HomeMy Public PortalAbout2014 02 03 BAR Work Session Minutes�� p " L E F T
r R u l l ����P
L E E S B U R G B O A R D O F A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W
W O R K S E S S I O N M I N U T E S
M o n d a y , 0 3 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4
T o w n H a l l , 2 5 W e s t M a r k e t S t r e e t
T o w n C o u n c i l C h a m b e r
M E M B E R S P R E S E N T : C h a i r m a n R i c h a r d K o o c h a g i a n , V i c e C h a i r m a n M i n c h e w , P a r l i a m e n t a r i a n
E d w a r d K i l e y , D a l e G o o d s o n , M a r k M a l l o y , D i e t e r M e y e r ( a r r i v e d a t
7 : 0 4 p m ) , P a u l R e i m e r s , P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i v e D o r i s K i d d e r
a n d T o w n C o u n c i l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e T o m D u n n , I I
M E M B E R S A B S E N T : N o n e
S T A F F : Z o n i n g A d m i n i s t r a t o r C h r i s t o p h e r M u r p h y , D e p u t y T o w n A t t o r n e y B a r b a r a
N o t a r , S e n i o r P l a n n e r I r i s h G r a n d f i e l d a n d P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g A s s i s t a n t
D e b o r a h P a r r y
C a l l t o O r d e r a n d R o l l C a l l
C h a i r m a n K o o c h a g i a n c a l l e d t h e m e e t i n g t o o r d e r a t 7 : 0 0 p m , n o t e d a t t e n d a n c e a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a
q u o r u m w a s p r e s e n t .
A d o p t i o n o f M e e t i n g A g e n d a
T h e m e e t i n g a g e n d a w a s a d o p t e d o n a m o t i o n b y M r . R e i m e r s , s e c o n d e d b y V i c e C h a i r m a n M i n c h e w ,
a n d a p p r o v e d b y a 6 - 0 - 1 v o t e ( M e y e r a b s e n t ) .
A p p r o v a l o f M e e t i n g M i n u t e s
a . M i n u t e s o f t h e J a n u a r y 4 , 2 0 1 4 S i t e V i s i t
O n a m o t i o n b y M r . G o o d s o n , s e c o n d e d b y V i c e C h a i r m a n M i n c h e w , t h e m i n u t e s w e r e a p p r o v e d
b y a 4 - 0 - 1 - 1 v o t e ( M r . K i l e y a n d M r . M a l l o y a b s t a i n e d a n d M r . M e y e r a b s e n t )
B A R M e m b e r D i s c l o s u r e
T h e r e w e r e n o d i s c l o s u r e s .
P u b l i c H e a r i n g s o n N e w C a s e s i n t h e H - 1 O v e r l a y D i s t r i c t
a . T L H P - 2 0 1 3 - 0 1 7 8 , 2 C L o u d o u n S t r e e t S W ( B - 1 / H - 1 O v e r l a y D i s t r i c t ) , A p p l i c a n t : M i k e C a r r o l l ,
L e e s b u r g B e e r C o m p a n y . P r o j e c t : I n s t a l l a t i o n o f a s i g n a t r e a r e n t r a n c e ( f a c i n g P e a r s o n ' s W a l k )
C h a i r m a n K o o c h a g i a n o p e n e d t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s f o r t h i s c a s e a n d T L H P - 2 0 1 3 - 0 1 7 9 a t 7 : 0 2 p m .
M r . M u r p h y n o t e d t h e a p p l i c a n t w a s n o t i n a t t e n d a n c e .
M r . K i l e y m o v e d t o r e c e s s T L H P - 2 0 1 3 - 0 1 7 8 a n d T L H P - 2 0 1 2 - 0 1 7 9 t o t h e n e x t r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d
m e e t i n g .
T h e m o t i o n w a s s e c o n d e d b y V i c e C h a i r m a n M i n c h e w a n d a p p r o v e d b y a 7 - 0 v o t e .
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WORK SESSION MINUTES
03 February 2014
Page 2 of 10
b. TLHP- 2012 -0179, 2C Loudoun Street SW (B -1/1-1-1 Overlay District), Applicant: Mike Carroll,
Leesburg Beer Company. Project: Installation of a sign at rear entrance (facing Town garage)
Please see discussion above.
c. TLHP- 2013 -0173, (R- HD /H -1 Overlay District), Applicant: Roger Piskulich, C &P Construction.
Project: Replacement of front porch railings, columns, trim and metal on roof at Sunrise Senior
Center.
Chairman Koochagian opened the public hearing at 7:24pm.
