[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6173740,"mediaKeyId","5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d","parentId",5378259,"title","Reston staff seeks smoother handoff with Fairfax County Architectural Review Board for Lake Anne historic overlay properties","audioSeconds",387,"startMs",4200980,"endMs",4588735,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d&start=4200&end=4588","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d/thumbnail_4200980.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6173740/Reston/Fairfax/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Reston-staff-seeks-smoother-handoff-with-Fairfax-County-Architectural-Review-Board-for-Lake-Anne-historic-overlay-properties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173740-ad5d2f78fd2a2bdc2bac820ee46f8b22/orig.mp4?Expires=1770994912&Signature=LEfdkRdT3OZRlyY5LN3viiYg7eAfbJ3n-uUfe3YT-vw-SDDHDlvQmvmhu4EIilfNItHu7Ry5IqVQVQTqKvJhF~nIG4zwwmbK3ffaxuzNZ25CmdJyIGmgi7XirfY-AhtIZEHZKsSbQZmmC8aZnyRdfrTmQbZaQtllCBb83bOJBj9NqBP71kSWl5~N3KVb5XGv5ZAjrq-so3cvvW6a9qsbSanjkvjQX5BZtHZ1DlnXZRpvKl~JU77Epay-nEH-dQSrffrnl-FcAX3eFiCbV9ilPbge1rCzjTLgMXE7rYysc7xclonnzUW2ufTqcHH~vzI-NTkssV~CLf~ajRzTabpXyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Reston, VA","date","2025-07-13T04:45:12.28Z","article","Reston Association staff told the Design Review Board on April 15 they are developing an informal navigation guide to help applicants and staff coordinate review for properties subject to Fairfax County’s historic overlay at Lake Anne.

Staff said the county’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Reston DRB serve different roles and that applicants have been confused when larger projects must obtain approvals from both bodies. The proposed approach is to encourage applicants to present to the DRB in a work session first (where DRB’s aesthetic and design comments can be collected) and then provide a compiled summary to the ARB if the county process requires ARB review. Staff said the process is informal only because the two boards are separate legal entities and a joint formal meeting is not currently permitted.

Staff noted the ARB includes required professional qualifications (architecture, archaeology and related fields) that DRB members do not necessarily have, and that a pre-review by the DRB could reduce back-and-forth by giving applicants consolidated feedback before they file permit-level documents with Fairfax County. Staff is preparing a document that summarizes both boards’ comments so either board would be able to see the other’s discussion when evaluating a permit or design application.

Staff said the guide will be targeted at applicants for larger projects affecting properties in the Lake Anne overlay area, citing recent local discussions around potential redevelopment and other larger projects that will likely trigger joint oversight. Staff asked DRB members to provide input on what they would find most helpful in the guide.

Board members and staff also discussed the need for clear association approvals for limited common elements before DRB review, and staff reminded members that ARB review is triggered by county permitting requirements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Meeting of the Design Review Board - April 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Reston Association staff said they are preparing a navigation guide and recommended a coordinated work-session approach for projects affecting properties subject to Fairfax County’s historic overlay at Lake Anne, aiming to reduce duplicated reviews and improve clarity for applicants.","taxTitle","Reston, Fairfax, Fairfax County, Virginia","taxId",3856,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6173745,"Bowman Town Court landscaping plan approved with tree and seeding conditions",618,3534105,4152284,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d&start=3534&end=4152","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d/thumbnail_3534105.jpg","/articles/6173745/Reston/Fairfax/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Bowman-Town-Court-landscaping-plan-approved-with-tree-and-seeding-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173745-311317041d9ef2c539ba570de3221dd2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770994912&Signature=M-A~zBtvHs36neAc1ofs9IiSztVXYb6sKaJeGrEB4oIKUsqq9DaHxQ2QhDxYWfUmjAJCJEglH3CoQRqM9q9zNq1yeB6XzlqSSaqwMEHNuk0FouPtqeI8dpupTfJ89AviGNOYULCai2Vv4Yz5BFF2nM-htJSYxH1y8ZiJYLw7dMk9xOJ9ZbL9KvHOhAt4etVSx1pEskunhQs-kAYrUwQ5UMoHJ2qVpCmkCSLfKUB3Ijko~iMxmzh8cAn8XWveLCLxksLPRLPnWZCxC-WZmZKZr5hdRY-WJA2KjzCeYQMGMTWn-a~nfD00AwxDBOYGUd8YljFiIvEjxxrpFPUFQIcOkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Reston Design Review Board on April 15 approved a landscaping application for Bowman Town Court with conditions on species, planting size and timing.

