would reduce
the dimension of the window.
Vice Chairman Minchew noted the guidelines are clear in that you retain original historic windows
if they contribute to the overall historic character of the building, repair original windows if
possible, replace only those features that are beyond repair and replace in -kind only if the
windows are missing or beyond repair. She stated she did view the structure from the street and
base on that visit and the testimony she has heard, it seems the front windows can be repaired
and reused. Further, she stated she would like to see the two front windows on the west
elevation retained if possible and would be amenable to replacing the other sashes with wood or
an alternative material shown to be indistinguishable from wood.
Mr. Kiley stated he has owned two homes with windows similar to these and when properly
maintained, the windows contribute to the historic character of the building. He noted the
structure has been covered in siding leaving the windows as the defining historic feature.
Further, he expressed support for keeping the front windows along with the first two windows on
the west elevation and allowing the applicant to replace the other windows with wood.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013
Page 5 of 10
Mr. Campbell expressed concern with the cost of wood windows.
There was discussion regarding affordable types of wood windows and previous applicants that
Mr. Campbell could speak with regarding affordable options.
There was further discussion regarding the benefit of storm windows.
Mr. Campbell stated he will install storm windows if vinyl windows are not approved.
Mr. Kiley confirmed the applicant has administrative approval to install storm windows.
Vice Chairman Minchew providing the following finding:
1. The property is a contributing resource in the Old and Historic District and National Register
District.
Ms. Minchew moved that TLHP- 2013 -0154 be approved subject to the application submitted by
Tunis Campbell on September 20, 2013, the minutes of the special site visit introduced this
evening and based to the finding as stated and the following conditions:
1. The five windows on the front fagade of the building and the two windows on the west front
elevation will be retained, repaired as needed using parts from other windows elsewhere on
the building as permitted. The sills will be repaired in kind as needed.
2. The remaining sashes and windows on the property may be replaced with wood sashes of a
similar detail and dimensions to those on the front, subject to approval by staff.
3. The previous approval for storm windows continues.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Meyer questioned why the Board is voting on a motion that the applicant does not want.
Mr. Kiley stated the applicant may change his mind and this approval would give him flexibility.
He stated the alternative would be to deny the application. Further, he stated the applicant has
agreed to retain the five windows on the front of the structure.
The motion was approved by a 4 -2 -1 vote (Malloy and Meyer opposed, Reimers absent).
Old Business — Paxton stone and frame barn and Protective Maintenance requirement
Ms. Del Rance stated this is a continuation of the Board's discussion from the last meeting where more
detailed information regarding the follow up project was requested. She stated revised drawings of the
new construction project and photographs of the current barn conditions were provided in the meeting
packet.
Vice Chairman Minchew clarified the Board requested additional information regarding the current
condition of the Barn.
Ms. Del Rance stated Mr. Beck Dickerson; architect for the Paxton "Well -Plex" project has provided a
detailed drawing of the current barn as well as photographs to depict its condition.
Mr. Dickerson stated two drawings were submitted, one to show the existing barn as it is and the other to
show the proposal. He stated the main difference is the change in roof to standing seam metal and the
addition of shutters. Further, he stated information regarding the height of the proposed structure and
floor level relationship to the other structures has also been provided.
Chairman Koochagian noted several options for protecting the barn had been discussed at the previous
meeting, including preservation by dismantling. He stated since that meeting he has been thinking about
the best way to address the violation and to see this through to the bigger vision for this property. He
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013 Page 6 of 10
stated the idea of preservation by dismantling is new and creative; however, after further consideration he
has concerns about this approach.
Mr. Meyer asked if staff is now of the opinion that the notion of preservation by dismantling would not
satisfy the code for protective maintenance.
Ms. Del Rance stated there are certain options outlined in the protective maintenance code which do not
include dismantling. She stated if the barn is to be dismantled to proceed with new construction; it would
have to be part of an application process. She stated an application could be submitted for new
construction to include dismantling or an application for demolition could be submitted with the new
construction included as the post demolition plan.
Chairman Koochagian noted an application for demolition was submitted and tabled by the applicant.
Ms. Del Rance stated if that application is to be amended and revived, it could not be heard prior to the
December 2, 2013 BAR work session due to noticing requirements.
Mr. Goodson verified the previously submitted demolition application included post demolition plans for
either a ruins garden or a pavilion, both of which would only maintain the stone foundation of the barn.
Mr. Meyer stated the distinction in this case is that the representatives from Paxton have indicated
portions of the barn could be salvaged, stored and reused.
Mr. Dickerson clarified portions of the barn which are valuable could be saved; however, it could never be
reconstructed as it was using the existing materials.
Ms. Hetzel asked if the code states protective maintenance prohibits the dismantling of the barn.
Ms. Del Rance stated dismantling is not included in the code.
