HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022_04_18 BAR Business Meeting Minutes
LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
Monday, April 18, 2022
Town Hall, 25 West Market Street
Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Helen Aikman, Vice Chair Teresa Minchew, Parliamentarian Julie Pastor, Erin Nicholson, Tom O’Neil (participating remotely), Paul Reimers, and Donald Scheuerman, MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF: Preservation Planner Lauren Murphy and Planning & Zoning Analyst Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Aikman called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm, noted attendance, and determined that a quorum was present. a. Remote Participation – Tom O’Neil Chairman Aikman read the following statement into the record: “Pursuant to the Town’s remote electronic participation policy, Mr. O’Neil will be joining the meeting
from Boston, Massachusetts and arrangements have been made for his voice to be heard by everybody. I will now ask for a vote of the members present to allow Mr. O’Neil to participate in the
meeting.” The motion to allow Mr. O’Neil to participate in the meeting remotely was approved by a 5-0-1 vote (O’Neil recused). Adoption of the Meeting Agenda At 7:03pm, Vice Chair Minchew proposed a motion to adopt the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 7-0 vote. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. March 9, 2022 BAR Work Session Minutes At 7:03pm, Vice Chair Minchew proposed a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the March 9, 2022 work session as prepared by staff, not including the transcript. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scheuerman and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Pastor abstaining). b. March 23, 2022 BAR Business Meeting Minutes At 7:04pm, Vice Chair Minchew proposed a motion to approve the minutes for the March 23, 2022 business meeting as prepared by staff, not including the transcript. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 5-0-2 vote (O’Neil and Reimers abstaining). BAR Member Disclosures Mr. Scheuerman disclosed that he has a professional relationship with the applicant for TLHP-2022-0033, 204 Cornwall Street NW; however, he has not discussed the case with the applicant and their relationship will not impact his vote. Mr. Reimers stated he would recuse himself from the discussion of TLHP-2022-0012, 205 North King Street.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
April 18, 2022 Page 2 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Chairman Aikman disclosed that the applicant for TLHP-2022-0031, 107 Liberty Street NW, is her
brother-in-law; however, they have not had any discussions regarding this application and all of his questions were referred to the Preservation Planner. Public Comment and Presentations
None Consent Agenda Chairman Aikman opened the consent agenda items for discussion at 7:04 pm and determined that there was no public comment or Board discussion for the following items:
a. TLHP-2022-0033, 204 Cornwall Street NW Project: Exterior Alteration – Rear Door Replacements b. TLHP-2022-0029, 102 Morven Park Road NW Project: Site Alterations – Fencing, Hardscaping, and Walls At 7:09pm, Vice Chair Minchew proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2022-0033, 204 Cornwall Street NW and TLHP-2022-0029, 102 Morven Park Road NW under the consent agenda pursuant to their latest staff reports and any conditions or clarifications contained therein. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 7-0 vote. Continued Cases in the H-1 Overlay, Old & Historic District a. TLHP-2022-0012, 205 North King Street Project: Addition Chairman Aikman opened discussion of this case at 7:10pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the proposal to construct an addition onto the historic structure at 205 North King Street. She stated the application has been substantially amended from the originally proposed garage front design and outlined each of the amendments made following the previous meeting. Further, she recommended approval of the application based the findings and conditions as outlined in the staff report. The applicant, Wiley Cooke, was present. There was a brief period of questions to clarify details of the application followed by discussion. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the application was approvable based on clarifications and conditions regarding the window roof materials and the reuse of two historic rear windows in the front of the north addition. At 7:29pm, Vice Chair Minchew proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2022-0012, 205 North King Street, as authorized in Section 2.3.7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance, subject to all information provided by the applicant and the staff reports through the April 18, 2022 meeting and further subject to the following clarifications and conditions: 1. All new windows will be wood and in conjunction with the cut sheets provided to us tonight, and whenever there are windows with grills, they will be three-part simulated divided lights. Grills between the glass or snap-in grills are not approved. 2. The windows that will be removed from the rear elevation of the Italianate block will be relocated for use in the northernmost, east-facing façade of the new addition. 3. The wall cladding will be painted brick to match the existing except for the small area of unpainted brick on the south elevation as shown in the drawings. This area for the solarium will remain unpainted to help differentiate the new construction from the historic. A brick sample will be provided to staff prior to construction to be sure that it is approvable under our Guidelines and a mortar sample will be provided as well.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
April 18, 2022 Page 3 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
4. The standing seam metal roof will match the existing in pan width and seam height. Seams will
be traditionally folded. Ridges will be crimped. No ridge vents or caps are approved with this application. 5. Any necessary retaining walls, walkways, hardscaping, landscape lighting, including any paving of parked areas and building lighting, and other minor site alterations which may be shown on the
illustrative site plan will be submitted under a separate application for approval with all necessary details and material samples for BAR review, or review by the Preservation Planner, if otherwise permitted under Article 7.5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Pastor proposed a friendly amendment to include that the motion is approved in accordance with the findings contained on page nine of the staff report as follows:
1. The subject structure is a prominent and historic manor house on North King Street. The property was built in three stages – the oldest dates to the late 18th century (approximately 1780)
and is a 2-story, 2-bay Flemish bond structure to the south of the central block. The central block is a mid-19th century, 3-story, 3-bay Italianate manor. The central entry is highlighted by a portico with brackets and acorn flourishes typical of the Italianate style. In the 20th century, the two blocks were connected by a 2-story hyphen.
2. The proposed addition associated with this application is located to the side and rear of the main block consistent with the Guidelines. The location preserves the historic core of the Italianate block and the original block and serves as an example of additive massing, common of larger historic homes in the district. 3. The overall style and design of the addition is in keeping with that of the historic Harrison Hall. 4. The proposed materials are traditional to the Old and Historic District and are therefore in keeping
with the Guidelines. The applicant proposes either wood or aluminum clad windows on the sides and rear. Aluminum clad windows ae acceptable for new construction (including additions) because they visually approximate traditional windows. Three-part simulated divided lies should be used. 5. The massing of the addition is consistent with the scale of the house. The addition of a north wing is consistent with historic precedents for additive massing. The friendly amendment was accepted by Vice Chair Minchew. Ms. Pastor also proposed a friendly amendment to condition 2 for reuse of the windows to allow for
the possibility that the windows may not be reusable. There was discussion regarding this proposed amendment and the condition was amended to indicate that new wood true-divided lite windows could be used on the east-facing façade of the north addition should it not be possible to reuse the existing historic windows from the rear of the house as planned. The amended motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers recused). Public Hearings on New Cases in the H-1 Overlay District a. TLHP-2022-0030, 210 Loudoun Street SE Project: Exterior Alteration – Siding Replacement Chairman Aikman opened discussion of this case at 7:34pm. Ms. Murphy noted the structure at 210 Loudoun Street SE was constructed in the 1950s and would likely be considered contributing to the historic district should a new architectural survey of the district occur. She provided an overview of the proposal to remove the deteriorated vinyl siding and install new Allura cement fiber siding. She discussed the lack of information regarding the original siding material, noting that it could have been vinyl based on the age of the structure. Further, she recommended approval of the proposal as submitted. The applicant, Avis Renshaw was present. There was a period of questions for members of the Board to clarify elements of the proposal.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
April 18, 2022 Page 4 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Public Speakers:
The public hearing was opened at 7:40pm. There were no speakers, and the public hearing was closed. There was additional discussion of the proposal, and it was the consensus of the Board to grant
approval based on discussion and clarifications provided. At 7:44pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2022-0030, 210 Loudoun Street SE, as authorized in Section 2.3.7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance, based on the information provided by the applicant as presented through April 18, 2022, and further based on the following findings: 1. The subject building was constructed in the mid-20th century in a vernacular style. The main block
is cinderblock clad in vinyl siding and the frame addition is also clad in vinyl siding which has deteriorated since its installation and requires replacement. The original siding material is unknown but from archival photographs, it appears that only the frame wing was originally clad in lapped siding. The vinyl siding over the cinderblock portion was added sometime after 1975. 2. Vinyl siding is not a common material in the Historic District but was introduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s as an alternative cladding around the time that this building was constructed.
3. Unlike vinyl, cement fiber siding can be more easily replaced in small batches, similar to wood. The proposed cement fiber siding in a seven-inch reveal is closer to the siding as documented in the 1975 survey than the existing condition. 4. The change in the siding material from vinyl to cement fiber represents no net negative impact on the overall character of this building or the district as a whole. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Minchew and approved by a 7-0 vote. b. TLHP-2022-0031, 107 Liberty Street NW Project: Exterior Alteration – Roof and Siding Chairman Aikman called the case to order at 7:46pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the proposal to replace siding, reclad the chimney, replace a portion of the roof in-kind and replace the existing skylights. She discussed the condition of the siding proposed for replacement, noting that significant deterioration is present. She also expressed support for the roof and skylight replacements and provided additional analysis regarding the proposal to reclad the chimney. Further, she recommended approval of the application as proposed with a condition to clarify the traditional details of the standing seam metal roof. The applicant’s contractor, Steve Harper, was present. There was a period of questions for members of the Board to clarify elements of the proposal. Public Speakers:
The public hearing was opened at 7:57pm. There were no speakers, and the public hearing was closed. There was additional discussion regarding the proposal, and it was the consensus of the Board to
grant approval of the application.
At 7:58pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2022-0031, 107 Liberty Street NW, as authorized in Section 2.3.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, based on the information provided by the applicant as presented through April 18, 2022 and further based on the following findings and conditions:
1. The subject building was constructed in the late 19th century in a vernacular style. A large addition was made to the rear in the late 20th century and a separate dependency was also constructed in
the rear c. 1984. The historic structure is clad in wood German siding and the dependency is clad in wood clapboard siding. 2. The proposal to replace the southern elevation wood siding with new wood siding to match the existing is acceptable in this instance because of the number of boards requiring replacement.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
April 18, 2022 Page 5 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Other boards on the remaining elevations may require intermittent replacement in-kind with wood
siding to match the existing profiles. 3. The proposal to replace the roof in-kind is in keeping with the Guidelines provided that the standing seam metal roof follows traditional pan widths and that the edges and seams are crimped, not vented or capped.
4. The proposal to replace the siding of the chimney with new, wood siding is acceptable in this instance because the chimney is a decorative housing for a gas fireplace, located on the rear of the 1970s addition, has limited visibility from the right-of-way, and the proposed material will aid in mitigating the unusual form and scale of the chimney by blending into the rear elevation. Cladding this chimney with masonry would call undue attention to it which would not be in keeping with the Guidelines.
5. The replacement in-kind of the existing skylights is acceptable in this instance because of their location away from public view on contemporary construction. This motion also included the following condition: 1. The ridge of the standing seam metal roof will be crimped and will not make sue of ridge vents or caps in order to retain the traditional appearance of the existing standing seam metal roof. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Minchew and approved by a 7-0 vote. c. TLHP-2022-0032, 109 Wirt Street NW Exterior Alteration – Fenestration change and Porch Stoop This application was rescheduled to a future meeting at the applicant’s request. Public Hearings on New Applications in the H-2 Historic Corridor or Gateway Overlay District None Items Not Requiring a Public Hearing None Old Business There was a brief discussion noting that the Town Council did receive the BAR survey results as part of their work session packet; however, staff has not received any further direction in regards to that item. There was also a brief discussion regarding the upcoming Joint Architectural Review Board awards kick-off meeting. New Business None Staff Announcements Ms. Murphy noted that National Trust for Historic Preservation has released information regarding registration for their annual conference which will be held virtually and asked that any members interested in attending contact her for details. Adjournment On a motion by Ms. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Scheuerman, the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 pm by a 5-0-2 vote (O’Neil and Reimers absent).
Helen Aikman, Chairman
Deborah Parry, Planning & Zoning Analyst
April 18, 2022 Board of Architectural Review Business Meeting
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
Chairman Aikman: Good evening and welcome to the April 18, 2022 business meeting of the Board of Architectural Review of the Town of Leesburg. The meeting is called to order at this time. Here's Erin. Okay. This evening we do have a quorum. I'm Helen Aikman, the chairman for 2022. We have our Vice Chair, Teresa Minchew,
our parliamentarian, Julie Pastor and Paul Reimers, Don Scheuerman, and Erin Nicholson are all here, and Tom O'Neil is present on the phone. We have a full complement this evening as per our roll call. Because Tom is going to be participating remotely, I need to read this into the record.
Pursuant to the Town's remote electronic participation policy, Mr. O'Neil will be
joining the meeting from Boston, Massachusetts, where it's probably no colder than it is here. Arrangements have been made for his voice to be heard by everybody. I will now ask for a vote of the members present to allow Mr. O'Neil to participate in the meeting. All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? We have six in favor, none opposed. Thank you. Tom, can you hear us okay?
Mr. O'Neil: Yes, I can.
Chairman Aikman: Okay, and we can hear you. That's great. The next item on the agenda is adoption of the meeting agenda. Do I have a motion to adopt the agenda?
Vice Chair Minchew: So Moved.
Ms. Pastor: Second.
Chairman Aikman: All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. Moving to item four
on the agenda, approval of meeting minutes. I believe that we had some absentees in these meetings, let me see.
Ms. Pastor: The first one is me.
Vice Chair Minchew: Yes, Julie was absent from the first and Tom and Paul from the second.
Chairman Aikman: Right. We'll have to take these separately. Does anybody have any issues with the March 9, 2022 BAR work session minutes? No? Can we have a motion to approve those minutes, please?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
2 | Page April 18, 2022
Vice Chair Minchew: Madam Chair, I move to approve the meeting minutes of March 9th, 2022 as prepared by Debi Parry, not including the transcript.
Chairman Aikman: Very good. Do we have a second?
Mr. Scheuerman: Second.
Chairman Aikman: All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? None. We have one abstention.
Ms. Pastor: Abstention.
Chairman Aikman: We have six in favor, one abstention, the minutes are approved. Now we need a motion to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2022 BAR business meeting.
Vice Chair Minchew: Madam Chair, I move that we approve the minutes from Wednesday, March 23rd, 2022 as prepared by Debi Parry, not including the
transcript.
Chairman Aikman: Very good. Second?
Ms. Pastor: Second.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. All in favor.
Board Members: Aye
Chairman Aikman: Opposed?
Mr. Reimers: Abstaining.
Chairman Aikman: We have two abstentions, right? On Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Reimers, right?
Mr. O'Neil: That's correct.
Mr. Reimers: That's correct.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. We have five in favor and two abstentions. Excellent. Moving along to item five on the agenda BAR member disclosures. Does anyone have anything to disclose? Yes, sir.
Mr. Scheuerman: Yes, Madam Chair on case TLHP-2022-0033, 204 Cornwall
Street NW. I have a professional relationship with the applicant. We've never discussed the case, nor would it impact how I vote.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
3 | Page April 18, 2022
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Very good. Anyone else?
Mr. Reimers: I need to recuse myself from TLHP-2022-0012.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. That's 205 Cornwall, correct?
Mr. Reimers: 205 North King.
Chairman Aikman: 205 North King. Sorry.
Mr. Reimers: Correct.
Chairman Aikman: I need to disclose that the applicant in TLHP-2022-0031, 107 Liberty Street, NW, is my brother-in-law but we haven't had any discussions
regarding his application. His questions were all referred to the Preservation Planner.
I don't think we have any other disclosures. Okay, excellent. We now go to item six on the agenda, which is the opportunity for public comment. Anyone present who has a comment to make about an item that's not on the tonight's agenda. Does anyone have anything they want to raise? Okay. That takes care of that. We now go
to the heart of the meeting, which is review of the applications that are on the docket
for this evening.
Before we start, just by way of background, I want you to all understand that we appreciate that you're here this evening, applicants, because you have important decisions to make about your homes and businesses. We want you to understand
that we are here to help you make those decisions in a way that's in accordance with the Guidelines that the Town has established, in this case of this evening, for the Old and Historic District. At the end of this process, you'll have an opportunity to fill out a survey and comment on the process that you've been through.
You should also feel very free if you have questions about the process, as we're
going through the meeting or comments, you can feel free to ask those questions or make those comments now. We would ask you please to participate in the survey because when you tell us what we've done well and what we could improve on, it really helps us as public servants to do our job.
The first group of cases we're going to look at tonight are cases that are put forward
for approval by consent. What that means is that the BAR Leadership has looked at the cases and feels that they are approvable without further hearing or discussion, just on the basis of the staff report and the application.
That said, if anyone on the Board or anyone of you all feels that further hearing is needed, we can pull a case off of the consent docket right now and go ahead and
give it a full hearing, just so you understand. This evening, there are two cases put forward for approval by consent. TLHP-2022-0033, 204 Cornwall Street NW, which involves rear door replacements on the home, and TLHP-2022-0029, 102 Morven Park Road NW, which involves site alterations to fencing, hardscaping, and walls.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
4 | Page April 18, 2022
First of all, does anyone present, want to have either of those cases taken off the consent docket?
TLHP-2022-0029, 102 Morven Park Road, the application underwent a late-breaking
change. Debi emailed everyone on the Board and let them know, in essence, what
the changes were. She's also provided an updated staff report. Are we all comfortable on the Board with leaving that on the consent docket? Anyone have any questions for that? Let's see. We'll have to take these separately because I think Mr. Scheuerman is--
Mr. Scheuerman: No, I--
Chairman Aikman: Oh, you didn't recuse yourself.
Mr. Scheuerman: I just disclosed.
Chairman Aikman: You just disclosed, but didn't recuse. Great. We can take these together if somebody would like to offer a motion for approval.
Vice Chair Minchew: Madam Chair, I move the following cases for approval by consent, TLHP-2022-0033, 204 Cornwall Street NW, and TLHP-2022-0029, 102 Morven Park Road NW. Both pursuant to their latest staff reports and any conditions and clarifications contained therein.
Ms. Pastor: Second.
Chairman Aikman: All in favor?
All: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed?
Mr. O'Neil: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: It's good to make your voice heard, Tom. Excellent. We have
seven in favor and none opposed. The cases for approval by consent are approved. We now move to item number eight on the agenda, continued cases and the H-1 Overlay Old and Historic District. This is TLHP-2022-0012, 205 North King Street. Take it away, preservation planner.
Ms. Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are all now very familiar with this
property. This is 205 North King Street, known lovingly in Town as the Glenfiddich House or Harrison Hall. The request is a two-story addition in multiple parts. The north wing, which has been the focus of much of our conversation, a rear addition across the back and a small extension behind the 1780 east block, or the south wing. There have been numerous revisions. The first several focused on what was
dubbed Garage Design B1, which had a forward-facing garage facing towards King Street. Then at the last work session, the applicant actually indicated that their preferred option was this new option C1, which was a garage-free option.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
5 | Page April 18, 2022
The revised design that was included in your packets for this meeting was reflective of option C1. That's the no garage option. Here you see the front elevation facing King Street. The side elevation to the north, the rear elevation across the back.
There was, at our last work session, some questions about the final design. This is now the proposed final design. Then the south elevation. Just for reference, this is the 1780s block here and then the rest of this is the new construction.
One of the changes that's occurred to this elevation from the last time the Board saw it is the applicants now proposing to leave a small portion of the brick on the
solarium. You see it there in the hatch unpainted to help to note transition between historic construction and new construction. That's indicated in your packets.
In summary, the applicant has substantially amended the proposal from the original garage front design. We've looked at several iterations of this now, and with the revised elevations that were presented in your packet, staff finds that the proposal
addresses any of the concerns which were identified during previous staff reports or meetings, especially those related to mass, scale, and fenestration.
The rear elevation, which we saw a moment ago features a more traditional sunroom fenestration. That was a topic of discussion at the last meeting, it's been corrected. The applicant has provided cut sheets for the windows, which I put at your place. I
do just want to get for the record, some clarification from the applicant's architect who is here tonight, about aluminum-clad versus wood. The Guidelines do allow for the introduction of aluminum-clad windows in new construction but the original proposal indicated that the windows would be wood. Both the Pella and Andersen option appear to have the option for aluminum clad. My understanding is that they
are actually just proposing the fully wood windows, but we should get clarification on that tonight for the record.
I'm recommending approval of this item based on the findings that were in your staff report. They are quite detailed. I will not read them into the record, but they have not changed since your report was issued. Essentially, I have found that the overall style
and design of the addition is in keeping with that of the historic building, that the proposed materials are traditional, and that the overall massing of the addition is in keeping with the scale of the house. I am recommending some draft conditions, these are slightly different from what's in your packet. By the time the packet went out, I had not received those cut sheets.
The first recommended condition in your packet is that cut sheets should be provided. The applicant has provided those, so now I would just recommend revising condition number one to indicate that the proposed windows will be blank--presumably wood, and that they can be either the Andersen A series or the Pella Architectural series. I'd further clarify that by noting that three parts simulated divided
lights will be used, no grills between the glass or snap and grills as those are options available with these windows, but it's my understanding it's not the applicant's intent to use them.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
6 | Page April 18, 2022
Second recommended condition would be that the windows that are removed from the rear elevation of the Italianate block in order to construct the proposed sunroom would be relocated for reuse if possible, that the wall cladding will be painted brick to
match the existing except for the small area of unpainted brick on the south elevation as shown, that the standing seam metal roof will match the existing for pan width and seam height, that the seams would be traditionally folded and the ridges would be crimped, no ridge vents or caps would be approved as a part of this application.
Then finally, any other necessary retaining walls, walkways, hardscaping, landscape
lighting, et cetera, that may be shown in an illustrative manner, would come back to
the BAR under a separate application, or if it qualifies for administrative review under the ordinance, it could potentially be administratively approved but regardless, it would be a separate application. As I mentioned, the architect for the project is here and I’m happy to answer any questions about the report. I'm sure Wiley is happy to
answer any questions about the design.
Wiley Cooke: Good afternoon. Alex is in California. I'm standing for him. I hope things will go well.
Chairman Aikman: Okay, yes, Alex. [laughs] Okay, Mr. Cooke it's nice to have you back. I guess we should go through questions and then comments as we normally
do. For those of you who are in the crowd here, we basically have a session of questions for each application, which is followed by a session of comments. Once the questions are asked, the public hearing will be open and everyone here will have an opportunity to-- Oh, no, we don't have to open the comments for the public hearing because we've already had a public hearing, never mind.
Ms. Murphy: This one's continued from a work session.
Chairman Aikman: Hold on to that one. We'll get to that in a few minutes. Okay, very good. Why don't we start with Vice Chair Minchew on the questions.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. Just a couple of clarification questions. The windows that are being removed in order to make the sunroom, are those intended
to be reused?
Mr. Cooke: Yes, they are. The plan is to put them on the north elevation-- Excuse me, that's the east elevation, where we took away the garage and added the north wing.
Vice Chair Minchew: That's what I had remembered. I just wanted to make sure. I
think we could probably indicate that in our motion.
Chairman Aikman: If I could just jump in there. Should we not also indicate that if it turns out that they can't be used for some reason, they should be preserved or do we need to--
Mr. Cooke: I'm going to keep them somewhere.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
7 | Page April 18, 2022
Vice Chair Minchew: We can talk about that a little bit maybe when we're doing discussion. I think usually, it's a nice thing to ask, but it's very difficult to enforce. Let's see. Oh, talk to me a little bit about the revised bay windows, the projecting
bays and what you're doing there. They’re revised somewhat correct from what we saw?
Mr. Cooke: Yes, they're all revised since we we looked at last meeting, the bay window wasn't bull enough to catch the wood flooring coming through. We've dropped the base of the bay window down to make sure that the floor joists would
run into the bay window. The way it looked before, you'd have to step up into it. There was a comment about taking it all the way down to the ground. I hesitated to do that because on the south elevation, that bay window is right next to that door. I think it's going to be really messy to pull it all the way down to the grade. There was a comment about putting brackets under the window, we're coming about four feet
out. I'm not sure that they'll add anything to it. I like the way it is. It doesn't show the pretty millwork that will take over the look of it as we go along.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. They project about three feet from the--?
Mr. Cooke: Four feet.
Vice Chair Minchew: Four feet?
Mr. Cooke: Yes, it's about 10 feet long.
Vice Chair Minchew: The windows themselves in the bay, I see your notes, but just talk me through, are they operable? Are they stationary? What are we doing?
Mr. Cooke: They would operate, but they would not have the smaller light 6/6.
Vice Chair Minchew: It looks like one big window, but it's actually four separate
windows?
Mr. Cooke: Yes, the bottom sash. Good catch. It's intended to be operatable. The bottom sash can move up.
Vice-Chair Minchew: It's one very large window?
Mr. Cooke: Yes.
Vice Chair Minchew: It's a 10-foot-long window.
Mr. Cooke: Exactly.
Vice Chair Minchew: The muntins will be-- it says to match existing, or somewhat bigger?
Mr. Cooke: It may have to be a little bit bigger just because of the size of the
window. They have the same profile.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
8 | Page April 18, 2022
Vice Chair Minchew: That's what I was thinking, but it does say to match existing. I don't have a problem with the idea, but I'm not entirely sure exactly specifically what's being proposed there. Let's see. It sounds like you talked to staff a little bit
about the material for the windows. What is it that you are asking for approval for, either metal or wood?
Mr. Cooke: For wood.
Vice Chair Minchew: For wood?
Mr. Cooke: Yes.
Vice Chair Minchew: That's good.
Mr. Cooke: I need more flexibility in color.
Vice Chair Minchew: The windows will be wood. You are asking for approval for the simulated divided-lights as opposed to the true divided-lights. Is that correct?
Mr. Cooke: Yes, correct.
Vice Chair Minchew: Lauren, for the people that may not know, could you actually describe clearly for everyone what simulated divided-light means?
Ms. Murphy: Sure. A simulated divided-light, in the context of the Historic District, we would be looking for what we call a three-part divided-light. It's going to have applied internal muntins, applied external muntins, and a spacer bar in between. It
gives the same dimensionality that we would be looking for in a true divided-light. A true divided-light is going to go all the way through the glass, and the glass will nestle into the muntin. This creates the illusion of a true divided-light without the cost and difficulty of replacement. It's a contemporary option which gives a more historic profile. That's what we'll be looking for.
It differs from grills between the glass and snap-in grills, which technically could also be considered simulated divided-lights, in that they typically don't have that same profile. Especially grills between the glass from the exterior look very flat. You don't see the ogee shape of the muntins. From a distance, the windows look like they almost don't have any muntins at all. That's why we would discourage the grills
between the glass. The snapping muntins, the same thing. They also tend to break very easily and then the windows don't have any muntins. That would be the reasoning for asking for the simulated three-part divided-light on in addition to a historic building.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thanks. I think it bears repeating only because it's confusing
and it's a term of art, but not everybody knows that it's a term of art.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
9 | Page April 18, 2022
Ms. Murphy: Technically, the grills between the glass are simulated in that they are pretending to be true divided-lights. They just aren't as successful as the three-part simulated divided-light.
Vice Chair Minchew: It's not what we mean when we say simulated divided-lights. Anyway, just little educational moment there. Sorry. Let's see. I understand and don't have any issues with using unpainted brick on the one section, but do we know what brick that is? Have we seen a sample and the mortar and all that?
Mr. Cooke: It's a wood-molded brick. I thought the headers would be a darker color
than the stretchers of the regular brick. It'd be a dark red and almost a black.
Vice Chair Minchew: The Flemish bond with glazed headers look?
Mr. Cooke: It can be very traditional in brick.
Vice Chair Minchew: We have not seen a brick sample or a mortar sample?
Mr. Cooke: I put a photograph of one in the application.
Vice Chair Minchew: I did see the photograph, but--
Ms. Murphy: There's a photograph, but I don't have a physical sample.
Vice Chair Minchew: What mortar are you planning to use? What color on top?
Mr. Cooke: It'd be a lime color. It would be sand color in that one panel. Everything else obviously would be painted.
Vice Chair Minchew: I understand. My only other question I have right now is the areas both in front of the new northern addition and the current turnaround area for cars. Are you asking for approval for paving of those now?
Mr. Cooke: No, I was thinking that was tied into landscaping. We are not going back to the landscape planning until we settle it on this, but the idea is there. I'd like to
change the texture as you come up the driveway from asphalt to something nicer.
Vice Chair Minchew: That will return including the paving of the parking area. I saw the other items listed in the conditions, but I didn't see that.
Ms. Murphy: Sorry, I would've lumped that in with hardscaping. I think I have landscaping.
Vice Chair Minchew: I think only because we've talked about it so much, it makes sense to have it on the record. Also, lighting is referenced as well, landscape lighting, but any lighting on the building itself are you proposing at this time?
Mr. Cooke: Yes, there will be lights.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
10 | Page April 18, 2022
Vice Chair Minchew: That'll come back?
Mr. Cooke: Come back, yes. It's hard to find the right light sometimes.
Vice Chair Minchew: Makes perfect sense. That's all I have left.
Mr. Cooke: All my sources have gone away.
Chairman Aikman: Let's go to, Erin?
Ms. Nicholson: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: No questions? Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: No, I believe the Vice Chair carried very good ball there.
Chairman Aikman: Julie?
Ms. Pastor: No, she covered the couple that I had as well.
Chairman Aikman: Tom?
Mr. O'Neil: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: I also have no questions. Let's do a round of comments. Again,
we'll begin with Vice Chair Minchew.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you for your patience through the long process. I hope you and your client are both pleased with where it is now.
Mr. Cooke: I like it. It's good.
Vice Chair Minchew: I have no concerns. The only thing that I have a lingering
concern about are the projecting bays. I look forward to hearing what others say about that. Thank you.
Chairman Aikman: Erin.
Ms. Nicholson: I think it just bears repeating, we are appreciative of the collaboration and the patience to work with the Board through this very detailed
process.
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: No comments to add. I believe the first two have covered it.
Chairman Aikman: Julie?
Ms. Pastor: No, I too, thank you very much for all that you have done in terms of
extending the record of this house. We've learned a lot actually through this process.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
11 | Page April 18, 2022
Mr. Cooke: Oh, I'll be back.
Ms. Pastor: Well, I know. The effort particularly that was put on even when we were relocating the outbuildings and things like that, it really added to the record. I do think
it bears repeating that the amount of time, for a building such as this, is important
too. I know it might have seemed like a little bit torture coming to every meeting, but I think, in the end of the day, it's because it's such an important structure that we appreciate it very much. I look forward to the next chapter, but I think this one is well worth it.
Mr. Cooke: In fairness to Alex, we had to go through the process as the plan that we're approving evolved from that process of design and making it better, and changing some of the ideas. I think he's pleased. I know he is. Or he wouldn't have left me out here by myself.
Chairman Aikman: Tom, you raised the question about the base last time, I think.
Do you have any comments at this point?
Mr. O'Neil: I'll just like to say I do think the change from the previous presentation where they've now lowered the floor level down and it's in line with the band that runs horizontally around the additions. To me, that makes a difference. They are projecting out quite a ways, it's along cantilever, but as I often say this is a modern
addition. That type of cantilever is perfectly capable of being done. I really don't have an issue with it in this new version. I don't think brackets or foundation walls going down to the ground are necessary.
Chairman Aikman: Okay, thank you very much. My only comment, echoing the others, would be to thank you again for patience. I also think this has been a really
good example of collaboration on all parts between the Board and the applicant, and the applicant's professional assistants. Though it has been some attenuated, it has been very productive and I think a great example of how the system works when it works well.
Mr. Cooke: Thank you.
Chairman Aikman: I guess at this point, we can entertain a motion to go ahead and approve. Who would like to offer that motion?
Vice Chair Minchew: Do you want to?
Ms. Pastor: No, you can do it, or I can do it.
Vice Chair Minchew: I'll give it a start. How's that? I move that the Leesburg Board
of Architectural Review approve TLHP-2022-0012, subject to all information provided by the applicant and the staff reports through our meeting date tonight, subject to the following clarifications and conditions:
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
12 | Page April 18, 2022
1. All new windows will be wood and in conjunction with the cut sheets provided to us tonight, and whenever there are windows with grills, they will be three-part simulated divided lights. Grills between the glass or snap-in grills are not
approved. 2. The windows that will be removed from the rear elevation of the Italianate block will be relocated for use in the northernmost, east-facing facade of the new addition. 3. The wall cladding will be painted brick to match the existing except for the
small area of unpainted brick on the south elevation as shown in the
drawings. This area for the solarium will remain unpainted to help differentiate the new construction from the historic. A brick sample will be provided to staff prior to construction to be sure that it is approvable under our Guidelines and a mortar sample will be provided as well.
4. The standing seam metal roof will match the existing in pan width and seam height. Seams will be traditionally folded. Ridges will be crimped. No ridge vents or caps are approved with this application. 5. Any necessary retaining walls, walkways, hardscaping, landscape lighting, including any paving of parking areas and building lighting, and other minor
site alterations which may be shown on the illustrative site plan will be submitted under a separate application for approval with all necessary details and material samples for BAR review, or review by the Preservation Planner, if otherwise permitted under Article 7.5.6, the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Pastor: Two amendments.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. Go.
Ms. Pastor: One is in accordance with the findings contained on page nine of the staff report.
Vice Chair Minchew: Accepted.
Ms. Pastor: The second would be regarding the reuse of the windows to leave the
phrase at the end, if possible because just in case they're not--
Vice-Chair Minchew: Is that something that the applicant would like to have included?
Mr. Cooke: Well, I want to use those windows. They need to be on the front. They need to be adjacent to the ones that are already there.
Vice Chair Minchew: My only concern with that is I would want to see if the applicant would consider using true divided-light on the front rather than simulated divided light if you were not able to use the existing windows. I'd like to see you use the existing windows.
Mr. Cooke: I'm all for exactness. I would have no problem. I know my client wouldn't
have a problem.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
13 | Page April 18, 2022
Vice Chair Minchew: Just on that front part.
Mr. Cooke: Just the two on the front to match. Sure.
Vice Chair Minchew: I don't mind if you want to reflect that if those are not possible.
Those cannot be relocated, that windows with true divided lights to match those-
Ms. Pastor: In the front.
Vice Chair Minchew: -would be approved by staff and would be approvable. That could be used there.
Ms. Pastor: I will second that motion.
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. All in favor.
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? None. We have six in favor with Mr. Reimers recused.
Mr. Cooke: Well, thank you.
Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cooke: I guess, I'll see you all later.
Chairman Aikman: Tell Alex we said congratulations. We now move to item nine on the agenda, new cases in the H-1 Overlay Old and Historic District. We have two cases tonight. We'll begin with TLHP-2022-0030, 210 Loudoun Street SE.
Ms. Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a new application before the board tonight so this will be our first public hearing of the evening. This application is for 210 Loudoun Street SE. It's lovingly known around Town as La Chocita and it is a 1950s vernacular structure. The two-bay block is a cinderblock structure. The two-bay shorter wider wing is a frame structure. It is currently listed in our survey as non-
contributing but I do note that that's likely due to its age at the time of the 1999 survey. It is possible that if this building were surveyed today, that it could have been treated as a contributing structure to the Old and Historic District.
The proposal associated with this application is to replace the existing vinyl siding, which you see in the photo here, with new cement fiber siding. Based on the
architectural surveys that we have on this property, the 1975 photographs show that the cinderblock portion of the structure was actually just painted. It was not covered in any lap siding as of 1975. The frame addition did have siding. It was a more narrow reveal than what's there today, but the material is unknown. By 1999, the structure looks as we see it today, which means that the vinyl siding was added
sometime between 1975 and 1999.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
14 | Page April 18, 2022
For this current application, we have a common mid to late-20th-century cladding, which is the vinyl. The proposal is to transition that from the vinyl siding to Allura cement fiber siding. Now, this was an interesting case, which is why it's not just on
the consent agenda because you might think, "Well self, we don't typically approve vinyl siding. Why wouldn't we just allow this to be done on the consent agenda? Based on the age of the structure, vinyl is potentially an appropriate material. Vinyl siding became popular in the late 1950s, early 1960s.
While it's not typically a preferred cladding material in our historic district because
our district is much older than the 1950s and 1960s, it could potentially be an
appropriate material for this structure. However, we do not know what the original cladding material was, but we can tell by photographic evidence that it's not the siding that's on the building today. For that reason, I am actually finding that it could be appropriate in this instance to remove the vinyl siding, even though vinyl could
have been the original material, and to replace it with a new contemporary composite
material. The original cladding material is unknown. It could have been vinyl. It could have been wood. It could have been aluminum. The existing material is a contemporary material again and installed sometime between '75 and '99. This change from one contemporary material to another continues that trend of a
composite mixture of siding on the property, but doesn't necessarily detract from the
intrinsic character of this block.
It was a unique case, but at the end of the day, I did recommend approval of the application based on basically those findings. The subject structure was constructed in the mid-20th century in a vernacular style. It is cinderblock, clad in vinyl siding,
and frame, clad in vinyl siding. It has deteriorated. There were evidentiary photographs of that in your packet. Vinyl siding is, as I've noted, not a commonly desired material in the historic district. It was introduced in the late '50s and early 1960s as an alternative cladding around the time this building was being built.
The replacement of vinyl siding with cement-fiber siding is acceptable in this instance
because both are composite contemporary material. Unlike vinyl, cement fiber siding can be more easily replaced in small batches similar to wood siding. The proposed cement-fiber siding and a 7-inch reveal is actually closer to the siding documented in 1975 than the current condition. The change in siding material from vinyl to cement fiber represents no negative impact on the overall character of the building or the
district as a whole.
If the BAR agrees with that motion, you can use this. It is the motion from your packet. I did ask the applicant who, I believe, is here, there she is, if she was able to get a sample. I do not know yet if they were able to get a sample. I know we've had a lot of applicants struggling with that because of some supply chain issues. Avis
Renshaw is here to represent her application, and I'm sure she'll be happy to answer any questions as would I.
Chairman Aikman: Could you come forward, please? Thank you. If you would identify yourself for the record, please.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
15 | Page April 18, 2022
Avis Renshaw: Hi, I'm Avis Renshaw, and I'm part owner of the property.
Chairman Aikman: Great. Thank you. Have you had an opportunity to review the staff report that the Preservation Planner prepared?
Ms. Renshaw: I think so.
Chairman Aikman: Okay, great. Is there anything you'd like to add or clarify from the staff report?
Ms. Renshaw: No, we want the building to look nice. I don't like vinyl. I don't think it's a very ecological material. I think that the Hardie Board is better. It'll last a lot longer
and look nicer over time and not need to be replaced. We went with a color that is as
close as we can get to what's on the building already.
Chairman Aikman: Great. All right. As I said earlier, we're going to have a round of questions, then we're going to open the public record to see if anyone has anything to add, and then we'll have a round of comments from the Board. We will begin the
questions with Vice Chair Minchew.
Vice Chair Minchew: I do not have any questions. Thank you.
Chairman Aikman: Okay, Paul, do you have any questions?
Mr. Reimers: Are you planning on getting this pre-finished?
Ms. Renshaw: Yes.
Ms. Renshaw: Yes, that's it.
Mr. Reimers: Okay. Just like anything, you're doing in a smooth finish, correct?
Ms. Renshaw: Correct.
Chairman Aikman: Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: Julie?
Ms. Pastor: I just had the same question about those.
Chairman Aikman: Erin?
Ms. Nicholson: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: Tom?
Mr. O'Neil: No question.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
16 | Page April 18, 2022
Chairman Aikman: I also have no questions. We will open the public hearing at this time. Does anyone present have any comments to make about the application? Very good. We'll close the public hearing, and now we'll have a round of comments
beginning with Vice Chair Minchew.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. I do not have any issues with your proposal, but I do have a question for staff and this is about our motion. Not even just a question but something I'd like to discuss just a little bit. For Recommendation 3, I am a little uncomfortable using this language about the fact that the replacement of the vinyl
siding with cement-fiber siding is appropriate because both are composite contemporary material. I say that because I am not certain that were the applicant proposing wood that I would be able to find it appropriate to say no.
It's not really a question, Lauren, unless you care to weigh in. I understand the difficulty of reviewing removal of vinyl and that we need to be careful. We needed to
see it. We needed to talk about this application. We couldn't just willy-nilly say," Oh,
it's fine and we can approve that." I understand all that. I would just be happier if our motion did not include the first sentence of recommendation 3, just to not actually say that. I feel like it sets a precedent that will keep us from approving non-composite non-contemporary materials in a similar situation. I'm not ready to do that
yet.
Ms. Murphy: We can certainly strike as a part of any motion.
Chairman Aikman: Just so I'm clear what you're saying is, you feel that that first sentence could be read to preclude approval of wood basically.
Vice Chair Minchew: I feel like it could lead us down that path, arguably, and
maybe that is the correct path but I'm not there yet.
Ms. Murphy: I would have cautioned you against wood siding on this structure, I think for its age, you would probably be making it look older than it actually was if the applicant were proposing wood. I do think that cement-fiber as a replacement for vinyl, on a building that could very well have been built originally with vinyl siding. It
is an interesting time in preservation theory, because we are now entering the time when for many years, we've decided were inferior products are now becoming original material.
Vice Chair Minchew: It is.
Ms. Murphy: It is interesting and complicated-
Vice Chair Minchew: It's complicated.
Ms. Murphy: -approach. I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is. I have my own preservation theories and I'm sure all of you have yours. I do think if Avis had proposed wood, I probably would have cautioned us about going down the wood
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
17 | Page April 18, 2022
path. At the end of the day would our Guidelines have allowed for wood, yes I believe they would.
Vice Chair Minchew: I believe so too. I agree. I don't disagree with anything you're
saying. I'm just uncomfortable concluding that in this--
Ms. Murphy: I fully understand. I think you would be perfectly fine to take it out if you don't want that there. I also wouldn't be too worried about a precedent being set, because you're tying it to this specific instance of a replacement of vinyl with Hardie or Allura. I think it could just as easily be removed and it's still a true set of findings.
Vice Chair Minchew: We always say that we're not doing that and we are not technically creating a precedent but in the public view we frequently are.
Ms. Murphy: I totally understand.
Vice Chair Minchew: Even in our own view, we all go back and we say, "Well, wait a minute. We approve that there. Why?" Also, we don't know that there wasn't wood
on here at some point-
Ms. Murphy: That's true.
Vice Chair Minchew: -because there really could have been. I'm comfortable supporting you. This has nothing to do with you. I think it's fabulous. I'm just a little wary of-
Ms. Murphy: You just got us thinking about preservation theory tonight [crosstalk],
Vice chair Minchew: The sticky parts of preservation theory that are challenging. That's all I've got. Thank you.
Chairman Aikman: Will your concern be addressed if we dropped the first sentence of item three?
Vice Chair Minchew: Yes. Of the finding.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. Very good. Let's see, Paul?
Mr. Reimers: No, comment.
Chairman Aikman: Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: No comment.
Chairman Aikman: Julie?
Ms. Pastor No further comment.
Chairman Aikman: Erin?
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
18 | Page April 18, 2022
Ms. Nicholson: No comment.
Chairman Aikman: Tom?
Mr. O'Neil: No comment.
Chairman Aikman: I also have no comments. Could we have a motion, please?
Ms. Pastor: I move that the Board of Architectural Review approve TLHP-2022-0030 to replace a contemporary vinyl siding on the structure at 210 Loudoun Street southeast based on the information provided by the applicant as presented through the BAR meeting today, April 18th 2022. This approval is based on the findings
included on page three of the staff report with an amendment to number three of those recommendations to eliminate the first sentence. It would start, “Unlike vinyl cement fiber siding can be more easily replaced in small batches, similar to wood. The proposed cement fiber siding in a seven-inch reveal is closer to the siding as documented in the 1975 survey than the existing condition”.
Vice Chair Minchew: Second.
Chairman Aikman: All in favor.
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? So, the application is approved 7-0. Thank you.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you.
Ms. Renshaw: Thank you very much.
Chairman Aikman: Now we move to TLHP-2022-0031, 107 Liberty Street NW, exterior alteration of roof and siding.
Ms. Murphy: You guys are flying through your agenda tonight. This proposal is for 107 Liberty Street Northwest. Do you see it here? It's the yellow house with green
shutters in the photo. This property is circa 1875 built-in a vernacular style. This proposal is multifaceted. It's a proposal to replace siding on both the primary structure and a contemporary dependency in the rear to reclad the chimney to replace two sections of roof in-kind with two different materials and to replace existing skylights.
The first proposal is to replace the south wall of siding on the primary structure. This would be a replacement of essentially the entire facade with new wood German siding to match the existing reveal and design. Upon a site inspection, and there are photos from the applicant's contractor in your packet, there is a large portion of this wall which needs replacement. Now, typically, we would say that repairing or
replacing just that which needs to be replaced is the best course of action. In cases where a large portion of a wall needs to be replaced, it may actually be better to go ahead and allow for the full replacement in kind of the entire wall. When you have
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
19 | Page April 18, 2022
such a large portion that is again damaged or decaying, it can tend to damage the surrounding boards as you're removing those decayed boards. At the end of the day, you end up with a full replacement anyway. In this particular instance, I am
recommending that the Board consider that as an option for this property.
For the accessory structure, which I apologize I did not put a picture of it in this PowerPoint, but there are pictures in your packet. For the accessory structure, this entire structure would have its clapboard siding replaced, it was approved by the BAR in the 1980s built around 1984. It is not a contributing structure and is not
eligible to be considered a contributing structure if this Town were re-surveyed today. For that reason, staff finds that the replacement in whole of the siding on that particular structure is fine. There's no damage to historic material and there's no removal of historic material associated with this portion of the request.
For the roof, there are two separate areas one of standing seam metal and one of
asphalt shingle. There's a third standing seam metal roof slope, which was replaced
relatively recently, the applicant would just retain that in place. Each of these sections are proposed to be replaced in-kind. Roof replacements in-kind can typically be approved administratively. Staff supports the proposal in this instance, it was just sorry, the hiccups. It was just the applicant's preference not to separate this one
element of their proposal and to just take a complete package to the Board.
I will skip the chimney for a minute and just cover the skylights. There are two skylights on the property which would be replaced with new Velux skylights. They are away from public view which is consistent with the Guidelines for such skylights. They are not traditional features on historic buildings, but they are common of 1970s
and 1980s construction, which makes sense for this particular structure because there were multiple additions made in the 1970s.
That leaves really only the chimney cladding and this was the most unusual piece of the request. The existing chimney is clad in T1-11 siding, which as you may have guessed, is not a traditional side cladding material for a chimney. The proposed is to
remove the T1-11 siding and to replace it with a German lap to match the wall surface behind the chimney. Wood clad chimneys are not common on historic buildings, masonry chimneys are the primary chimney material in the Leesburg Historic District for historic buildings. However, the chimney that we're talking about, is on a 1970s or late 20th-century addition at the rear of the home. It has limited
visibility from the right of way. It's actually more of a decorative chimney than anything else. It supports a gas fireplace inside the home. Basically, this chimney just covers the exhaust pipe for that gas fireplace. It's essentially decorative. In this specific instance, lap siding may actually help to blend that kind of unusual chimney shape that you see in the photos of this application. They hope to actually blend it
into the wall, which would then help to make it disappear in effect. While I wouldn't normally recommend approval of a wood-clad chimney, it technically already has a wood composite siding on it, the T1-11. The proposal to take it to the more traditional lap siding is actually probably more consistent with the Guidelines and what's on it now.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
20 | Page April 18, 2022
Additionally, the 1984 accessory structure, this isn't on the screen, but it is in your pocket. The 1984 accessory structure in the rear was approved by the BAR with a wood-clad chimney. There's already the condition existing on the property. For those
reasons, I would recommend approval of that proposed change tonight. The findings from your packet are the same ones that are on your screen. I'll summarize them. Essentially, it says that the structure was built in the late 19th century in a vernacular style, a large edition made to the rear in the late 20th century, again, we think around 1970.
A separate dependency was also constructed in the rear yard in 1984. The historic structure is clad in wood German siding, and the dependency is clad in wood clapboard siding. The proposal to replace the southern elevation wood siding on the primary structure with new wood siding, to match existing is acceptable in this instance, because of the volume of boards that need replacement. That there may
be other boards on other elevations which may require intermittent replacement, but the Town would actually consider that general maintenance and no COA would be necessary.
For tonight, the only thing that's requested on the primary structure is that southern facade. The proposal to replace the roof in-kind is consistent with the Guidelines. In
this instance, the proposal to reside the chimney with new wood siding is acceptable because the chimney is decorative and housing a gas fireplace. It's located on the rear of a 1970s addition. It has limited visibility from the right-of-way and the material will aid in mitigating the unusual form and scale of the chimney by blending it into the rear elevation. Finally, replacement in-kind of the existing skylights is acceptable
because of their location away from public view on contemporary construction.
If the BAR agrees, I would recommend approval with only a clarifying condition, which is, essentially, that the ridge of the standing seam metal roof will be crimped, and it will not make use of ridge vents or caps in order to retain the traditional appearance of the existing standing seam metal roof. Again, there's a portion of that
roof which will not be replaced so the best-case scenario would be to just match it as closely as possible. The applicant's contractor is here. Happy to answer any questions as am I.
Chairman Aikman: Could you come up, please? If you would identify yourself for the record, please.
Steve Harper: I'm Steve Harper, with Exterior Medics and the contractor on the job.
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. Thank you. You had a chance to review the staff report?
Mr. Harper: I did.
Chairman Aikman: Do you have anything you want to add or to clarify?
Mr. Harper: I don't.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
21 | Page April 18, 2022
Chairman Aikman: Okay, great. We're going to go through a round of questioning, then we'll open and close the public hearing. Then we will have comments. We'll begin with Vice Chair Minchew.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. Just a couple of questions. One because I don't know this brand name, but Prime Lock, I take it as a wood product?
Mr. Harper: It's a wood product that just comes primed.
Vice Chair Minchew: Makes perfect sense. Great. Let's see. Are you proposing to replace any gutters?
Mr. Harper: No. We're not doing the gutters.
Vice Chair Minchew: I saw some reference to gutters and shutters in there. I just want to make sure no gutters or shutters are being changed?
Mr. Harper: No gutters, no shutters.
Vice Chair Minchew: There's one roof work photo or one roof photo. I think it's
photo 15. Just tell me what's going on there.
Mr. Harper: Can I get my notes?
Vice Chair Minchew: Yes, absolutely while I try to find the photo. Let's see. It's an existing condition. Did you notice it too? It's just looks-
Ms. Murphy: Where the metal is wrapping there?
Vice Chair Minchew: Yes. What's going on there.
Mr. Harper: There was a gap from the old metal roof, and we went out there and did a temporary repair for him because we knew it would be a little while till we got to the job. We did a repair to get us through till the permanent roof is done.
Vice Chair Minchew: That will be roofing?
Mr. Harper: That will be roofing when it's done. There'll be a continuous drip edge going down that there.
Vice Chair Minchew: It will be vertical though. That piece of roofing will be vertical? Do you see what we’re talking about, this--
Mr. Harper: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: Oh, yes.
Vice Chair Minchew: Well, it looks more-
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
22 | Page April 18, 2022
Mr. Harper: That will be metal going down that entire wall in that location.
Chairman Aikman: That's how it is now, right?
Vice Chair Minchew: Yes.
Mr. Harper: It had a large gap where water was getting into his house.
Chairman Aikman: I see.
Mr. Harper: We went out there and patched it until we could do that job.
Vice Chair Minchew: It was previously metal as well as opposed to siding?
Mr. Harper: The whole wall was metal, yes.
Vice Chair Minchew: Those are my questions. Thank you.
Chairman Aikman: Erin, do you have questions?
Ms. Nicholson The chimney, is there any evidence that it might have, at one point, originally been constructed as a wood-burning fireplace and was converted?
Mr. Harper: I don't believe it was. That was an addition at some point. We were
guessing in the '70s or something like that. It was always T1-11 and gas.
Ms. Nicholson: If it was originally built as a gas fireplace, my only concern would be that someone down the road says, "Oh, this used to be a wood-burning fireplace. We're going to turn it back, and then you've got an encasement that is combustible, as opposed to masonry. Which would be the typical encasement for wood burning.
That's it.
Chairman Aikman: Paul?
Mr. Reimers: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: No questions.
Chairman Aikman: Julie?
Ms. Julie: No. Mr. Minchew had my question, which was the gutters and the shutters because that was on page--.
Chairman Aikman: Tom?
Mr. O'Neil: No questions.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
23 | Page April 18, 2022
Chairman Aikman: I only have one question for Lauren. You guys actually inspected the siding, right?
Ms. Murphy: Yes.
Chairman Aikman: Your feeling is on that South Side that it's-
Ms. Murphy: There's quite a bit that needs replaced. I'd say upwards of 40% easily, which is a threshold number we use for demolition purposes is 40%. I'd say it's easily above that.
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. That would be my only question. Let's open the public
hearing. Does anyone who's present have anything to comment on? No, we'll close
the public hearing and have a round of comments, beginning with Vice Chair Minchew.
Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. I agree with staff's assessment, then recommendations, and support of the proposed changes for the reasons stated in
the staff report.