Applicant Jeffrey (last name not provided) returned to the board with additional information about erosion control and replacement planting species. He told the board the erosion areas would receive added topsoil, hydroseeding, and a temporary fabric cover similar to standard highway erosion control measures. He also proposed 16 replacement trees: eight Kousa dogwoods and eight red maples.

Board members and an interested resident, Sandra, raised concerns about the Kousa’s fruit drop and mess in high-traffic areas. Panelist Emily suggested substituting a less messy, disease-resistant cultivar such as the Cherokee Princess dogwood; Jeffrey agreed to the substitution. The staff clarified there were no existing mulched areas to be removed and that many lawn-washout locations under trees would receive topsoil and hydroseeding.

The board approved the application with these conditions: hydroseeding work to begin and be completed within 30 days; replacement trees to be 2-inch caliper for both red maples and dogwoods; and the proposed Kousa dogwoods be replaced with a non-fruiting or less-messy dogwood cultivar (example given: Cherokee Princess). Staff and board also noted the cluster could request an extension if seasonal timing made fall planting preferable.

The motion to approve carried by unanimous vote, 7–0. Staff said it will treat the submission as subject to panel follow-up because an affected party was identified and will check compliance with the 30-day timeline and specified caliper size.

The board recommended staff record the plant caliper sizes in the project notes and confirmed staff would enforce follow-up inspections.","The Design Review Board approved Bowman Town Court’s landscaping application, requiring hydroseeding within 30 days, replacement plantings (eight red maples and eight dogwoods) at 2-inch caliper, and substitution of the proposed Kousa dogwood with a less-fruiting variety (example: Cherokee Princess). The vote was unanimous 7–0.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6173750,"Newport Shores appeal over paint sheen granted for de novo review; applicant absent, matter deferred",1337,2183855,3521569,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d&start=2183&end=3521","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d/thumbnail_2183855.jpg","/articles/6173750/Reston/Fairfax/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Newport-Shores-appeal-over-paint-sheen-granted-for-de-novo-review-applicant-absent-matter-deferred","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173750-d03d32172767fc2472321df82c4effd0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770994912&Signature=FgmVVxwJzT8N7gP8DCbUMRdlBQSq-~hGlOEAk3aw1VNSyXIB~hBDqPy2FdVrHIL8TRnb8925EjSDHXRtSPiMwyaLkBEP0urGfiX1pGvnerFfdrlqgpOcpNEq4ifETH6mlyk7EZJz7qx5mMXkNHArpBiib2rt6tHYLfFyKwwPsxulsGVJvzeAKiFiM25YlYWbpl752UJUiKeBbh9aS-Ax6HmCmmkvM4tiGjESBTmsgyAuHJnyvN1zu3BzFIxFRV9A-nEyoT4BHOXMfoKFgAtrEUP4Yt-mtkYdGfmGoNvu~wqKR~X5tf7NiqSaeFpt8eSn9RA2uY5vLHnsikVoSo1aGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Reston Design Review Board on April 15 granted an appeal that challenges a Newport Shores Cluster decision allowing a higher paint sheen on siding — a change appellants say is incompatible with the community’s existing palette and finishes.