Ms. Hetzel stated her reading of the code section indicates the Board has discretion as to whether
dismantling would fit under the protective maintenance section.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated the Board was only recently aware that the idea of preservation by
dismantling would not meet the code section.
Ms. Notar stated the Board has the discretion as to how to handle provisions of the protective
maintenance section.
Ms. Hetzel stated her belief that it is within the Board's discretion to find that preservation by dismantling
meets the provisions of the protective maintenance code section.
Ms. Notar concurred with Ms. Hetzel's statement.
Mr. Murphy referred to Zoning Ordinance Section 7.5.9.B.3 Protective Maintenance Requirement as the
minimum action needed to stabilize a historic structure. He stated if 40 percent or more of the structure is
dismantled, then it would fall under the demolition definition in the code.
Ms. Hetzel read Zoning Ordinance Section 7.5.9.B.3 Protective Maintenance Requirement into the record
as follows:
"Degree of Maintenance Required. The degree of maintenance and repair hereby required is that degree
sufficient to prevent damage to the structural components and /or the exterior that would cause the
collapse of the structure or that would cause the building to become so deteriorated as to prevent its
repair and preservation. Acts which the owner may be required to perform pursuant to this paragraph
shall include the following: securing the building or structure by boarding up doors and windows;
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013 Page 7 of 10
stabilizing walls, roofs and other parts of the building or structure; providing positive drainage from the
structure; and termite treatment."
Ms. Hetzel stated use of the term "may be required" leaves these as a suggestion, but also provides the
option for the Board to seek other ways to meet the requirements of preventing further damage and
collapse. She stated dismantling the structure would allow for parts of it to be preserved and would
prevent the structure from collapse.
Ms. Del Rance noted this is not the only section of the code applicable in this case. She stated the code
defines demolition as removal of 40 percent or more of the walls and roof. Demolition requires an
application and a public hearing.
There was further discussion regarding what is required under the code section for preserving the
structure versus the definition of demolition.
Mr. Murphy stated the submitted demolition application can be amended to include the post demolition
plans for the proposed new construction.
Ms. Hetzel stated the code also allows for the property to be placed up for sale for 30 days after which the
structure can be demolished by right.
Vice Chairman Minchew verified a public hearing would be required.
Mr. Goodson suggested the Paxton representatives provide a detailed as -built of the barn structure and
bring forward their demolition application with the post demolition plans.
Mr. Meyer stated there was an effort at the last meeting to work towards a collaborative agreement
moving forward without the need for a demolition because of the negative connotation of the word. He
stated it now seems that what was previously discussed is not doable because of the code.
There was further discussion regarding the process of moving forward with the demolition application
versus the options for by -right demolition.
Mr. Kiley asked Ms. Notar if removing 40 percent or more of the structure would fit the definition of a
demolition as stated in the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Notar confirmed Mr. Kiley's statement regarding the definition of a demolition. Further, she stated that
the protective maintenance portion of the code is written so that it gives the Board discretion to find that
preservation by dismantling the barn meets the requirements of protective maintenance. She stated if the
Board does not find that preservation by dismantling meets the requirements, than they may advise the
applicant that the best way to move forward is to file an application for demolition.
Ms. Hetzel reminded the Board of the reaction when demolition of the Paxton mansion house was
previously discussed. She stated people get very concerned when they hear the word.
Ms. Del Rance stated the emails and phone calls she has received from citizens concerning the barn are
not in reference to it being demolished, rather residents have expressed concern that the barn will
collapse and want to know that the Town is doing what it can to protect the structure. She noted there
was no one in attendance tonight to speak to this issue. She stated the Courthouse Square application
was a new construction application which also included a demolition aspect. Further, she stated there will
be less concern if the public is allowed to have a voice through the public hearing process.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated even if the Board does have discretion to approve what is in essence a
demolition; she does not support cutting the public out of this decision. She stated she was excited at the
thought of preservation by dismantling and did a lot of research regarding this concept. She expressed
support of the concept as part of a bigger plan. Further, she stated her memory of the last discussion
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013 Page 8 of 10
was that the dismantling would be done in an organized fashion so that the pieces would be numbered
and the barn could be reconstructed in the future if someone were so inclined.
Ms. Hetzel stated she did not agree to a condition requiring the numbering of the rotted pieces.
Mr. Dickerson stated this section of the Zoning Ordinance is describing a building that can be saved;
however, this structure cannot be saved. He stated if measures were taken to prop up the structure as
the Zoning Administrator suggests, then in five years the same situation will arise as those measures
begin to fail. He stated the structure was decaying long before it was brought into the Historic District 10
years ago. Further, he stated perhaps the demolition permit is the way to move forward; however, the
maintenance section should not apply as the building cannot be saved.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated if the structure is in such a state as described by Mr. Dickerson, then it will
be much easier to demonstrate the need for the demolition.
