HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015 02 18 BAR Meeting Minutes(!F
r .
LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, 18 February, 2015
Town Hall, 25 West Market Street
Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Edward Kiley, Vice Chairman Reimers, Richard Koochagian,
Mark Malloy, Teresa Minchew, Dieter Meyer, Planning Commission
Representative Lyndsay Welsh Chamblin and Town Council
Representative Suzanne Fox
rril21Jit]:lCUTTAIMUMIIPrI .. ,ITM
STAFF: Assistant Town Manager Scott Parker, Attorney Liz Whiting, Preservation
Planner Tom Scofield and Planning & Zoning Assistant Deborah Parry
Call to Order and Roll Call
Chairman Kiley called the meeting to order at 7:00pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum
was present.
Adoption of the Meeting Agenda
On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Koochagian, the meeting agenda was adopted by a 6-0-1
vote (Goodson absent).
Approval of Meeting Minutes
a. November 17, 2014 BAR Meeting
b. January 16, 2016 Site Visit Minutes
On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Minchew, the meeting minutes were adopted by a 6-0-1
vote (Goodson absent).
BAR Member Disclosures:
Chairman Kiley noted he had a phone conversation and an exchange of emails with Leesburg District
Supervisor Ken Reid regarding cases TLHP-2014-0115 thru TLHP-2014-0118. He noted the purpose of
this exchange was to inform him of what factually occurred at the February 2"" work session. He stated
he did not offer any opinions and the exchange was completely informative.
Public Comment and Presentations
None
Consent Agenda
TLHP-2015-0002, 18 North King Street (A Little Wedding Studio)
Project: Install oversized wall sign on front fascia
TLHP-2015-0005, 215 Fort Evans Road E (Panera Bread)
Project: Construct drive-thru addition
Chairman Kiley asked if there were any members of the public who wished to address the Board
regarding the cases proposed for consent agenda.
There were no speakers.
Mr. Meyer moved to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of cases TLHP-2015-0002 and TLHP-2015-
0005.
The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Reimers and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Goodson absent)
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February2015
Petitioners
There were no petitioners.
Continued & Deferred Cases in the H-1 Overlay District
a. TLHP-2014-0090, 234 Cornwall Street NW
Project: Erect a prefabricated, detached garage and extend gravel driveway
The public hearing was opened at 7:08pm.
Page 2 of 9
Mr. Scofield stated this application was continued from the October 20, 2015 meeting to allow the
applicant an opportunity to provide additional information. He outlined the request to erect a new
prefabricated 24'x36' detached garage towards the rear, northwest corner of the land parcel an to
extend the existing gravel driveway to provide vehicular access to the new garage. Mr. Scofield noted
several changes from the initial submission to the current submission, including the configuration of
the garage doors and the detailing of the pedestrian door. Further, he noted the new information
submitted includes a site plan showing accurate placement of the outbuilding on the parcel as well as
dimensions and detailing of design elements. Further, he recommended approval of the application
with the following conditions:
1. The proposed prefabricated, frame outbuilding will be constructed on a concrete slab with a
minimum 4 -inch reveal.
2. The single -leaf door shall have two panels below the lights.
3. Gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the building as indicated on the applicant's
submittal.
4. The width of the extended portion of the gravel driveway shall be no wider than the existing
driveway.
5. Wood trim work shall result in an appropriate appearance.
6. The building cannot exceed 20 feet in height.
The applicant, Lawrence Craun, stated he has no objections to the proposed conditions.
Mr. Koochagian verified the roofing material is asphalt shingles; however, details of the shingles have
not been provided. Further, he verified the soffit material is wood.
Ms. Minchew stated some board members expressed concern at the previous meeting with the
proposed siding material. She asked staff to review that information.
Mr. Scofield stated the shed is essentially a kit sent from the manufacturer and the siding material is
T1-11, which is similar to the other two outbuildings on the property and is compatible in appearance
because of proximity.
Mr. Malloy verified it is the applicant's intention to install the water table as it appeared on the original
drawings.
Mr. Koochagian asked if staff has evidence that the other outbuildings on the property were approved
by the Board.
Mr. Scofield stated he reviewed the digital files through the year 2000 and did not see an approval for
the buildings; however, he did not look back into files in offsite storage.
Mr. Koochagian stated without evidence that the structures were approved, it is not within the
guidelines to use the structures as a case for compatibility of the proposed structure.
Mr. Scofield stated he is making the assumption that the structures were approved
Ms. Minchew expressed concern with the proposed siding material stating that the Board has
previously only approved this material when it was a greater distance from the road. She stated she
does not recall either of the existing buildings coming before the Board for approval since her tenure
began in 1996.