Appellant Darcelle Allen told the board she believed the original cluster vote did not separately and clearly approve the change in sheen (a finish-level change rather than a color change) and that community members lacked professional guidance before voting. She said the proposed semi-gloss finish on horizontal siding is atypical and that paint-industry guidance generally recommends against a high-gloss finish on horizontal siding.

Panelists who heard the original application said the cluster packet stated a vote had occurred and that they were reluctant to override a community vote unless the proposal clearly violated DRB guidelines. The contested guideline is the DRB’s “Colors, paint and stains” section, which requires the proposed color and medium be compatible with the existing and approved cluster palette; the board debated whether “medium” reasonably includes finish/sheens.

The board twice considered motions on acceptance of the appeal. An initial motion failed to achieve the required affirmative votes from the full quorum of eligible voters; after further discussion, a renewed motion to accept the appeal carried with recorded ayes and abstentions, and the chair instructed that the application must be heard de novo (a full re-presentation as if new). When staff opened the de novo review, the applicant could not be identified as present, and counsel advised the board that precedent supports deferring a de novo presentation if an applicant has requested to be present. The board unanimously (7–0) moved to defer the de novo review to the next meeting to allow the applicant to appear.

The debate focused on whether finish/sheens fall inside the guideline’s definition of “medium” and whether approving a semi-gloss finish for full siding would be compatible with the cluster’s existing finishes; no final decision on the paint finish was reached at this meeting.

The board directed staff to inform the applicant that the appeal was accepted and that a de novo hearing will be scheduled at the applicant’s requested next meeting date.","An appeal by Newport Shores Cluster opponents of a finish change (sheen) was accepted for de novo review after board members split on whether the cluster’s approval misapplied the colors, paints and stains guideline. The applicant was not present at the de novo review and staff deferred the matter to the next meeting.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6173755,"Whisperwood Cluster appeal denied; board requires similar canopy replacement for removed trees",1447,605450,2052985,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d&start=605&end=2052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d/thumbnail_605450.jpg","/articles/6173755/Reston/Fairfax/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Whisperwood-Cluster-appeal-denied-board-requires-similar-canopy-replacement-for-removed-trees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173755-1072c1ed26b4323c9e789e7d3eb454c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770994912&Signature=HUw1MF-RkK46vWT5uUZk5ck2nS10CFxCZUAmhgxJU5koos9hXHU1rCDZM85dCKqytYUVnUOfzuaEehJvmVuskXL6~TuXZr4xgJSvyFKwweGtAE9y6blpEgjFx40yfme~cfBDD2IYK~XvM1~ebq-3Vg-JRq3ymu1YML0kgnVG6s~aWk~MLrBsgySQFPcjtykgSWQsm~YvDd8g1OWQeV~qUpi8at6-NlOkuqFFf08WnUx62RwBk0~YLxaGFEbt1MyURKUjtyOkmiG5VjB1zdXF5VtjrCXhjF6ba~69eTfk8Ybzybz61wY1ATxRwBMBdhz9euf7zKPjzUT-Mhn8RF4pJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Reston Design Review Board on April 15 denied an appeal by the Whisperwood Cluster Association challenging a DRB decision that required replacement plantings for trees removed from common areas.

Sally (Whisperwood Cluster Association president) told the board she and the cluster had received conflicting guidance: cluster staff and published Reston guidelines appeared to say dead trees not shown on a DRB-approved landscape plan are not required to be replaced, while the January decision appeared to require replacements. She asked the board to reduce the number of required replacements and to allow fall planting rather than the June deadline cited in the decision.

DRB members and staff said the replacement quantity was derived from a staff investigation prompted by a complaint from an affected resident (identified in the record as Mrs. Keener). Staff confirmed seven removed trees could be positively identified on site; aerial imagery and the complaint suggested additional removals but did not show stumps for every location. The panel settled on a replacement number of 11 to account for seven confirmed removals plus additional canopy losses that staff concluded were likely based on aerial progression.

