HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010.03.01 BAR Work Session MinutesDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
Town Hall, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176
TEL 703-771-2765 FAX 703-771-2776 www.leesburgva.gov
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Work Session
Monday, March 1, 2010
25 West Market Street
Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dieter Meyer (Chair), Tracy Coifing (Vice Chair), Marilyn Bos, Doris
Kidder, Richard Koochagian, Bob Miller, Teresa Minchew, Jim Sisley,
Councilmember Tom Dunn
MEMBERS ABSENT: none
STAFF: Annie McDonald, Wendy Walker
Call to Order and Roll Call
Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:03pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was
present.
Discussion Agenda
1. THLP-2010-0003, 206 West Loudoun Street, Applicant: Peter Berk, re: repair woodwork,
repaint; and replace roof — Old and Historic District (H-1 Overlay)
Ms. McDonald noted having spoken with the Applicant the previous week and deferred to the
Applicant. The Applicant indicated having scheduled roofers for estimates on metal and different
detail versions versus the whole roof. Regarding the exterior siding, another contractor reviewed
the project and agreed the carpentry work was poorly done. The Applicant had been unaware of
the material used until the Preservation Planner pointed it out, but that carpenter had not been
working on the project since about January. The Applicant stated being willing to replace with like
kind to increase the wood quality to retain the historic character of the wood to the extent
possible, and use like kind material in areas where it must be replaced. The Applicant added that
the new contractor said the plywood the carpenter used was an acceptable material, though not
in the Town of Leesburg in this case, but the material could be used as siding work. For the roof,
the Applicant noted wanting to find a compromise that was acceptable to the Town. One quote
obtained was for a standing seam metal roof on just the front part of the roof. Another alternative
was for standing seam metal on just the gables, or the reverse with the front part of the roof being
standing seam and shingled gables. The Applicant posed that from the street, one could not see
the roof at all, though across the street from the lot one could see more. The Applicant indicated
not trying to avoid any requirement to maintain the metal somewhere on the roof that blends into
the district.
Mr. Meyer stated that the Board ultimately needed to revert back to the design guidelines which
were an extension of the Zoning Ordinance — a more specific document that guided applicants
and the BAR in reviewing the application to gauge compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, thus
on what the Board based judgment. Mr. Meyer asked if the Applicant looked closer at the
guidelines on which to base an argument. The Applicant indicated having looked at the
guidelines and understood the like kind replacement, as well as queried about if a property owner
could not afford the time or money to replace in like kind. Mr. Meyer asked staff and the other
Board members if anything was found in the guidelines to allow such a reason to be a mitigating
BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010
factor to which Ms. McDonald and several Board members indicated having reviewed the
guidelines but found nothing to support the applicant's argument.
The Applicant expressed understanding, but then queried why a shingle roof had been allowed
on the back side of the house, prior to purchasing the property. Ms. McDonald responded that
when the back side of the house was constructed, it was likely either not originally a metal roof
when constructed or when altered it was under an older set of guidelines, and may not have been
reviewed for materials at all as standards were different than now. The nearby house at 214
West Loudoun probably did not start with an asphalt shingle roof as they were not being used at
the time the house was constructed, but had the asphalt shingle roof by 1975 when the survey
was done, though materials were not being considered in that way then. However, with changes
in design review, programs nationwide, and greater attention to the impact of materials on a
building's character at least since 1994, the use of different materials on historic structures had
been considered, which may explain the asphalt shingle on the back of the building when the
Applicant purchased the building in 1999. The Applicant queried about alternatives if unable to
afford removing and installing a new metal roof. Ms. Minchew responded that it may not have to
be a standing seam metal roof, but just had to be appropriate to the building as the guidelines did
provide for something to approximate wood shingles which was the material under the metal, but
the problem was that the current asphalt shingles did not approximate so the metal was a default
and clearly appropriate, though not necessarily the only choice.
The Applicant asked about the consequences of doing nothing at the time, until figuring out a way
to install a metal roof or wood roof, admitting being unfamiliar with the guidelines, as well as
naively assuming that some shingled roofs in the area and a partial shingling on the structure,
that it was not unreasonable to shingle the entire roof. Mr. Meyer responded that a potential
timeframe could be discussed, and input from the Town Attorney would be needed. Mr. Sisley
suggested other architectural review boards must have had similar scenarios to which Ms.