Mr. Murphy outlined the application to approve work already done to replace wooden porch
railings, columns, trim, standing seam metal roof and shutters. He stated the property is a circa
1900 colonial revival structure which is contributing to the Old and Historic District. He stated the
applicant submitted an application in November for "trim and roof to match existing front porch
lower" and it appears the former preservation planner took this to mean that only these elements
would be replaced in -kind. On December 19th a citizen called to report what appeared to be a
wholesale replacement of the front porch railings, columns, trim, and roof. He stated staff
confirmed through a site visit and correspondence with the contractor that the entire railing and all
columns were replaced on the front porch; however, no information was provided to staff
explaining the extent of damage which necessitated complete replacement versus repair. He stated
new vertical elements were added in the porch railing at the mid -point between the columns, and
the width of the new top rail appears to be narrower. Further, he stated the dentil trim was
replaced with Fypon, the columns were replaced with fiberglass composite columns of a different
profile which are less ornate than the original and the porch roof was replaced with standing seam
metal with factory bake on color.
Mr. Murphy stated information describing the full extent of what has been repaired and or replaced
on the fagade of the property needs to be provided and assessed by the Board. He stated by the
information currently available, the work performed violates provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as
well as various provisions of the Old and Historic District Guidelines. Further, if the Board were to
approve the application, the following conditions of approval are recommended:
1. An application for COA must be completed providing all requisite information as indicated on
the form.
2. Evidence of extent of damage to elements that have been replaced thus justifying said
replacement must be provided for review.
3. Information demonstrating the replacement material matches the original in material, texture,
dimension and design, and /or it is impracticable to match the original in materials, texture,
dimensions and design.
The applicant, Roger Piskulich, C &P Construction, stated the shutters were removed to be repainted
and will not be replaced. He stated the other elements were replaced with non - rotting materials,
such as Fypon for the dentil molding. He stated the railings were replaced because of rotting issues
and the new material is a special treated wood guaranteed to last 25 years. Further, he stated
there was significant rotting of the columns, some of which were no longer supporting.
Mr. Goodson confirmed the original shutter hardware will still be used.
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
03 February 2014
Page 3 of 10
Vice Chairman Minchew stated she was under the impression that the former Preservation Planner
was lead to believe this would be repair work in -kind and then when the extent of the work was
discovered, the applicant was to cease work and retain original materials which were in the front
yard.
Mr. Piskulich stated he met with staff before the work began and provided material specifications
for the roof and columns to be used. He stated at the meeting he completed the application and
staff provided authorization for the work to begin. Further, when the work was almost completed,
he was asked to stop the work; however, he was almost done so the materials that were replaced
were painted.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated she was under the impression that the original materials were to be
retained.
Mr. Piskulich stated he told staff that small parts of the materials could be retained. He stated he
does have a couple of larger sections at his office.
Mr. Meyer stated the application indicates that trim and roof will match existing front porch lower
and asked if that was approved by staff.
Mr. Murphy stated he has been going back through emails to piece the information together. He
stated it appears this was thought to be repair only, so no COA was issued. In December, when the
work was underway the complaint was received.
Mr. Piskulich stated he also brought in material samples and material specifications for staff to
review.
Mr. Meyer asked the applicant if his impression of this work was repair or replacement.
Mr. Piskulich stated he informed staff that the columns, roof and trim would be replaced and that
other elements would be repaired or replaced.
Chairman Koochagian asked when the check for the application fee was received by staff, given
there would have been no fee if the application was just repair.
Mr. Murphy stated the check was received on January 14 and not associated with the original
application.
There was further discussion regarding the timeline of the original meeting with staff, the citizen
complaint and subsequent contact from staff.
Council Member Dunn left the meeting at 8:13pm.
Mr. Kiley confirmed the applicant has not undertaken a project such as this in Leesburg previously
and did not request a copy of the Old and Historic District Guidelines when he met with staff to
submit his original application. Further he confirmed that the applicant understood that he was to
match the general design of the elements, but did not have to match exactly.
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
03 February 2014
The petitioner's section opened at 8:19m.
Page 4 of 10
Eric von Schilgen, 306 W. Market Street, stated he lives close to this location and had previously
noticed the rot in the various elements of the front porch. He stated since the improvements have
been made, he has walked by the site and to him it looks as it did before and is acceptable to him
and his neighbors. Further, he stated the applicant does work in other parts of Loudoun County.
There were no further petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 8:24pm.