Mr. Meyer stated he felt the discussion two weeks ago regarding preservation by dismantling was a
practical solution to the issue.
Ms. Hetzel stated she too believed that it was a practical solution and that the town wanted to work with
the Board of Trustees. She stated if a remedy cannot be found under the maintenance code, then the
property can be put up for sale and the structure demolished; assuming no one purchases the property
within the 30 days.
There was further discussion regarding the option of moving forward with the demolition application.
Mr. Dickerson stated his concern is that if a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued for the demolition to
include the "Well -Plex" project, what would then happen if the "Well -Plex" project does not receive
approval or is not built.
Chairman Koochagian asked if a Certificate of Appropriateness could be issued in for the demolition in
this case without being tied to a post demolition plan given the current state of the barn structure and the
need to ensure safety in that the barn does not collapse and hurt someone. He stated he does not see
how that could be anything except a collaborative process in working together noting that this is a unique
case in which everyone is learning how best to move forward.
Mr. Dickerson expressed concern that if the demolition application is up for discussion in December, staff
may continue to argue that it cannot be approved without a post demolition plan.
Ms. Notar confirmed the Board has discretion to issue approval without post demolition plans.
Ms. Hetzel verified the violation process is on hold while parties determine the best way to move forward.
Ms. Notar clarified that staff was advising the Board that the cleanest way to move forward with this
process is to file an application for demolition.
Mr. Dickerson stated that is acceptable to him.
Mr. Malloy verified the applicant plans to store the parts of the barn for possible reuse.
Mr. Dickerson stated he considered using salvageable parts of the barn in the play area.
Ms. Hetzel clarified the Board of Trustees will need to rethink how to move forward with this project and
what, if anything, will be built in place of the barn.
Mr. Dickerson stated the intent is that once the barn is reconstructed as part of the "Well -Plex" project,
two sides of it will look similar to the barn that was there.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013 Page 9 of 10
Chairman Koochagian asked Ms. Hetzel to clarify her comments on rethinking the project
Mr. Dickerson stated there was a proposal by someone to pull down the structure and take the material at
no charge. He stated if they agree to take down the structure and save certain pieces, it could cost as
much as $15,000 to go through that process.
Chairman Koochagian stated if the Board is looking at this from a safety concern in that the building is
falling, he does not feel it would be necessary to place a condition on the demolition approval that pieces
need to be saved and preserved.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated she has not looked at the application in that way; however, when it has
previously been determined that a structure is in such a state that it needs to be demolished it is not
typical that the Board would place a condition on that application regarding what is to be done with the
pieces. She stated the exception would be the foundation.
Mr. Meyer concurred with the need to retain the foundation.
Ms. Hetzel stated that would be acceptable as long as there are no further conditions.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated that if the argument is successfully made that the structure is not
salvageable, then she does not see how any further conditions could be placed on the approval.
Chairman Koochagian stated the Board is trying to be collaborative as there has been an evolution of
understanding of this project on both sides. He stated his belief that the structure does need to be taken
down and he does not see how the Board could place a condition for preservation of any parts because
there are not enough there.
Mr. Dickerson stated this has been a process that we all have had to work through and we've probably
come to the best solution.
Ms. Hetzel stated her main concern is the public's reaction to demolition
Chairman Koochagian acknowledged there may be concern from the public and stated his belief that
allowing for public input is the best way forward.
Ms. Lassiter noted that the public may be excited about the future plan for the site.
Mr. Malloy encouraged the Paxton representatives to reach out to the public regarding their future plans.
Vice Chairman Minchew noted the key information in moving forward is clear, concise documentation as
to why the structure cannot be preserved or rehabilitated.
New Business
a. Town Council Resolution to support Loudoun County's initiative to expend Ball's Bluff
National Register and Landmark Boundary
Ms. Del Rance stated information regarding this item was placed in the Board packet.
b. Certified Local Government (CLG) status and local citizen concern addressed to VA
Department of Historic Resources
Ms. Del Rance stated she spoke with planners in other areas and found that public outreach to
bring those on both sides of an issue together may be the best way to address this concern and
prevent it from becoming a larger issue. She suggested a method used elsewhere to have the
Council and Board meet together and bring in a third party preservation attorney or other
authority to discuss how BAR decisions are made and how appeals can affect the decision
making process.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session Minutes
04 November 2013
Page 10 of 10
Chairman Koochagian confirmed staff does not know whether the Mayor has been contacted by
the Department of Historic Resources regarding the complaint.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:07pm.
NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING:
Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7pm
Town Hall, Council Chamber
Richard Koochagian, Chair
Deborah E. Parry, Planning & Zoning Assistant
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning