Leesburg Board of Architectural Review Work Session - August 3, 2026

The Leesburg Board of Architectural Review (BAR) held a work session on Monday, August 3, 2026, at 7:00 PM in Council Chambers. Chair Helen Aikman presided over a quorum of five members (with two absent and two recusals on certain items). The board discussed six deferred cases, approved three applications, and deferred one. Key topics included a sunroom addition, window and trim color compliance, rear and side additions, a large mixed-use building, and an accessory structure.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Suzanne Larkins (3 Royal Street) spoke on applications for both 7 and 9 Royal Street. She raised concerns about lot merging, pool-to-lot ratio, fenestration, and the proposed commercial nature and scale of the projects, urging the board to consider the historic context and integrity of the street.
• Michelle Love (homeowner, 115 Maximillian Court) explained her window replacement circumstances, citing an urgent repair, HOA guidelines, and warranty restrictions on painting white vinyl windows. She requested approval to keep the white windows with beige trim.
• HOA board representatives (Carriageway) confirmed that their updated guidelines permit white vinyl windows with varied trim colors, and that several homes already have such configurations. They expressed concern that mandating matching trim could set a precedent affecting many properties.
• No public comments were made on the 206 East Market Street application.

Discussion Items

• TLHPBR2026-0010 – 213 West Market Street (Sunroom Addition): The applicant revised the sunroom orientation to match the existing roof pitch. Staff supported the change, noting appropriate location, size, and mass. The contemporary sliding windows and styrofoam building system were deemed acceptable due to limited visibility from the public right-of-way. The board approved the application with findings.
• TLHPBR2026-0015 – 115 Maximillian Court SW (Window/Trim Amendment): The applicant had installed white vinyl windows (originally approved) but the trim color did not match per prior condition. The homeowner cited the absence of a documented HOA color code, warranty concerns, and the deteriorating window condition. The HOA board noted their updated guidelines allow white windows with any trim. Staff recommended matching trim to windows, but the board, after discussion, approved the amendment on a case-by-case basis, citing the neighborhood's eclectic colors and non-contributing status.
• TLHPBR2026-0018 – 7 Royal Street SE (Addition & Site Improvements): The proposal expands an existing side addition with a second story and adds a rear porch, pool, fencing, and front parking pad. Staff found most elements appropriate. The board discussed fenestration on the side elevation; the applicant agreed to remove windows on the east side due to proximity to neighbor and limited visibility. Parking, fencing, and materials were resolved. The application was approved with conditions, including a finding that the side elevation windows were omitted for compatibility.
• TLHPBR2026-0019 – 9 Royal Street SE (Large Addition & Accessory Structure): This complex application includes a two-story rear/side addition, roof height increase on the historic block, a large accessory barn, pool, and site changes. Staff presentation highlighted roof height as pivotal. The applicant (Kevin Ash) argued the increase was needed for code compliance (level 2 renovation, change of use) and that the resulting height remains subordinate to neighbors. Public speaker Suzanne Larkins contended the project's massing and layout are commercial in nature and incompatible with the historic street. Board members expressed mixed views; a straw poll showed no majority support for raising the roof. The board deferred the case to the September 9, 2026 work session to allow further design revisions and materials clarification.
• TLHPBR2026-0014 – 206 East Market Street (Mixed-Use New Construction): After several revisions, the project addressed most staff concerns regarding massing, fenestration, and materials. Remaining discussion items included height justification, mechanical screening, Juliet balconies, porch materials, and stone veneer. The board found the height appropriate given the context of taller county buildings, and accepted the Juliet balconies as a decorative feature on new construction. Numerous conditions were attached, requiring cut sheets, samples, and a full-scale mock-up for staff approval.

Key Outcomes

• TLHPBR2026-0010 (213 West Market) : Approved (5-2, with two absent). Motion by Tom O'Neill, seconded by JP Andrews. Conditions include findings that windows and styrofoam system are acceptable due to limited visibility.
• TLHPBR2026-0015 (115 Maximillian Court) : Approved amendment (5-2, with two absent). Motion by Tom O'Neill, seconded by JP Andrews. The board allowed white vinyl windows with beige trim on a case-by-case basis, citing the neighborhood's character and the applicant's circumstances.
• TLHPBR2026-0018 (7 Royal Street) : Approved (3-0-2, with two recusals and two absent). Motion by JP Andrews, seconded by Lucas Mason. Conditions include no windows on the east side elevation, fence gaps, and equipment screening deferred to staff.
• TLHPBR2026-0019 (9 Royal Street) : Deferred to the September 9, 2026 work session; critical action date extended accordingly (motion passed 4-1-2, with one recusal and two absent). Applicant to provide revised plans by August 24, 2026, addressing roof height, accessory structure massing, and materials.
• TLHPBR2026-0014 (206 East Market Street) : Approved with 16 conditions (4-1-2, with one recusal and two absent). Motion by JP Andrews, seconded by Tom O'Neill. Conditions include material samples, mock-up, and staff review of mechanical screening, porch flooring, stone veneer, and other details.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 PM.