Ms. Notar stated there was obviously some miscommunication in this case noting that emails are
considered hearsay and not admissible. She stated the applicant must be given the benefit of the
doubt and even though a violation has not been issued, this case should be treated similar to a
violation case where the applicant is seeking compliance.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated what we have the removal of historic material on a prominent and
important building without convincing evidence presented to warrant the replacement. She stated
if the Board was to determine that the materials need to be replaced, are the non - matching
materials acceptable. She stated most elements do not significantly match the historic materials to
be acceptable.
Mr. Meyer stated to him match means to be the same, but there is nothing we can do about that
since the materials are gone. He stated the lay person may not see a huge change, but the change
in the defining features of columns and railings take away from the overall historic feel of the
structure.
Mr. Reimers stated he is probably the least upset with the roof; however, the columns, if approved,
could've been replaced with tapered fiberglass columns with the band to match the look of what
was there. He stated he does not like the new railing, but at least it was replaced with wood.
Mr. Malloy also commented on the loss of character with the replacement of the tapered columns
with tapered columns. He stated the Board is charged with historic preservation, not environmental
issues. He stated the replacement is egregious and railings could be improved by shaving off the top
of the newel posts.
Chairman Koochagian stated the photos of the rot on the columns do not demonstrate the need to
replace the columns. He sated he had similar rot on his home and was able to repair the columns by
rebuilding the bases and capitals. He stated the old growth wood, if properly ventilated will last
forever. He stated much of the historic significance of this building was thrown away with the
porch.
Mr. Kiley stated there is no further point in discussing the historic materials that are gone. He stated
the need to preserve historic materials is entirely clear if you pay attention and read the guidelines;
however, the problem is in that too many people do not do either one.
Chairman Koochagian stated this needs to be said. He stated in the architectural world, matching is
matching, not approximate. He sated the elements replaced do not match and do look different.
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
03 February 2014
Page 5 of 10
Vice Chairman Minchew stated even though the work has been done, it is important that the Board
go through the same process of determination as though the work had not been done because this
is a contributing property. She stated she does not recall the Board previously approving the
replacement of wood columns with fiberglass so the Board needs to go through the process of
viewing the columns to determine if they sufficiently retain the qualities that the wood would
retain. She stated the guidelines state elements such as the columns, railing and dentil molding
should be repaired or replaced with the same material unless the applicant can demonstrate that
those materials can no longer be obtained. Further, she stated it could cause major problems if we
simply accept synthetic materials because they have already been installed.
Mr. Goodson stated a detailed application to address all of these issues needs to be submitted.
After further discussion it was the determination of the board it is necessary to ask the applicant to
submit a revised application to address the comments given tonight view the current materials and
to schedule a site visit to view the current materials.
Vice Chairman Minchew clarified the application needs to address each aspect of each alteration
which differs from what was there previously.
Chairman Koochagian asked that staff provide the applicant with a copy of the Old and Historic
District Guidelines.
Mr. Piskulich stated that he has worked on historic structures previously and does not want to cut
corners, which is why he met with staff prior to beginning work on the structure. He stated he will
work to address the Board's concerns.
Chairman Koochagian asked that the revised application also include information regarding the
porch decking that was replaced and the decking that was previously replaced with synthetic
materials as stated by the applicant.
Mr. Meyer stated the applicant has stated he received verbal approval from staff for the work to be
undertaken and asked how that should be addressed in this process.
Ms. Notar stated that should be taken into consideration and there is no information to contradict
the applicant's statement.
Mr. Kiley moved that the case be recessed tentatively to the March work session and that staff work
with the applicant to determine dates for a site visit.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Reimers and passed 7 -0.
Old Business:
a. Morven Park Discussion
Mr. Murphy stated the Planning commission is reviewing a proposed zoning district for Morven Park
should the Town Council decide to move forward with the proposed boundary line adjustment. He
stated the proposed Zoning District would not include adding the property to the H -1 Overlay
District. He stated 636 acres of the 996 acres of the property is under a conservation easement
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
03 February 2014
Page 6 of 10
through the Virginia Outdoors Foundation which would review any new construction or
modifications to existing structures within the easement. Further, he stated any modifications to
the Manor House would include review by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources.
Mr. Murphy clarified both the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which are also the basis for Leesburg's
guidelines. He stated given the similarities in review, there was concern that there could be overlap
if the Board is involved in review. Further, he stated the goal tonight is to receive feedback from the
Board that can be provided to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
Mr. Reimers disclosed that he has been asked to serve on the Property Committee for Morven Park;
however, he as not accepted as of yet.
Mr. Reimers stated he uses the facility quite often and does not understand why it should not be
brought into the Town.
