Leesburg BAR expands demolition-by-neglect definitions, seeks deconstruction incentives and tighter enforcement timelines

The Leesburg Board of Architectural Review on April 9 reviewed proposed additions to the demolition section of the draft zoning-ordinance rewrite that broaden definitions of ‘‘demolition by neglect,’’ add deconstruction (reuse) incentives, and propose more specific timelines for abatement of ordinance violations.

Staff explained that state code limits local authority to prevent demolition but that the draft attempts to strengthen local tools where permitted. The draft broadens neglect criteria to include failing gutters, rusting roofs, unsecured openings, lack of positive drainage and documented pest infestations. The rewrite also suggests incentives for deconstruction and reuse of historic materials.

“We are really limited. We cannot put it out there that thou shalt not demolish a structure,” Staff member Lauren said, describing the constraints imposed by state law and the practical limits on denying demolition. Members asked staff to add deconstruction language to the incentives section and to clarify what materials qualify as historic for credit purposes.

Board members and staff discussed practical enforcement and documentation steps. Staff proposed more exact timelines in COA conditions so corrective work does not languish for years, and said legal had approved language that would allow staff to require specific abatement dates as part of approvals or conditions. The BAR asked staff to research comparable practices in other Virginia jurisdictions and to propose a reasonable abatement window (staff suggested researching standard ranges; board members mentioned six months as a possible baseline with case-by-case extensions).

The draft also adds more specific repair requirements that could trigger an enforcement action: securing openings, stabilizing roofs and walls, providing positive drainage, painting masonry and treating for pests. Board members suggested adding language to cover ‘‘winged animals’’ (to capture bats and birds occupying gable openings) rather than naming individual species.

Members discussed documentation procedures for demolition or deconstruction: if a COA approves demolition or partial deconstruction, the BAR should require photographic documentation of the building’s pre-demolition condition (exterior elevations) and evidence that salvageable historic materials were reused or diverted from landfill. Staff said the current practice includes documentary photos for many demolitions but agreed to propose explicit submittal requirements tied to approvals.

The BAR directed staff to add deconstruction incentives to the draft incentive table, clarify what qualifies as a historic material (board members suggested a 50-year threshold as one possible test), and to draft recommended abatement timelines and enforcement language for legal review.