Minchew stated that in the past under different guidelines an architectural type of shingle had
been approved, though not the Applicant's type of shingle. Mr. Sisley queried if there had been
other cases where the finished project had inappropriate materials to which Mr. Meyer and Ms.
Minchew confirmed as such, and that the Board had denied approval of the project. Ms.
McDonald referenced the new construction at 301 South King Street where the Applicant installed
a white metal handrail that was not approved; it was brought to the BAR for post -construction
review and the BAR found it to be inappropriate. The Applicant was trying to obtain a Certificate
of Occupancy so there was a process whereby other approvals hinged on BAR action, therefore
the Board required it be removed and the Applicant then installed a wood handrail. Ms.
McDonald distinguished that the subject case was a building already constructed and occupied
so additional research would need to be done to more fully answer the query, as well as confirm
with the Town Attorney.
Ms. Leslie Berk, noting that a Board member who lived nearby watched the roof being installed,
queried why it was not brought to the property owner's attention when the first shingle was put on,
knowing it should not be there. Mr. Meyer responded that the BAR was not a policing
organization, or keeping track of what everyone was doing on their properties. Ms. Minchew
added that the violation was reported as soon as noticed to which Ms. McDonald continued that
notice was given the way the Town properly handles notification for violations. The Applicant
added that shingles go on very quickly so it was a weeklong process. Ms. Minchew queried
about the suggested partial reroofing to which Mr. Meyer referenced the Board having granted
additional leeway if not readily visible from the public way, but would have to review specifically in
that context so if the Applicant proposed, then staff would prepare a report and determine if any
other legal issues related to the proposal. Mr. Koochagian added that the guidelines did provide
some leeway so the guidelines were not at fault as there was a statement that replacement with
another traditional material may be appropriate when compatible with age, style, and character of
the building. If the project had come to the BAR before construction, then the Board could have
worked to interpret another traditional material such as synthetic slate, asphalt shingle, cedar
shake or standing seam metal, but now needed to gauge what other materials would be
appropriate. Regarding hardi-siding as opposed to wood siding, Mr. Meyer noted that material on
Page 2 of 10
BAR Minutes — March I, 2010
a non -historic property which adequately mimicked the look of traditional materials was found
acceptable, but not acceptable based on the guidelines on an historic structure. Though not
necessarily extending to all siding alternatives, Ms. McDonald clarified that one rationale in the
preservation field for not permitting the use of Nardi -plank on historic structures was because of
the different thermal properties and the very rigid nature of hardi-plank, where it may not be
appropriate for a traditional historic wood -framed structure that may require siding that flexes a
little more, thus, the materials may be incompatible. Mr. Meyer added that in some cases one
reason it had been permitted was its visual and distinguished ability so the same argument for
roofing material would be if it was visually indistinguishable from the material it was attempting to
approximate. Mr. Meyer iterated that he had not seen an asphalt shingle that mimicked wood
which was typically the intent, and only the diamond -shaped shingle was truly a traditional asphalt
shingle, but the Board may agree it was an acceptable approach as though it was a nontraditional
material on that structure.
The Applicant queried about the term architectural shingle since what the contractor selected was
architectural grade to which Mr. Meyer and Ms. Minchew responded that it was just a marketing
term. Mr. Meyer added that there were products that mimicked well; some of the imitation slate
was almost indistinguishable and accepted as substitute material, but asphalt shingles were
immediately recognized as asphalt, not wood. The Applicant indicated preference for metal on
the roof and not wanting to go back to a wood type shingle, as well as asked if it was acceptable
to do something on the front without having to do something on the back since there was no side
street in the back. Mr. Meyer queried the Board about the consideration, assuming the back was
truly not visible from the public way. Mr. Miller requested to see what was being proposed. Mr.
Koochagian suggested treatment also at a minimum on the edges of the gable, especially on the
west side as it could be seen. Ms. Bos added that all of the front side including the gables was
probably better in one material to which Mr. Koochagian agreed. The Applicant confirmed that
the previous contractor would not be doing the replacement work though he had been referred by
Loudoun County housing staff. Mr. Meyer added that there were various qualities of metal roofs,
and a variety of manufacturers from prefinished to a sheet that was field painted which was a
more traditional process. Ms. Minchew noted the dormers were more visible from the street than
the rest of the roof so the dormers and steep gable would need to be treated the same way, and
then perhaps a phasing in of the entire roof at some point may be considered.
