The Winchester City Board of Architectural Review on Oct. 2 voted to deny BAR25-281, a certificate-of-appropriateness request to paint a mural on the primary facade at 106 South Loudoun Street.

The denial followed public comments from project backers and a lengthy Board discussion about the Board’s authority and the absence of written mural guidelines. Brady Clovin, executive director of Friends of Old Town, said the piece was “non commercial and fully reversible” and argued the mural “fully aligns with both the city's comprehensive plan and our own Old Town 2045 master plan.” Supporters said the mural’s theme — youth literacy — and community process merited approval.

Nut graf: The Board concluded it lacked an established policy framework to evaluate a mural of this scale on a primary facade. The motion to deny carried after members stated concerns about the visual scale on the walking mall, consistency with past precedents, and the condition of the masonry beneath existing paint. Board members instructed staff to research mural guidance and return with suggested guidelines for future consideration.

Brady Clovin, who presented on behalf of the applicant group, said the project grew from a competitive national call for art that produced 47 submissions and three finalists and that the mural has a planned budget of $12,000. Clovin said the project was chosen through a community process led by Friends of Old Town and noted updated materials in the Board packet showing 24 letters of support.

Several community speakers urged approval. Andy Veil, chief executive officer of United Way of the Northern Shenandoah Valley, said the mural would be “a way to spread the word to the community” and that United Way and a private foundation were funders. Architect and longtime resident Chuck Swartz cautioned the Board to distinguish “irreversible decisions” (such as demolition) from reversible treatments like paint, noting that painted facades elsewhere in Old Town had subsequently been repainted. Joan Sostaro, who identified herself as a local health‑care facility owner and a parent, told the Board that the mural was “an educational tool that advances our community's commitment to nurturing the next generation.”

Board discussion focused on three issues: (1) whether existing BAR standards give the Board authority to approve murals on primary facades, (2) the visual scale of the proposed mural on the walking mall, and (3) the physical condition of the masonry, which Board members said has been previously painted and shows areas of spalling and efflorescence. One Board member said, “I cannot in good conscience support an approval that rest on rules we do not yet have,” and suggested tabling until the city adopts formal guidelines; another member argued denial with recourse to appeal was the appropriate action given time constraints.

The Board voted on a motion to deny BAR25-281. The motion passed; the denial was recorded as the Board’s action on the application. Board members agreed staff would research mural guidelines used in comparable jurisdictions (including language about primary versus secondary facades, percentage-of-wall limits, and potential review by an arts commission or advisory panel) and return with a draft for discussion, with a suggested target of the first meeting in December.

Clarifying details disclosed during the meeting: the building’s facades have been painted in prior decades (architectural surveys from the 1970s and 2010 note heavy alteration), the project team plans to apply a primer and then acrylic‑latex paints for the mural, the mural budget is approximately $12,000, and the selection process included a national call that produced 47 artist submissions. The Board packet included architecture surveys and letters of support; Board members reported receiving roughly 19 letters at one point and updated materials showing 24 support letters.

The applicant may pursue an appeal of the denial to the appropriate city body. Board members asked staff to prepare research and suggested draft guidelines to better define where and how murals may be considered in the historic district.

Ending: The Board adjourned after agreeing to revisit a mural‑guideline discussion at a future meeting and to return with research and recommendations to guide future applications.