Leesburg BAR defers decision on revised mixed-use project at 211 S. King and 4 & 6 South St.

The Leesburg Board of Architectural Review deferred formal action on a revised mixed-use development for 211 South King Street and 4 and 6 South Street SW (TLHPBR20250030) at its Jan. 5 work session, asking the applicant to update drawings and return in February. The motion to defer, moved by Helen Aikman and seconded by J.P. Andrews, passed 5-0-2.

Lauren, a town planning staff member, told the board the proposal would replace two late-20th-century non-contributing structures with an L-shaped development that reads as two attached but visually separate buildings fronting South King and South Street. "Staff finds there have been sufficient change in the design, to support further discussion of the application," she said, while noting unresolved technical questions including whether some shown windows are constructible and a potential drawing error showing eaves encroaching over property lines.

Applicant Kevin Ash and architect Sabrina Nagel (Square 134 Architects) described the principal design moves: lowering the South Street facade toward a "true residential scale," reducing or lowering the hyphens between masses on King Street, adding shallow decks and balconies to increase fenestration, and introducing masonry at the base to anchor the composition. "We really tried to pull that down to, you know, a true residential scale," Ash said.

Board members broadly praised the reduced hyphens and other changes but identified several areas needing further study. Helen Aikman said the hyphen revisions were a "huge improvement" but recommended reworking a carriage-house element so the masonry base integrates with the upper form, suggesting options such as continuing siding down or taking brick up to unify the composition. Several members also flagged an awkward relationship between a front gable and a larger mass behind it and suggested either setting the taller portion back (members discussed roughly "6, 7 feet" as a study figure) or otherwise breaking the massing so the gable reads independently.

Other points for follow-up included: adjusting window sizes and shutter treatment on outer bays, clarifying whether garage doors are feasible under engineering/zoning constraints, improving balcony/porch detailing (members suggested posts or small roofs where possible), and confirming rooftop mechanical equipment shown on the roof plan. Staff also noted possible zoning setbacks and engineering items that, if unresolved, would require the applicant to return to the board during permit review.

Rick Brown, who previously disclosed a potential interest, recused himself from the matter. The board directed the applicant to update the drawings to reflect the evening’s conversation and return at the February work session for continued review. No final approvals, conditions, or permits were issued at the meeting.

The BAR’s next procedural step is for the applicant to submit revised drawings reflecting the requested changes; the panel plans to consider the updated submission at its February work session.