The Leesburg Board of Architectural Review voted 7‑0 to defer consideration of TLHPDR2025‑0030211, a proposed L‑shaped mixed‑use building at 211 South King Street and 4–6 South Street SW, after extended discussion about height, massing, parking integration and a recorded rear easement.

Lauren, a planning/historic staff presenter, told the board that the application has undergone multiple revisions but that “staff is still concerned about the overall height and scale of this project,” and that Building 2 — the South Street face of the L‑shape — “remains the top concern.” She urged the board to seek additional cross‑sections and virtual walkarounds to illustrate impacts to the full block, including Wirt and Royal Streets.

Why it matters: The site sits in the Old and Historic (H1) district where BAR review must weigh compatibility with the district guidelines as well as zoning allowances. Lauren noted that although the zoning ordinance permits up to 65 feet in some circumstances, the BAR “has the absolute authority to reduce height, scale, mass, change materials, and make other design changes to less than what is allowed in the zoning ordinance.” That means the BAR’s findings about compatibility can require a lower or differently composed building than the zoning maximum would suggest.

Key debate and technical issues

- Height and massing: Multiple board members said Building 2 reads too tall and monolithic next to one‑and‑two‑story historic houses. “I think it’s at least one story too tall,” Judd said, urging use of the guideline proportions diagram rather than a generic “stories” argument. Members recommended enlarging hyphens (lower connecting elements), increasing variation in roofline and stepping massing so the South Street and King Street faces read as smaller, related buildings rather than one continuous wall.

- Parking and screening: Staff criticized the proposed wood stockade fence screening of tuck‑under parking that would sit partly outside the building face. “Staff does find [the fence] unusual for the historic district and does not believe that that captures the intent of the guidelines,” Lauren said, recommending that parking be integrated into the architecture or screened with more architecturally compatible materials.

- North elevation and windows: Board members pressed why the long north elevation has no windows. The applicant said fire‑rating and property line constraints explain blank walls; staff and members suggested exploring stepping the building back 5–10 feet (or confirming code guidance about openings above neighboring building heights) so the façade could receive fenestration where appropriate.

- Recorded easement and site constraints: Neighbor Rick Brown (213 S. King St.) spoke during public comment, noting a recorded vehicular and pedestrian easement along the rear of his property. He said the easement runs the full length of his lot, requires commercial‑height clearance (he cited 13 feet 6 inches) and that the applicant’s drawings incorrectly place parking within that easement. Staff acknowledged the easement affects design even if legal enforcement of the easement is outside BAR authority and asked the applicant to address it in revised drawings.

Applicant response and next steps

Architect Kevin Ash described the latest design changes (extending certain window bays, adjusting dormers and roof forms) and said he would provide additional perspectives, improved topography and walking‑view renderings. He declined at the meeting to reduce the overall approved heights but committed to returning with revisions. Staff noted the critical action date is Dec. 15 and that the next BAR work session is Dec. 1; the board deferred the case to Dec. 1 and discussed whether to seek an extension of the critical action date if needed.

Formal action

The BAR voted to defer TLHPDR2025‑0030211 to the Dec. 1 work session; the motion passed 7‑0. The board did not adopt a simultaneous extension of the applicant’s critical action date at the meeting but indicated that an extension might be requested if revised materials cannot be produced in time.

What remains open

Board members asked for additional materials before final action: accurate plan/parcel overlays showing the recorded easement, site sections that include Wirt and Royal Street impacts, perspectives from the pedestrian level on both streets, clear depiction of where adjacent buildings physically touch the new massing, and alternative screening options for tuck‑under parking that are integrated into the architecture. The BAR recommended smaller, lower hyphens and greater variation in plane and roofline so the proposal better matches the immediate historic context.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to adopt meeting agenda: moved by Judge Fido, seconded by Don Schoeman; result 7‑0.
- Motion to defer TLHPBR2025‑0030211 to Dec. 1 work session: moved and seconded on the record; result 7‑0.

Ending

The BAR kept the public comment period open for follow‑up and asked the applicant to submit revised drawings in time for the Dec. 1 packet. The board also asked staff to research the easement recordation Rick Brown referenced and to coordinate with zoning/legal staff if technical ordinance issues (setbacks, eave overhangs) were implicated.