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. Erin?
Ms. Nicholson: No additional comments.
Chairman Aikman: Paul?
Mr. Reimers: No comments.
Chairman Aikman: Don?
Mr. Scheuerman: No comments.
Chairman Aikman: Julie?
Mr. Julie: No additional comments.
Chairman Aikman: Tom?
Mr. O'Neil: No comments.
Chairman Aikman: I also have no comments. I guess we can entertain a motion to approve.
Ms. Pastor: I move that the Board of Architectural Review approved TLHP-2022-0031 to replace the roof sheathing in kind, replace portions of the wood siding in-kind
replace the existing skylights in kind, and reclad the contemporary chimney of the structure 107 Liberty Street NW, based on the information provided by the applicant, as presented to the BAR through this evening, April 18th, 2022.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
24 | Page April 18, 2022
This approval is based on the findings included on page four of the staff report prepared by the Preservation Planner and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The ridge of the standing seam metal roof will be crimped and will not make
use of ridge, vents, or caps in order to retain the traditional appearance of the existing standing seam metal roof.
Vice Chair Minchew: Second.
Chairman Aikman: All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Opposed? The application is approved 7-0. Thank you for coming out tonight. There was an item C under nine that has apparently been rescheduled at the request of the applicant.
Ms. Murphy: Correct. They've asked to postpone to May.
Chairman Aikman: Okay, till May. Great. We have nothing under item 10 new
cases in the H-2 and the Gateway Districts. No listed Old Business. Does anyone have any Old Business? I have a question for Old Business. Have we received any feedback at all from the Council about our survey? Excellent.
Ms. Murphy: I don't believe so.
Chairman Aikman: No news is good news.
Ms. Murphy: To be fair, I did not go and watch the meeting. At our last meeting, I was anticipating that I needed to be present at the council meeting. The Town Manager actually let me know that when an item is for information purposes, only the council will not discuss it so staff did not need to attend. That was a nice little surprise for Helen and I who were planning to attend the meeting that night.
Vice Chair Minchew: Me too.
Ms. Murphy: No one had to attend. I have not had a chance to go back and watch it and hear if there were any motions made. Usually, the Town Manager's office is pretty quick to let us know something was requested of us. I imagine that nothing was requested.
Chairman Aikman: Excellent. Any other Old Business, any New Business?
Ms. Pastor: Well actually back on the Old Business just to report that we have a date for our JARB kickoff meeting and it's scheduled for the 25th.
Ms. Murphy: Next Monday.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
25 | Page April 18, 2022
Chairman Aikman: Oh, this is the joint award project, April 25th? That's next Monday?
Ms. Pastor: That's right, and Terri and I- It's not Zoom whatever.
Ms. Murphy: Whatever the county uses.
Vice Chair Minchew: Virtual.
Chairman Aikman: Terri is with it with the lingo.
Ms. Murphy: I was hoping for an in-person meeting but the county opted--
Vice Chair Minchew: I know in person for this topic would nice.
Ms. Murphy: I think it would have been easier. I think it'll definitely be easier when we start talking about our nominations. I don't think we'll be able to do that electronically, but I think this is meant to be more of a housekeeping meeting. I think the County felt like it could probably get accomplished faster if they could do it virtually.
Vice Chair Minchew: I also think it could use a better name. JARB just doesn't have the ring to it.
Ms. Murphy: I think you could propose that it does sound, it sounds like, something yucky like you got sick or something.
Vice Chair Minchew: I don't know. It just doesn't sound good.
Ms. Murphy: You could propose that as the first order of business.
Chairman Aikman: You all will report back to us? at our work session, I guess. Okay. Before we adjourn, our next work session is on May 2nd, which is--
Ms. Murphy: Actually I'm not sure if we have any business for that, because we didn't continue anything tonight. I don't think we had anything-
Ms. Pastor: What a concept.
Ms. Murphy: -outstanding. I will verify. I have to check my whiteboard as Debi knows. I have a very detailed color-coded whiteboard with checkboxes and all kinds of crazy stuff on it. I will have to check that and make sure we don't have anything outstanding, but I don't know that we will need to have a May work session because
we didn't continue anything tonight.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. You'll let us know.
Ms. Murphy: I will let you know and but could potentially be canceling that meeting. I did have one staff announcement if I can.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
26 | Page April 18, 2022
Ms. Murphy: Can I just say before you have your staff announcement that our next business meeting will be on May 16th, which is a Monday.
Chairman Aikman: Correct.
Chairman Aikman: Now we going to revert to Wednesday soon. I like the Wednesday.
Ms. Murphy: In June we do go back to some Wednesday meetings. We're still keeping everyone on their toes in 2022, it was half of our meetings, I think, got changed to a Wednesday meeting date in 2022.
Chairman Aikman: Awesome. Okay. Staff announcements.
Ms. Murphy: I think everyone should have received it, but if you didn't, I will forward it out to the group. The Past-Forward Conference notice has just been issued by the National Trust for historic preservation. I don't honestly remember if they are thinking they're going to try for an in-person.
Ms. Parry: It's online.
Ms. Murphy: They've already decided online. It was NAPC that had changed. They were going to go for in-person and then they changed it to online. If you are interested in attending, let me know. It's not for some time it's in November, but as you are all aware, we are supposed to continue doing training because of our
Certified Local Government program. Does everyone think they've seen it in their town email or do you?
Vice Chair Minchew: I have not seen it yet.
Chairman Aikman: I haven't seen it.
Vice Chair Minchew: Okay. I get it separately too in my regular email and I haven't
seen it.
Ms. Murphy: I'll re-forward it to you, but if you are interested in attending, please let me know as soon as possible so I can start requesting the budget.
Chairman Aikman: I'll let you know right now.
Ms. Murphy: Helen's letting me know right now.
Vice Chair Minchew: Could we consider having a group-- setting it up, to watch as a group or at least certain-- Maybe identify the sessions that are really on point because it's lots of sessions, but if we could and at least watch those together?
Ms. Murphy: We definitely do that. I don't know if they've published the full program necessarily.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
27 | Page April 18, 2022
Vice Chair Minchew: They probably haven't so we wouldn't be doing that yet.
Ms. Murphy: Yes, we could definitely look into doing that.
Chairman Aikman: I thought that was valuable. To watch, even though it was not a
live in your face presentation. It was helpful to be watching it together when we did
that last time.
Ms. Murphy: Okay. No, we can definitely look into that. I will forward the email to everyone so you can see it. If you will not be here for those dates, you can let me know that you have no interest, because you're going to be on some fabulous
vacation. That's fine. For everyone else, maybe just kind of pencil it in on your calendar. As we get a little closer, we can look into doing some group sessions. Or if you want us to register-- the last several years of these virtual conferences have been very affordable for us to just go ahead and register everyone. Even if you don't have the opportunity to log in in real-time. They usually have the sessions posted for
30 to 60 days later and kind of do it at your leisure.
I think if they're offering another group deal like that for members of the National Trust, which we are, then we would, potentially, be able to just register everyone. Let me know, once you get the email, you can take a look at it and see what you think.
Vice Chair Minchew: I don't have it in either and I get it anyway and I don't have it in
either of my emails. I don't even know where it is this year. Or, well, it's not anywhere.
Ms. Murphy: It's not anywhere. It's very wherever you are.
Vice Chair Minchew: Let's see. I kinda like San Diego. What do you think?
Ms. Murphy: Hawaii you want? It doesn't matter. I will send that out to everyone.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. If there's no other announcements, we could have a motion to adjourn, please.
Ms. Pastor: So moved.
Mr. Scheuerman: Second.
Chairman Aikman: All in favor?
Board Members: Aye.
Chairman Aikman: Okay. We are adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:06pm.