Mr. Meyer concurred with Mr. Reimers' comments.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated she also agrees with the proposal to bring the property into the
Town. She expressed concern with how oversight would continue in the unlikely event that the
easement were not to remain with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
Mr. Murphy stated the process for review is clearly called out in the easements and any transfer of
the property to another foundation would also include that review language.
Mr. Reimers stated he had a client who tried to change the existing easement on their property and
were unsuccessful despite the substantial resources available to them.
Mr. Murphy stated during the public comments at the Planning Commission public hearing it was
acknowledged that the Virginia Outdoors Foundations acknowledges the easement for this property
to be one of their more stringent easements that they have in the United States.
Mr. Goodson asked why the Town wouldn't want to have its one body charged with historic
preservation to have oversight of this important property. He stated rather than overlap in their
reviews, the Board and Virginia Outdoors Foundation would complement each other. Further, he
asked what oversight will be in place for the remainder of the property outside the easement.
Mr. Murphy stated the property adjacent to Tutt Lane and the portion fronting Route 15 where
most of the festivals are held is not eased. He stated the Master Plan does include renovation of the
barns and equestrian facilities and there is language in the proposed zoning district for the property
that no new facilities will be constructed within 300 feet of Route 15. Further, he stated there are
currently no historic structures within the non -eased portion of the property.
Mr. Kiley confirmed the Council is considering a boundary line adjustment for the entire property.
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
03 February 2014
Page 7 of 10
Chairman Koochagian stated if the historic resources are to be brought into the Town that the Board
should have some oversight given it is the Board's role to apply the historic guidelines to the
resources of the Town.
There was discussion regarding the location of the property and the current Town boundary.
Chairman Koochagian asked if H -2 would be extended to cover portion of this property once
brought into the Town.
Mr. Murphy stated the Town Council resolution initiating this process did not discuss the expansion
of the H -1 or H -2 districts to this property. He stated if an historic overlay were to come over this
property, it would be an H -1 landmark designation similar to Paxton and Greenway. He stated if this
were to occur, the Leesburg design guidelines would need to be modified to fit the manor house
and large estate of Morven Park as they are currently tailored to the more urban historic downtown.
Mr. Meyer stated if brought into the Town, this property would differ from other historic properties
in Leesburg in that the eased portion is already subject to the stringent conditions of the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation review in consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. He
stated the portion of the property outside the easement does not contain any historic structures
and therefore would not be appropriate for the H -1; however, there should be consideration as to
whether it should have oversight similar to the H -2 or even the creation of the H -3 to ensure that
any development that does take place is in keeping with the character of the overall property.
Chairman Koochagian stated the H -2 was put into place to protect the gateways into Town if the
boundary is expanded we need ensure there is some protection in place. Further, he stated he is
not comfortable with having the large portion of property outside of the easement unprotected.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated she would be concerned with adding property to the gateway to the
Town without some level of review to protect the entrance into the Town. Further, she stated she
has some discomfort regarding the eased portion of the property in that the Town would not have
any oversight or recourse should something go wrong with the review under the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation. She stated any future changes to Virginia Department of Historic Resources or their
review process could be fine for the property on its own; however, she would be concerned with
any potential impacts on the rest of the Town.
Mr. Reimers confirmed the draft zoning district states there would be no construction within 300
feet of Route 15.
Mr. Malloy confirmed the Equine Center and O'Connor properties are not proposed for inclusion in
the boundary line adjustment.
New Business:
a. Referral: TLZM- 2013 -0005 — MacDowell Brew Kitchen rezoning of property in H -1 Overlay
District
Irish Grandfield outlined the rezoning application for Gordon MacDowell on parcels at 204 South
Street SE and 203 Royal Street SE, neither of which are the parcel where the MacDowell brew
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
03 February 2014
Page 8 of 10
kitchen is located. He stated the purpose of this discussion to receive referral comments from
the Board regarding items that should be addressed in the rezoning phase.
Mr. Grandfield stated the property at 203 Royal Street contains a parking lot which is the subject
of a previous proffer to have no nighttime parking; however, the lot is currently used in the
evening by patrons of the business. He stated the property at 204 South Street is the location of
the "beach" outdoor area associated with the brew kitchen business; however, it is currently
zoned as residential. Further, he outlined the proposal for an asphalt walk to connect the
parking lot and establishment to meet ADA requirements, a 42" wall along South and Harrison
Streets to provide a barrier between the use and public right -of -way, an 8' wooden fence or
solid masonry wall behind the property and outdoor bathrooms behind an existing shed.
Mr. Murphy clarified the applicant is seeking a modification of the required 25' S -3 screen buffer
at the proposed location of the 8' fence. He stated one requirement of the buffer modification
is to replace the feature with a brick or stone wall. Further, he stated per the Zoning Ordinance,
a wooden fence would not meet the requirements for the requested buffer waiver and the
same requirement applies to the proposed wall along Harrison and South Streets.
Mr. Reimers confirmed the proposed outdoor bathrooms will be hooked to plumbing and will
not be port -a- johns.
Mr. Kiley verified the wall along Harrison Street will be solid and not allow for ingress /egress.
Mr. Murphy stated a solid wall in this location is required to separate the outdoor dining area
and alcohol consumption from the public right -of -way.
Mr. Grandfield stated the Town Council has determined a certain amount of public right -of -way
in this location to be surplus and staff is working with the applicant on a lease agreement for
this property. He stated the Department of Public Works has stated that 9.5 feet of right -of -way
from the edge of the curb needs to be maintained.
Mr. Malloy stated the proposed height of the wall may impact the type of material to be used.
There was further discussion regarding the types of materials the Board might find to be
appropriate for a fence or wall in this location and asked that staff consider the Board's need to
maintain as much flexibility as possible for the Certificate of Appropriateness application process
to come once the rezoning is completed.
Mr. Grandfield stated the approval can include language gives the Board some flexibility in the
height and placement of the fence or wall.
Mr. Grandfield requested comments on the proposed location of the buffer along South Street.
Mr. Kiley stated the location of the buffer would depend on the type of material chosen.
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
03 February 2014
Page 9 of 10
Mr. Grandfield stated the Board is not required to comment on this element, he simply wanted
to bring it forward to the Board's attention to allow flexibility as the location of the buffer along
South Street will need to be determined during the rezoning process.
There was further discussion regarding the buffer mitigation request from the applicant as
previously addressed by Mr. Murphy.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated given the buffer mitigation request, she would be more
comfortable with a masonry wall versus a wood fence.
Mr. Goodson asked if there has been any outreach to the neighbors regarding these proposals.
Mr. Murphy stated there has been no outreach as of yet because the public hearing date has
not been set. He stated once the public hearing is scheduled, the adjoining property owners will
be notified by mail, notices will be placed in the newspaper and public hearing notices will be
posted on the property.
There was further discussion regarding the proposed buffer wall at the rear of the property.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated the proposed asphalt walkway could be fine; however, she
would like for the Board to be given the opportunity at the appropriate time to address the
material if necessary.
Chairman Koochagian asked when the shed connected to the proposed bathrooms was
constructed.
Mr. Grandfield stated the existing frame shed has been there quite some time and was a
complimentary structure to the residence at that location.
Bob Sevila, attorney for the applicant, stated if the buffer it seems the buffer modification
request will be addressed by the Zoning Administrator and therefore, the may not need to be
addressed by the Board.
Mr. Murphy stated the Board will have the final decision as to the material for wall.
b. Appointing a JARB Representative for 2014 and discussion of potential projects for
nomination.
Mr. Kiley proposed a motion to nominate Vice Chairman Minchew as the Board's representative
to the Joint Architectural Review Board.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Malloy.
Vice Chairman Minchew stated Mr. Meyer has done a wonderful job in this capacity over the
past few years and she had planned to nominate him again for this year if he wishes to continue.
Mr. Kiley withdrew his motion.
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
03 February 2014
Vice Chairman Minchew proposed a motion to nominate Mr. Meyer as the Board's
representative to the Joint Architectural Review Board.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Kiley and approved by a 7 -0 vote.
It was the consensus of the Board to consider St. John the Apostle Catholic Church for
nomination in this year's program and to bring forward other potential projects for
consideration at the next meeting.
c. Election of BAR Officers
Mr. Goodson moved the following slate of officers forward for consideration:
Edward Kiley, Chairman
Paul Reimers, Vice Chairman
Dale Goodson, Parliamentarian
The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Minchew and approved by a 7 -0 vote.
Page 10 of 10
d. Old and Historic District 50th Anniversary Panel Discussion — May
Ms. Parry stated that staff is working to plan a panel discussion to incorporate previous BAR
members in May as a culmination of the yearlong Old and Historic District 501h Anniversary
celebration. She stated staff would welcome any suggestions or assistance from the Board.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:29pm.
NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING:
Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 7pm
Council Chamber
25 West Market Street
Leesburg, Virginia
Richard Koochagian, Chair
Deborah 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