Norfolk council allows installed windows at 119 E. Princess Anne despite planning commission denial

The Norfolk City Council on Jan. 28 voted to approve an ordinance amending a previously granted development certificate for 119 East Princess Anne Road, allowing the windows already installed on the building's upper floors to remain.

The decision reversed a 3–4 denial by the City Planning Commission and followed presentations from the property owner and the project's architect. The owner, Joe Lofran Boyse (address given in the record as 7851 Is Agarden Road), and architect Robin Thomas told council members that the project—conversion of an old Frank Spicer Company building into mixed use with 14 apartments above and roughly 6,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor—had experienced prolonged delays and supply issues during the COVID-19 pandemic that prevented use of the originally specified windows.

Why this matters: The case illustrates how post‑permit construction delays and material shortages can produce changes to approved development plans, and how Norfolk's review bodies weigh adherence to process against alterations made during long projects.

Boyse said work to restore the historic window openings required removing brick from 1990s infill and that the specialty steel‑replica windows the team sought were unavailable during the pandemic. He said crews used a different, already‑approved first‑floor window product on the upper floors so the building could be sealed and interior work could proceed. Thomas said the Architectural Review Board had supported the installed windows and that the project's façade improvements from 2019 to the present were “significant.” Both emphasized the building is not pursuing historic tax credits.

During council discussion Councilwoman Doyle (identified in the record as Missus Doyle) and Councilman Smigiel voiced concern that the developer did not return to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) after substituting windows, and stressed that the development‑certificate process should be applied consistently. Doyle said, “the failure was not going back to ARB,” and cast a no vote on principle. Council members who voted in favor said they appreciated the property's visible improvement and the owner's investment.

Council roll call on the ordinance, as recorded in the meeting transcript, was: Clanton—Aye; Doyle—No; Johnson—No; McGee—Aye; Page—Aye; Smigiel—No; Thomas—Aye; Alexander (Mayor Kenneth Cooper Alexander)—Aye. The motion passed.

Council members and the project team did not identify a formal amendment to the development certificate beyond permitting the currently installed windows to remain; no new conditions or penalties were recorded in the discussion. The architect acknowledged the procedural lapse—failing to return to ARB after the substitution—but asked council to consider the “circumstances” produced by supply delays and long construction timelines.

The project description in the council record notes a raised first floor (three feet at the front, five feet at the rear where it faces a parking lot), installation of an elevator for access to upper floors, roof work, and a runoff storage vault for drainage. The owner said the Architectural Review Board had supported the substitution in October prior to the appeal to council.

Council did not specify an effective date beyond the standard adoption language read into the record. The ordinance's stated effect in council discussion was that a “yes” vote would approve the applicant’s request to allow the installed windows to remain.