The board determined the case did not present new information nor show a misapplication of the design guideline and moved to deny the appeal. The motion to deny the appeal carried on a recorded vote of 4–0–3 (four votes to deny, three ineligible to vote because they had served on the original panel). The board’s decision includes a stipulation that replacements provide “similar canopy coverage” to what was removed rather than mandating exact locations; staff will work with the cluster on a planting plan and the matter will return to a panel review (rather than the full board) to expedite implementation.

Staff noted clusters should document dead-tree removals with an arborist’s statement and that dead-tree removal does not require a DRB application when a replacement is being made under an existing DRB-approved landscaping plan; if replacement will not occur as part of an existing approved plan, a formal application is required. The board also advised the cluster they may request a planting timeline extension to shift planting to fall for better tree establishment.

The board instructed staff to work with the cluster on a replanting plan; staff confirmed the panel would handle the follow-up review.","The Design Review Board denied Whisperwood Cluster Association’s appeal of a January decision requiring replacement plantings after staff and a complaint-documented review identified removed trees. The board affirmed staff’s assessment and instructed the cluster to submit a replanting plan providing similar canopy coverage.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6173760,"Reston Design Review Board reelects chair; three vice chairs named",334,3840,338675,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d&start=3&end=338","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5378259-894055f3647f43cc681f53994408ed6d/thumbnail_3840.jpg","/articles/6173760/Reston/Fairfax/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Reston-Design-Review-Board-reelects-chair-three-vice-chairs-named","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173760-848e79a48ad4cef4f2795f3be195ab8b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770994912&Signature=IAgoiTGQFqnwDqMBfGnYqLa3Rabnec0tbrDupkWBMjyX2p4K99vQE36oJ6ATKNuRfIP7y~rEw62svYAGOwuPknYwLb1u85wfHALv9zbMzdC0zC1wE9h1RzMZL-aBy47ZS58GpcBuBCJoig2Lh4-3-m5Sxhab~0m4UilX027I20BBGHeQpuiwkRw9~LjH84mDe~tWKgSb7s9KSws-xUE5~uFTM2dYDZqI0blzkSa9j7g1ZxRz4f1YL9aVXpMFB8HJC1R8uFNTF~IeFPNOZVEM5VPQLOCMJPGzHext3UWkHRXovD-4xq6CjVBEqlfZNJw3xjWyFFnIbWhwrdZaJSjFvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Reston Design Review Board on April 15 reelected Michael Wood as chair and confirmed three vice chairs: Emily English, Mike Biancino and Brian (last name not specified).

The board took each nomination by motion and voice vote. Emily English accepted the nomination and the board recorded a 6–0–1 tally (one abstention) in favor of her confirmation as a vice chair. Mike Biancino was confirmed in a separate voice vote with the same 6–0–1 tally. The board then confirmed Brian as vice chair, also 6–0–1. Wood accepted the nomination to continue as chair; that motion passed 6–0–1 with Wood recording an abstention.

The board chair opened the meeting and called a quorum at the start of the session. Nominations were made from the floor, seconds were recorded on the transcript, and votes were taken by voice.

The appointments leave the panel structure unchanged for the near term; staff confirmed the outcome matched the panel composition that had been in place going into the meeting.

The board then moved on to the evening’s agenda items.","At its April 15 meeting the Reston Design Review Board reappointed Michael Wood as chair and confirmed three vice chairs: Emily English, Mike Biancino and Brian (last name not specified). The appointments were carried by voice votes and recorded tallies where noted.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Reston staff seeks smoother handoff with Fairfax County Architectural Review Board for Lake Anne historic overlay properties

Bowman Town Court landscaping plan approved with tree and seeding conditions

Newport Shores appeal over paint sheen granted for de novo review; applicant absent, matter deferred

Whisperwood Cluster appeal denied; board requires similar canopy replacement for removed trees

Reston Design Review Board reelects chair; three vice chairs named