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
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February 2015
Page 3 of 9
Vice Chairman Reimers stated if a motion for approval is put forward, he would recommend that a
condition be added for staff approval of the roof shingles given that a sample has not been provided.
Mr. Craun stated the shingles are 25 -year black asphalt roofing shingles.
Mr. Koochagian expressed concern with the proportion of the trim pieces to the size of the structure
particularly because of limited fenestration on the facades. He verified the applicant would be willing
to entertain a larger trim board. He stated he is also concerned with the placement and size of the
windows in the upper gable.
Mr. Craun stated the photo of the structure provided by the manufacturer provides a better example
of the window placement than the measured drawings.
Mr. Koochagian asked if the upper windows are the same size as the lower windows.
Mr. Craun stated the top window is 4'x3' and the lower windows are 3'x2".
Mr. Koochagian stated T1-11 is a great produce in its context; however, in its proximity to the historic
structure on this property he does not believe it is compatible. He stated this material has been
approved on structures which were much smaller in the back of properties; however, this structure is
large and can be seen from the right-of-way. Further, he stated this structure is also out of scale in its
massing compared to the historic structure and asked if the structure is available with another siding
material.
Mr. Craun stated the other alternatives are not financially viable for him.
Mr. Meyer moved to approve TLHP-2014-0090 with the conditions as proposed by staff in addition to
the following:
1. A sample of the asphalt shingles will be provided to staff for approval and if staff has concerns
regarding the appropriateness of the roofing material, it will be brought back to the Board for
approval.
2. The soffit will be constructed of wood and the corner boards and window trim will be 1x4.
Mr. Craun stated he had a choice of a shingle roof or a tin roof. He stated if the Board would prefer a
tin roof, he would be willing to make that change.
Mr. Malloy offered a friendly amendment to include that the water table will be installed per the
original photograph.
The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Meyer.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Malloy and approved by a 4-2-1 vote (Koochagian and Minchew
opposed. Goodson absent).
b. TLHP-2014-0115, 112 Edwards Ferry Road NE
Project: Demolition of primary structure as part of the Court House Expansion Project
c. TLHP-2014-0116, 110 Edwards Ferry Road NE
Project: Demolition of primary structure as part of the Court House Expansion Project
d. TLHP-2014-0117, 108 Edwards Ferry road NE
Project: Demolition of primary structure as part of the Court House Expansion Project
e. TLHP-2014-0118, 106 Edwards Ferry Road NE
Project: Demolition of primary structure as part of the Court House Expansion Project
Mr. Scofield outlined the proposal to demolish four structures on Edwards Ferry Road NE to
accommodate construction of the proposed Court House Expansion project. He stated when
reviewing demolition requests, the Board is charged with evaluating the four criteria; Is the building
designated 'historic' in the architectural survey; Is it a resource that contributes to the architectural
and historic integrity of the property, neighborhood and historic district; Does the building maintain
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
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February 2015
Page 4 of 9
structural integrity; Consideration of Post -Demolition Plans. He stated the four structures meet all of
the qualifications of historic, contributing resources which maintain structural integrity, which is not
contested by the County. He outlined this historic association of the four structures with the Slack
Family as well as their individual historic attributes. Further, he recommended that the applications
be continued to the March 2, 2015 work session, which is the critical action date for these
applications unless Loudoun County consents to an extension of the review period.
Charles Yudd, Assistant County Administrator, stating he is attending the meeting on behalf of
County Administrator Tim Hemstreet. He stated the County sincerely appreciates the efforts of the
Board and hopes that Board Members understand that future submittals for this court house project
are being brought forward with a spirit of respect and appreciation. He stated the County recognizes
the contributing status of the four structures on Edwards Ferry Road and are challenged with how to
fit the programed court house expansion on this small parcel of land. He stated detailed information
has been provided regarding the storm water management, fire safety and operational security risks
for the site. He commented on the difficulty of maintain the four structures and programing them for
use by County staff given their limited size. Further, he stated the Board of Supervisors has not
indicated an interest at this point in extending the timeline for review of this application by the BAR.
Ms. Fox asked when the four structures were purchased by the County and if they were purchased
with the future court house expansion in mind.
Mr. Yudd stated he would need to check into the date of purchase and the circumstances surrounding
the purchase.
Mr. Scofield stated his records indicate the four structures were acquired by the County in 1980.
Marlene Shade, consultant for the County with Dewberry LLC, outlined the scope of the court house
project, to include the new courthouse building, Pennington parking garage, existing building
renovation, tunnel connection under Church Street, streetscape from parking garage to the
courthouse, upgrades to the Semones lot, demolition of the Valley Bank Building rear addition, site
utility reconfigurations, courtyard upgrades and traffic improvements.