Regarding a timeframe for repairs, Ms. Minchew expressed interest in working something out as
well as appreciation that it was an emergency repair and the Applicant was trying to protect the
building, albeit not the proper procedures. The Applicant proposed an eighteen -month timeframe
to which Mr. Meyer indicated the BAR would consider, providing there were no legal implications.
With the work not done and wanting to make it look nice, the Applicant noted that the structure
was an eyesore, and would certainly try to do something on the metal roof, at least on the front
part, sooner rather than later much. The Applicant stated that he was not proposing to delay the
work six months from now, but wanted to do as much as possible during the next sixty days or so
to at least get that done. Ms. McDonald agreed to discuss phasing and timeframes with the Town
Attorney's Office for recommended input if it was agreed to by the BAR and the Applicant, and
phrasing of motion to ensure it reflected everything and was a defensible decision, as well as
discussing with the enforcement staff. Mr. Meyer noted construction projects can take more than
eighteen months to which Ms. Minchew added that it would be good to keep the project on track.
Mr. Sisley suggested language include diligent pursuit or constant effort; as well as clarification
about fines, the time period, and repeating fines year over year since it may inform the direction
to provide the Applicant. Ms. McDonald responded that the Deputy Town Attorney does not
attend work session meetings unless there was a public hearing, but could get the information for
the next meeting. Ms. Bos recollected that the email previously circulated about legal
implications sounded very punitive to which the Board concurred that it would be better if a
schedule could be agreed upon. Mr. Sisley expressed concern about the timeframe if the Town
approached it as a project not done in compliance and applied a fine since there would be a time
period for it to be addressed. Ms. Minchew responded that the Town Attorney could provide the
guidance when suggesting language for a draft motion, and Mr. Dunn added that it would be
precedence for the next applicant with a similar situation.
Page 3 of 10
BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010
Mr. Meyer understood the precedent and dilemma of the Applicant's situation as well as the
Board being charged with protecting the historic resources in the Town. Most property owners
want to do the right thing, but there were some potentially unscrupulous owners that would want
to get around the requirements so that was what needed to be negated to which the Applicant
understood. Mr. Dunn further posed that if an owner of a property sold within an agreed upon
time period, and the buyer was unaware of the remaining timeframe, would the Town have the
ability to place a lien on the property or an option that the work be done before the sale was
complete to which the Applicant concurred. Mr. Dunn reminded that if the application came
before Council, that it would be a great case for a downtown improvement grant or low interest
loans to help out property owners that partner with the Town to keep up the historic district. Not
to be a drain on the taxpayer, but to be an investor with the taxpayer, though it was something
still for the future with the downtown improvement authority that was being worked on. Mr. Meyer
referenced from a preservation conference, another historic district that was faced with a roofing
situation where a truly indigent homeowner, an elderly couple could not afford to do something
and the guidelines stated replacing with a like -kind metal roof so there was not a really good
answer and the Board found the guidelines had to be applied. That was the type of situation
where a fund could help. The Applicant responded that he was not crying poor, but there were a
lot expenses like everyone else and arising all at once so it would be good if leniency were
extended or a timeframe to be completed. The Applicant expressed regret about doing anything
as could have patched every six months which would have potentially cost much less.
Ms. Kidder queried about the Secretary's statements including that economics was not a reason
to which Ms. McDonald indicated the Secretary of Interior's Standards did not addressed about
hardship, but it was an issue nationwide in historic districts, and different municipalities address
differently based on their enabling legislation. Economic hardship had been explained as not
necessarily based on particular conditions of a property owner since it would have the potential to
result in unequal treatment of applicants, but rather economic hardship was based on conditions
of the property itself so was it economically feasible. Though it may not impact the decision, it
would be beneficial for the Board to have more information on economic hardship, particularly in
the current economic climate. Ms. McDonald would work with the Town Attorney's Office on how
economic hardship should be addressed since it was not specifically addressed in the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards which were based on design, context and historic character, but it was
an issue identified by the Parks Service, State Historic Preservation Offices, and design review
boards. Ms. Kidder added that the subject property was a prominent property in the historic
district, on a main thoroughfare and an introduction to the historic district so it was good that this
much time was being taken to address the issues because it was a very important element of the
district.
Mr. Sisley queried about federal programs that assist through low interest rate loans to which Ms.
McDonald responded that there was not usually such programs for private properties, normally
the incentives were available for nonprofit organizations, local governments, property owners or
tenants with a public purpose. For an income producing property there was the tax credit
available, a combined 20% federal with 25% state, so long as the alterations were done in
compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Several projects in Town had taken
advantage of the tax credit, such as the Brown-Carrera office building at 11 Loudoun Street SE,
and the Lightfoot Restaurant. Compliance with the Standards would mean either standing seam
metal, or alternative traditional material reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office could
be considered appropriate. If the BAR had a timeframe for compliance, then it may be that it
could serve the Applicant well to consider the tax credit as an option. Mr. Sisley queried about an
applicant pursuing a partially funded tax credit replacement of the mistake, and the BAR giving
the time to diligently pursue the option. Ms. McDonald added that a tax credit was available to a
qualifying property and qualifying project; a qualifying project would have to meet 100 percent of
the base value of the property absent the land, but it would require additional research and
consultation with a tax attorney. Mr. Meyer suggested it was worth investigating and a good way
to approach the timing issue since researching to save money would be the reason to grant
Page 4 of 10
BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010
additional time. Ms. Minchew emphasized that especially if contemplating further renovations to
which the Applicant indicated being more than willing to consider that option.
Mr. Sisley suggested discussing, not the cost, but what the end result should be — the roof
replaced with material that would meet the guidelines — which if adopted as a common goal, and
if the Applicant was diligently pursuing tax credit benefits, then the BAR would be in a defensible
position without compromise of the guidelines or practices. Ms. Bos noted that with future similar
situations, it would demonstrate that the BAR wanted to work with people. Mr. Miller queried if
the property was a Section 8 Rental as there were HUD -insured loans for property improvements.
The Applicant clarified that it was all originally under Section 8 when purchased, but now two
tenants were under Section 8 and the rest with Loudoun County's Family Services or Mental
Health group.
Ms. Minchew suggested deferring on the roof part of the application while acting on the siding
repairs to which the Applicant agreed as repairing the siding would make the structure look much
nicer and cleaner. The Applicant asked about what was appropriate in terms of the metal roof
material. Mr. Meyer responded that the bulky caps and ridges seen on new shopping center
roofs was generally not a traditional design, but a more modern system that required less skilled
labour. Meanwhile more traditional houses had hand seaming of all the joints, standing seams
and ridge. Ms. Minchew shared that Beaver and Valley companies had done many metal roofs in
Town. Mr. Sisley suggested contacting owners that had replaced metal roofs such as 29 North
King Street which had the standing seam metal roof replaced three years ago. Ms. McDonald
noted that another resource would be the Historic District Residents Association to which Ms.
Coffing added that the association maintained a list of contractors that homeowners within the
historic district had used. Ms. Minchew added that there may be alternate suggestions about
approaching the two -stage part as the systems may not work well that way. Ms. McDonald
confirmed that the BAR process has a specific timeline unless the Applicant and Board mutually
agreed. The timeline was established to help keep applications moving so Town Council may
agree in such a case as this, where there was agreement by both parties to reach a mutually
beneficial conclusion, particularly when considering some potential economic incentives. Mr.
Dunn suggested the time period was for a decision to be made, and the proposed eighteen
months for the project to be completed was a decision. Mr. Meyer clarified that the project was
not that it had to be done in eighteen months, but rather a deferral for the Applicant to continue
research possibilities, then to report back how long it would take to get the project thorough the
tax credit system, so a deadline could be set for when to report back or defer until a date certain.
Ms. Kidder expressed concern about the BAR or Town Council placing an emphasis on economic
hardship in this type of a case as it was a precedent and not appropriate to which Ms. Minchew
indicated trying not to focus on hardship, but defer for one more month, maybe one month at a
time at the Applicant's request.
Ms. McDonald emphasized economic hardship versus economic incentives which could extend to
anyone regardless of circumstances. Mr. Sisley added the emphasis was more about economic
feasibility so the idea was to suggest to the Applicant about programs available and to diligently
pursue the programs. Ms. Kidder responded that it was very generous to spend the time in
consideration, but was curious if legally that was a good discussion. Ms. Minchew agreed that
the Board needed to be careful that the project was not being deferred for economic reasons, but
rather deferred for more time for the Applicant to figure out a plan because one had not been
proposed yet. The Applicant stated that if a roofer gave a great price, he would do it and just be
done with it. Ms. Minchew added the project was being deferred not because of the price so
much, but because the Board wanted the plan to be perfect for the building so if considering a
hybrid solution, it would have to be right. Mr. Meyer noted preference was not for a hybrid
solution unless it could be shown. The Board was not committed to that yet, and the burden was
on the Applicant to prove that it was absolutely not visible from the public way. Mr. Sisley stated
the deferral was the same as with other applicants with incomplete or infeasible plans, but then
when would the time period start on this application to which Ms. McDonald responded it was
from the first public hearing. Mr. Meyer added unless if there was an agreement between the
Board and the Applicant to waive the time period requirement or extend it. Ms. Minchew stated
Page 5 of 10
BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010
that the Applicant just needed to ask for the deferral to which the Applicant responded that he
would like to have it deferred. Ms. Coifing suggested that if the Applicant discussed a hybrid
solution, it was important that the contractor provide very clear information about how the ridge
would be treated and a slight return on the side so it would be very clear in the application if
choosing to go that direction. Mr. Meyer added that would probably not be an acceptable
approach if pursuing a tax credit solution to which the Applicant agreed.
Ms. Minchew queried about the Applicant being unaware of being in the historic district to which
the Applicant responded knowing the house was in the historic district from the gentleman that
sold the property, but did not know it was designated an historic property because there was no
plaque on it. Ms. Minchew asked how a similar situation could be avoided for new purchasers to
which the Applicant responded that he never received a packet of procedures. Ms. Minchew
noted that designation would be in the title and zoning category to which the Applicant responded
not knowing what would have helped, perhaps a plaque or a kit at settlement indicating
procedures for future improvements. Mr. Sisley suggested the County knows which properties
were in the historic district so Council could ask that the County notify the Preservation Planner
that an historic property sold to trigger staff to provide a packet to the new owner. Mr. Miller
compared that home buyers would be informed in the beginning about an HOA when purchasing
a home so could back out if did not like it after reviewing, but not all realtors inform completely
about historic district restrictions to prospective buyers so it would be good if a disclosure
package was required. Ms. Minchew indicated there had been legislation proposed at the state
level to require such for historic districts, Mr. Sisley noted that it would not work when an investor
bought directly from the owner without representation.
Ms. Minchew queried if the Applicant bought title insurance as it would list the zoning category to
which the Applicant confirmed but had never read that. Mr. Meyer stated that they were similar,
and there were not many areas in Northern Virginia that were not under HOA restrictive
covenants or an historic district. The historic district guidelines and BAR were actually less
restrictive than HOA guidelines, where homeowners could not change anything and whose
review board was not required to have a skill level like the BAR. Ms. Kidder shared that there
was an historic district booklet available for ten dollars which had photos of houses in the historic
district, one of which was probably the Applicant's property.
Mr. Sisley formally asked Councilmember Dunn to advance the concept to Council about
requesting County notification. Mr. Dunn affirmed, adding that there were covenants and
restrictions that were part of the sales contract so it may be something that could come up in the
downtown authority, which would be advancing. Covenants would be created for the downtown
historic district which would then make it part of the legal process for buying and selling homes in
the historic district. Mr. Sisley pointed out that not all contracts to make the acquisition were done
through a realtor or a broadly open and transparent process so would not want new owners with
that type of transaction to be unaware. Certainly the County knew what structures were in the
historic district, and the Town communicated as a municipality with the County. The County had
the ability to notify the Preservation Planner when a property in the historic district sold which
would provide the opportunity to deliver the guidelines, putting the new property owner on notice
in the most certain way possible without state legislation.
Mr. Dunn concurred that it may be a mechanism of the title insurance company, and needed
more venting but was hesitant to put more work on one person that was staffed, to be involved in
every sales transaction in the downtown. Even though there may not be many, Mr. Dunn was
hesitant to add more to the Preservation Planner's workload. Would rather determine if there was
an automatic mechanism already available that existed through the County, title company, sales
contracts, HDRA, or a potential downtown improvement authority. Mr. Dunn agreed it was a
good idea as would not want additional property owners responding that they were not properly
informed about the process and guidelines. Mr. Sisley suggested asking the County to send a
letter notifying a new property owner about being in the historic district. Ms. McDonald confirmed
that the historic district was a layer on the tax map to which Ms. Minchew added that when the tax
map ID number was checked with the County, it should indicate the historic district. Mr. Sisley
Page 6 of 10
BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010
confirmed that the layer functioned, which was good, but it would not get a notice to the property
owners. The Applicant added that he would not have forgotten if he had received such a notice.
Different today than when the property was purchased, Mr. Meyer pointed out that there was a
very good website available which includes the guidelines and much easier to find. Particularly in
this area, a vast majority of people would research on the web before purchasing property,
though things can fall through the cracks so a fallback would not hurt.
The Applicant noted having painted the property about six years ago, which now know was
routine maintenance, but nobody said anything at the time that he should have told the Town, and
that there was a process if he ever decided to tear off the roof. Ms. Minchew responded that the
paint colours were not being reviewed at that time. Ms. McDonald added that paint colours had
always been in the design guidelines and Zoning Ordinance. When the program was inherited
four and an half years ago, changes in paint colour were reviewed administratively for commercial
buildings, but unless a paint colour that came up on a residential building was not onerous, there
was not really a review requirement. Now all paint colours were reviewed because that was the
way the ordinance was written, but there was a comfortable understanding previously that if the
residential paint colour was deemed appropriate, then it was not reviewed, probably because at
the time all applications were charged twenty-five dollars regardless of whether it was
administrative approval or BAR review. At that time, the understanding was to not charge twenty-
five dollars which was the cost of a gallon of paint. Now no administrative approvals were
charged other than sign reviews for ten dollars so there had been some procedural changes in
the process. The Applicant asked how one would know when the procedural guidelines where
changed unless reading minutes of every BAR meeting. Ms. Minchew responded that
procedures were changed very rarely so the challenge was that the Applicant was not local and
not reading the newspaper or receiving the notices, but there was a lot of publicity and public
hearings with the changes. Ms. McDonald added that there were notices like on the property site,
but the Town was unable to directly notify every property owner for every public hearing, though
did notice in the newspaper as required by law, and noticed throughout the historic district at the
gateways by posting signs with maps well before the meetings. Ms. Minchew noted that there
was a different level of education needed for absentee land owners to which the Applicant
agreed, adding it was not an excuse but the process was confusing.
Ms. Minchew suggested approval of the siding issue to which the Applicant agreed as the intent
was to start on the woodwork as soon as possible, though could not paint until the temperature
was right. Mr. Meyer indicated staff would need to consult with the Town Attorney about the
procedural process, whether to pull out the siding portion of the application to approve it, and the
other portion could be worked out between the Applicant and Preservation Planner offline before
the next meeting after having consulted with the Town Attorney. Ms. McDonald pointed out
Zoning Ordinance Section 3.10.5 -Review of Plans in a Timely Manner that included the current
Town Council approved language stipulating the timeline for BAR approval within a 75 -day
period. Ms. McDonald indicated conferring with the Town Attorney's Office to ensure that
whatever decision the BAR made was appropriate, of which it may be that the Board could
extend the action to an additional period to consult and report back, but would want to confirm
that it met the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant indicated following up with Ms. McDonald about
possibly returning to another work session with ideas and samples, as well as doing research to
which Ms. McDonald offered to forward information about the tax credit programs.
Administrative Agenda
Review of the revised BAR Bylaws: Ms. McDonald stated that the Town Attorney had concerns about
some of the language in the Bylaws and would discuss with the Deputy Town Attorney before the next
BAR meeting. Some of the concerns were substantive but not very extensive. Some of it had to do with
how far the BAR extended its authority when establishing the Bylaws so it would be best to defer
discussion until a more thorough review and an opportunity to work out some compromises since some of
the language would end up being softened, particularly regarding the decision -making section in the
Rules of Procedures. Ms. Kidder queried about the Findings of Fact to which Ms. McDonald responded
that was one of the sections needing to be discussed first with the Town Attorney's Office.
Page 7 of 10
BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010
Windows workshop (support/discussion): Ms. McDonald noted being slated on the HDRA's March
meeting agenda to garner feedback and interest about the proposed workshop. Based on the amount of
discussion during the Town Council meeting including whether it was an appropriate use of Town funds,
the BAR may choose to consider if the Board felt it would be a valuable workshop. Mr. Dunn suggested it
was a way of certain councilmembers making points in a political season about being fiscally responsible.
The BAR had every right to request funds and the Council could exercise the right to deny the funds, but
Mr. Dunn indicated he would support the effort, as well as suggested making very clear the benefit of the
workshop and the benefit to the community. Initially it seemed to be a feel good meeting and Council
could not see the true benefits for it, but greater cuts could be made than the $3,000 requested out of the
$20,000 budget that was not close to being used in the $91 million total budget. Ms. McDonald regretted
that Town Council did not receive the entire application so the appearance as a feel good event was
heightened by the fact that all the information submitted was not available to Council, If Council intended
to pursue special projects again next year, then the process would be internally reviewed to ensure
Council received all the information available. Ms. Kidder suggested adding about assurance of
participation to identify the return on the investment. Mr. Meyer agreed with the concern that there be
enough attendees.
Ms. Minchew expressed surprise that other boards had similar requests granted without much of the
supporting information, and questioned if a survey had been done ahead of time about attendance for a
rain barrel workshop. Mr. Dunn responded that the rain barrels were fifty dollars each and was available
to the entire Town, whereas the window workshop was for specific individuals in a specific area of Town
as it may not benefit someone in a seven year old home. Ms. Minchew added that it was not always the
best idea to replace windows in even some newer homes. Ms. McDonald indicated that there was a
Council question about charging a fee so the HDRA would be asked about the interest for the topic as
well as willingness to pay to attend such a workshop. Mr. Dunn noted in comparison that the Tree
Commission just held a free workshop for not much cost with about 50 persons in attendance, and
everyone had trees so a little more information to Council was recommended, if the BAR felt it would be
very beneficial. Ms. McDonald agreed to assemble additional supporting documentation that was not
necessarily required of other boards, but certainly the BAR could choose to abort the initiative.
Mr. Meyer suggested garnering feedback from the HDRA as it seemed like it would be a very popular
program, but if there was not much interest from the HDRA, then that may inform the decision. Ms.
Minchew noted that depending on the level of interest, that there may be other ways to get the same kind
of information out, because there was a lot of outreach about replacing windows which may be the right
choice in certain situations, but not generally, so even homeowners in newer subdivisions should think
about repairing before replacing outright. Mr. Meyer queried if the workshop would be more beneficial as
a broader reaching more encompassing 'renovate/repair' seminar, rather than just limited to windows.
Ms. McDonald noted that the explanation in written documentation as well as verbally to Council was that
whatever one did with windows from a maintenance standpoint translated to any wood material repairs.
Mr. Koochagian concurred that the conference workshop discussed repairing columns and porches, as
well as the use of synthetic epoxy and resin to replicate rotted wood, which was explained to the Town
Council, so in the spirit of the public -private partnership, like funding for applicants, historic buildings may
be a more limited set of the Town, but it was also part of the Town that was bringing people to the area.
Assuming that there was interest, if the Town was willing to fund a rain barrel workshop and not charge a
fee, there was not much of a difference with a wood repair workshop, particularly with all the damage
properties sustained from the year's storms.
Ms. Coifing queried if the intended audience was just local residents and property owners, adding that
should also be going after Loudoun Preservation Society, contractors and trades people in the area, and
overseers for other historic properties (Oatlands, Morven Park, Loudoun Museum). Mr. Meyer proposed
the workshop be free to Town residents and a fee to outside participants. Mr. Dunn did not support
charging a fee as most people would not want to pay a fee for this workshop, but another idea would be a
`weathering the storm' workshop as there was a lot of need with fallen gutters and fascia, not just in the
historic area, but other property owners would also benefit from the information. Mr. Dunn supported the
workshop, adding that the funds were available and it was important for the downtown; the downtown
would not just fix itself which was why the BAR was needed. Ms. McDonald iterated that the goal was to
Page 8of10
BAR Minutes -- March 1, 2010
have the workshop in May, but did not appear it would happen by then so would aim for sometime in the
summer and do the best with what could. Ms. Coffing portended the workshop would go well, and should
be the beginning of an ongoing series of similar technical workshops for people to which Mr. Dunn agreed
and that it may be a good way to present it. Ms. Coffing indicated seeing that as the BAR role, to educate
the public with sessions at least once a year, of which this workshop would be the kickoff.
PC review of the Town Plan (Heritage Resources Section for BAR): Ms. McDonald announced that the
Planning Commission would be reviewing the Town Plan, with a deadline of April 15 to receive back
comments from boards and commissions. Ms. McDonald indicated the need to discuss with department
leadership as to if the BAR should review other sections of the Town Plan in addition to Heritage
Resources, such as Recreation, Transportation, or Community Design which dealt with areas outside the
historic district but was impacted by the H-2 Corridor. Meanwhile, the Historic Resources section was an
area with great potential for improvement, such as additional clarity, more than one map to better
differentiate, and to clarify intent and objectives. Mr. Sisley queried if the Community Design element
included form -based zoning to which Ms. McDonald responded that the element would be impacted by
Form -Based Code, but existed independent of form -based zoning. That section of the Town Plan would
still be used to review rezonings and special exceptions even without Form -Based Code, which was a
significantly smaller area than to what area the Community Design applied. Ms. Kidder indicated the
Planning Commission would appreciate any comments on any of the Town Plan, in particular Ms.
McDonald's expertise for the Community Design element. Neither a burden nor a formal report needed,
just notes or ideas presented informally, Ms. Kidder invited the Board to attend a Planning Commission
meeting to discuss the elements relevant to the Board. Ms. Minchew responded that it was a good
opportunity as many of the concerns identified were not addressed in the last Town Plan review about
five years ago. Mr. Dunn added that the Town had not decided one rezoning that fit within the Town Plan
so in reviewing the document, was it just an academic study, or was it actually how and wanted to be as a
Town. Mr. Meyer suggested that maybe the Zoning Ordinance had not caught up with the Town Plan
which had happened on certain occasions. Mr. Dunn agreed it could be a combination. Ms. Kidder
added that staff responded as such when that question was asked previously, as there was a lot of
discrepancy with what had been zoned and what was the present zoning which was old. Mr. Meyer noted
that the H-2 Overlay was the prime example in that the Town Plan anticipated what form -based zoning
was the implementation tool for, but the Zoning Ordinance stated otherwise, thus the reason and decision
for implementing form -based zoning to implement the Town Plan.
Revisions to Article 15 -Signs Ordinance & Review of the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines: Ms. McDonald
informed that staff was reviewing other municipalities to compile recommended alternatives. In
discussion of the annual report, which was very well received by the Council, comments indicated it may
be a good idea to incorporate a review of the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines with the Sign Ordinance
revisions. The more recently revised H-1 Sign Guidelines had been used successfully. Considering the
H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines were so vague and weak, and there was a history of decisions and
interpretations that could be memorialized to improve the quality of the document regarding how to
address neon and comprehensive sign plans, which could make staff review of the signs easier, as well
as provide a more solid basis for recommendations for approval when applications did go before the
BAR. Ms. Minchew agreed that a rewrite of the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines was a great idea, especially
since it was not that long and review of the rest of the guidelines would not happen immediately. It would
be one concrete item to address right away, as well as allow staff to take on more administrative approval
with some foundation with which to work. Ms. Minchew added that a review could also be educational for
the group to look at all the sign issues. On a community basis, Mr. Sisley noted that it would provide
people the guidance to make right decisions the first time since rework which was always incredibly
expensive and happened more often than one would realize. The Board in reviewing applications was
not supposed to review the financial impact, but zoning guidance allowing people to do it right the first
time, would also result in a better looking community.
General Discussion (additional): Mr. Meyer noted that staff reported to Town Council about the annual
BAR activities and all positive feedback was received. Ms. McDonald added that a more uniform way of
presenting annual reports was being considered for boards and commissions as well as the department
as a whole.
Page 9 of 10
BAR Minutes —March 1, 2010
Mr. Sisley reiterated that staff was asked to dramatically cut down the window workshop content to which
Ms. McDonald responded that the in-depth two page application with explanations of why, was
condensed into two sentences in the written material to Town Council. Mr. Sisley commented that based
on the instructions to staff, the decision to condense to a few sentences and state that the BAR did not
prove the point of its impact on the community, seemed a bit ingenuine. Mr. Dunn confirmed that there
was one sheet with four requests and the others were approved, though the Balch Library withdrew
because a donation had just been received. Ms. McDonald clarified that the BAR's second request was
less money than what was originally requested, but the same amount of information was provided on both
requests.
Ms. McDonald stated that the storm damage outreach letter was sent to historic district residents to which
Ms. Minchew suggested an annual letter or brochure every two years may be good.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:47pm.
NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING:
Monda , March 15, 2010 at 7pm
Tow a Council Chamber
West arket Street
i(72"
Leesburg, A
Dieter ever, Chair
41
Wendy Walker, Clerk of the BAR
Page l0 of 10