She stated, specific to the 1.8 acre site, are the proposed 92,000 square foot court house building,
which is programed to meet the needs of the courts through 2025. She discussed the fire separation
concerns with the proximity of the Edwards Ferry Road structures to the proposed building as well as
required zoning setbacks and buffer zones. She provided information regarding how the site will be
accessed for pedestrian and vehicular traffic as well as security needs. She provided the location of
the utility lines stating existing overhead utilities will be relocated where possible. She stated the
court house design team has been meeting with Town staff over the last year to discuss the storm
water management needs for the site given the 125 acre size of the existing watershed which drains
into this infrastructure. She stated options considered to meet these needs include over -retention on
the Pennington lot, a pond, green roof, BMP credits, rooftop retainage, above ground retainage on
the north, below ground retainage on the north and below grade retainage on the south. Further, she
stated her team is working with a contractor for a constructability review including concerns with
equipment laydown, the closure of Church Street for around 18 months during construction for the
tunnel and the potential need for temporary easements from adjacent property owners and ensuring
there is no disturbance of the cemetery site.
Chairman Kiley noted the public hearing for this item is open and asked any petitioners to come
forward.
Mike Taylor, Leesburg resident, stated it seems that despite the amount of work done by the
applicant, it does not seem reasonable to ask the Board to make a decision on behalf of the Town
within the timeframe established. He expressed concern that the County has indicated an
unwillingness to extend the review timeline.
There were no further petitioners.
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
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February 2015
Page 5 of 9
Mr. Koochagian stated he did not see any information provided in the presentation to address the Old
and Historic District Guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Shade stated she attempted to present that information at the last meeting and was asked to
stop.
Mr. Meyer thanked Ms. Shade for her for putting into context the steps the court house design team
and taken to get to where this project is now.
Vice Chairman Reimers stated he does not see a path through the guidelines to allow the demolition
of the four structures on Edwards Ferry Road. He stated the complexity of the site and various
required components of the project do not provide justification to ignore the design guidelines.
Ms. Minchew thanked Ms. Shade and Mr. Yudd for their presentation stating it was helpful to
understand how the project has developed; however, she does not find justification in the information
presented to get closer to the decision the County desires.
Mr. Malloy suggested placing the storm water vaults under the proposed building stating he suspects
the floor of the garage would be close to the invert for the bottom of the vaults.
Bill Fissel, Dewberry, LLC, stated the design team has evaluated the possibility of an above grade
vault outside the building as well as a vault within the building. He stated placing the vault below the
building would have too much of an impact related to backwater. He stated placing the vault above
grade or within the garage presents a space concern.
Mr. Malloy asked if soil testing had been completed.
Ms. Shade stated there are serious soil issues with the Pennington lot. She stated the Church Street
lot has bedrock issues which will impact the foundation; however, it is not to the extent of what was
found with the Pennington Lot. She stated the foundation design will change and there will be
additional geotechnical testing with a report most likely available in three months.
Ms. Welsh Chamblin asked if the relation of the structures along Cornwall Street to the existing courts
expansion is greater than the distance of the Edwards Ferry Road structures to the proposed courts
building.
Ms. Shade stated the Cornwall Street structures have three to four times the separation as the
Edwards Ferry Road structures would have.
Ms. Fox thanked Mr. Yudd and Ms. Shade for their report.
Chairman Kiley stated he feels enough has been said about the storm water issue. He stated
everyone recognizes the Church Street lot is surrounded by residential and commercial structures
and if these four structures on Edwards Ferry Road pose a security threat then it is likely that many
others pose the same threat. He stated it appears from the Sheriff's letter in the packet that the
recommendations, which include language such as "where achievable" are not black and white
requirements, especially given the downtown location of this site. Further, he asked if the County has
agreed to study the possibility of removing non -historic and/or less historic additions from these four
structures to address the fire separation concerns.
Mr. Scofield stated the Board requested that the County study that possibility; however, we do not
have that information currently.
Mr. Kiley stated his understanding is that such a study has not yet been authorized by the County.
Ms. Shade stated such a study has not been authorized since the last Board 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 OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February 2015
Page 6 of 9
Mr. Yudd stated at their January 21$` meeting, the Board of Supervisors endorsed a design concept
and asked that staff evaluate the existing buildings to determine their construction type and suitability
of the structures for relocation or dismantling along with cost estimates.
Chairman Kiley stated the issue of removing non -historic and/or less historic additions from the rear
of these structures was raised at the BAR'S February 2nd work session and representatives from
Dewberry indicated that they were not authorized to do that study.
Mr. Yudd stated the response from Dewberry on February 20d was correct in that they had not been
authorized to conduct that study. He stated he would go back and clarify whether such as study was
a subset of what was directed during the recent Board of Supervisors discussion.
Mr. Meyer stated there seems to be no flexibility from the County regarding a required decision at the
March 2nd work session. He stated they have made the case that to meet their programmatic
requirements, at the very best there may be a possibility of saving the fronts of the buildings;
however, the current review timeline does not allow for exploration of that possibility. He stated he
believes the case has been made that to meet this program the buildings would have to come down.
Further, he stated it appears the relative importance of preserving the buildings versus the important
need to keep the courts in the Historic District.
Mr. Koochagian expressed concern that the action date of March 2nd does not leave time for the
Board to evaluate the poste demolition plans, construction of the new court house building, as is part
of the standard demolition application review process.
Ms. Minchew stated she is not ready to say that the buildings should be taken down because they are
inconvenient. She asked Ms. Whiting whether the Board is entitled to additional review time given the
length of time which passed between the County's initial public hearing and their return to the Board.
Ms. Whiting stated only the Board of Supervisors can grant additional time for review.
Ms. Minchew asked Mr. Yudd to state for the record why the County is not willing to extend the critical
action date for these applications after requesting a delay which took 49 days out of the review
process.
Mr. Yudd stated he is not sure that a delay was requested; rather the County indicated that they could
not meet the proposed review schedule because additional information needed to be prepared for the
meeting.
Ms. Minchew asked whether the County's consultants were authorized to delay the meetings
Chairman Kiley stated there was a representative from the County present at the meeting. He stated
he asked the County representative to address the Board and was told by that representative that the
County could not meet the proposed meeting schedule for the January work session and asked that
the matter be continued to the February work session. He stated this was mutually agreed upon.
Ms. Shade stated that occurred because they could not show the Board the design prior to it being
presented to the Board of Supervisors.
There was further discussion regarding the current critical action timeframe to allow for investigation
into the possibility of removing portions off the rear of these structures with the goal of maintaining the
historic core.
Mr. Yudd stated he will bring the Board's request forward to the Board of Supervisors and report
back.
After further discussion, Ms. Minchew moved that TLHP-2014-0115, TLHP-2014-0016, TLHP-2014-
0017, and TLHP-2014-0018 be continued to the March 2nd work session and that the public hearings
for these cases remain open.
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
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February 1015 Page 7 of 9
The motion was seconded by Mr. Meyer and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Goodson absent).
Public Hearings on New Cases in the H-1 Overlay District
a. TLHP-2016-0008, 246 West Market Street (Sunrise Senior Living)
Project: Amend previous approval for front porch modifications
Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 7:29pm.
Mr. Scofield stated an application for this property was approved with conditions in April 2014 for
alterations to this structure and the applicant is now asking that the Board reconsider its conditions
and approve the following items.
1. Columns —Allow retention of the nine round, "no -Taper", fiberglass porch columns, as installed,
that replace the historic wood porch columns.
2. Porch Trim —Allow retention of the new porch soffit and fascia including the dentil course made of
an alternative synthetic material (Fypon), as installed, that replaces historic wood elements.
3. Porch Railings — Install new wood porch and ramp railings that closer match the appearance of
the original railings, replacing the recently -installed porch/ramp railings.
4. Porch Deck —Allow retention of the new decking, as installed with an alternative synthetic
material (Trex) on the west side of the porch.
5. Shutters — Replace or repair and paint the louvered window shutters and retain associated
hardware.
6. Gutters — Repair box gutters on the porch roof and replace a section of gutter on the front slope
of the main roof.
Mr. Scofield stated the property was built circa 1900 and is a contributing resource in the National
Register Historic District and the Old & Historic District which is currently houses Sunrise Senior
Living. He outlined the previous history of this project, including the original application filed for
alternations, the subsequent finding that the porch renovations were beyond the scope of the
administrative approval and the Board decision at the time to approve the application with conditions,
which the applicant is now asking to modify. He outlined the Town's design guidelines stating they
appear to have been met regarding the replacement of gutters and treatment of the shutters;
however, the wholesale replacement of porch elements as outlined above is not in accordance with
the guidelines. Further, he recommended that the application be continued to allow opportunity for
the applicant to provide the following additional information:
1. Provide explanation and justification for column replacement and use of alternative materials.
Also, address issues of appropriateness for appearance of replacement columns including:
a. Moulding on capitals;
b. Profile on shafts; and
c. Fiberglass seams
2. Provide explanation and justification for porch fascia and trim replacement and use of alternative
materials. Also address the issue of appropriateness for appearance of dentil course.
3. Porch/ramp/safety railings:
a. Provide explanation and justification for historic porch railing replacement. Also address
issues of appropriateness for appearance of handrails, bottom rails, baluster counts,
center support posts, and exposed post anchor boots.
b. Provide explanation and justification for non -historic ramp and safety railing replacement.
Also address issues of appropriateness for appearance of handrail, bottom rail, baluster
count, support posts, and exposed post anchor boots.
4. Provide explanation and justification for porch deck and/or ramp deck replacement. Also address
issues of appropriateness for size, profile (lack of tongue & groove), and use of alternative
materials for decking.
5. Describe extent of window shutter work item including number of shutters replaced and window
locations. Include specification sheets for the replacement shutters. Explain current condition of
shutters.
6. Describe and explain extent of gutter work. Include specification sheets for the replacement
gutters.
The applicant, Roger Piskulich, C&P Construction, stated the moulding on the capitals was replaced
to match as closely as possible to the former capitals. He stated the rotted wood fascia was replaced
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
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February2015
Page 8 of 9
with wood and the wood dentil moulding and small trim below were replaced with a Fypon material.
He stated when he met with the former Preservation Planner and showed her the spec sheets for
material he intended to use prior to her issuing the approval. He stated he had discussed the
fiberglass columns with the former Preservation Planner who indicated the new columns were fine as
long as the size and round shape did not change.
He stated the porch railings were replaced do to rotting, especially in the pickets. He stated given the
porch is used by senior citizens, it was decided that pressure treated wood would be the most durable
option. He stated he mentioned the intermediate posts to the former Preservation Planner who
understood the safety concern and approved the railings. He stated the steel plates on the railings
can be wrapped. He stated a portion of the deck floor had previously been replaced with Trex
decking material, so he replaced the west part of the deck with the same material. He stated the
shutters were removed, repaired and reinstalled. He stated they continue to deteriorate and many
have missing louvers. Further, he stated the gutters on the front were remove and replaced with a k -
style gutter to match.
There were no speakers and the public hearing was closed at U5pm.
Mr. Malloy asked what was included in the original administrative approval.
Mr. Scofield stated there is no record of the approval.
Mr. Malloy verified the applicant does not have a copy of the approval.
Mr. Scofield stated the applicant submitted a copy of their original application last year when the
Board considered this case; however, there was no approval submitted. He stated there are email
records between the former Preservation Planner and the applicant which seem to imply that an
approval was given; however, there is no record of the approval.
Mr. Meyer stated this discussion is very similar to the discussion the Board had regarding these
alterations last year. He stated it was determined that former Preservation Planner assumed this was
a repair project with materials to match the existing materials. He stated there was also extensive
discussion at that time regarding what "match existing" might mean. He stated the original materials
were discarded and the Board's motion was that the porch should be rebuilt to match the materials
and style of elements that previously existed before the alterations began.
Mr. Kiley noted there was no language in the original application to suggest that all of the porch
elements would be replaced.
Ms. Minchew stated she too remembers this discussion from a year ago; however, it seems that the
applicant is now stating that he received approval from the former Preservation Planner for these
wholesale changes. She stated there was previous discussion of the email exchange between the
former Preservation Planner and the applicant which included direction that the materials removed
from the porch were to be kept on site. She asked that the minutes from the discussions last year be
provided to the Board.
Mr. Koochagian asked that any email exchanges that were not previously provided to the Board be
provided prior to further discussion of the application. He stated he is not seeing any movement on
the applicant's part to address these issues.
Mr. Meyer stated given the original materials cannot be repaired, given that they no longer exist, it
would be helpful for the applicant to provide a plan for moving forward should this be continued to a
work session.
Mr. Reimers suggested that the applicant have an owner's representative with him for the next
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
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
18 February 2015
Page 9 of 9
Mr. Meyer moved that the application be continued to the March 2"" work session or a date mutually
agreed upon by the applicant and staff.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Koochagian and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Goodson absent).
Administrative Approvals
a. TLHP-2015-0003, 19 & 23 E Market Street — Storm Windows
b. TLHP-2015-0004, 15 Wirt Street NW - Fence
c. TLHP-2015-0006, 218 N King Street — Fence
d. TLHP-2015-0007, 18 S King Street — Sign
e. TLHP-2015-0009, 18 S King Street — Building Directory Sign
Old Business
New Business:
a. BAR Annual Report for 2015
On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Vice Chairman Reimers, the annual report was
approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Goodson absent).
Edward Kiley,
The meeting wasadjourned at 10:12 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET - LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning