Arlington planning commission recommends denying local historic district for Nelly Custous Elementary School, clearing path for approved Melwood/Wesley housing

The Arlington County Planning Commission on June 1 voted to recommend the County Board deny a request to designate the Nelly Custous Elementary School site (750 23rd Street S., Aurora Highlands) as a local historic district.

Lauren Ferris of the Arlington County Historic Preservation Program presented a two-year study and advised the commission that staff does not recommend designation. Ferris said staff set a period of significance running from 1924 to 1978 but concluded the building lacks integrity in association, design, materials, and workmanship because of multiple additions and later alterations. "The building retains integrity of location, setting, and feeling, but lacks integrity of association, design, materials, and workmanship," Ferris told the commission.

By contrast, the Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board (HLRB) voted at its March 18 meeting to recommend designation limited to the 1924 and 1931 portions of the building under criterion A (contributing resource to the Aurora Highlands National Register historic district) and criterion K (suitable for preservation or restoration). Katie Meyers, HLRB chair, told the commission the board concluded the oldest sections could be preserved while allowing compatible additions, and argued owner consent is not required under county ordinance for designation.

The public record showed strong, organized views on both sides. Neighbors and former students urged preservation. Rea Ayala, who lives across the street, said: "Nelly Custous is nearly a century old and represents an important part of Arlington's history and the character of Aurora Highlands." Several civic associations and preservation volunteers urged that the 1924/1931 core be saved.

Opponents — including Melwood (the property owner), Wesley Housing (the proposed development partner), affordable-housing advocates, and multiple civic organizations — warned designation would make the already-approved 4.1 site plan and the project’s financing infeasible. Lissa Couts, Melwood’s president and CEO, told the commission: "As the property owner, we do not support local historic district designation. The project does not meet the criteria for designation and this conclusion is shared by historic consultants, county staff and many members of our community." Counsel for the owner, Kathy Puscar, reiterated that substantial alterations (notably the loss of the original main entrance and replacement of windows) have compromised the building’s integrity and that designation would impose significant financial and logistical burdens on the approved redevelopment.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about the historic record, the scope of prior alterations (1931 addition; 1962 west and rear additions; 1995 façade changes), and how a partial designation would be implemented and regulated through design guidelines. Several commissioners expressed concern about the timing of the nomination relative to the site-plan approval process and called for process improvements going forward.

After deliberation, the vice chair moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed LHD request on the basis that the property does not meet at least two of the 11 designation criteria in section 11.3.4 of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lantel. On roll call, nine commissioners voted to recommend denial, one opposed (Commissioner Torres), and Chair Bagley abstained.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the County Board for consideration at its June public hearing. If the County Board follows the commission’s recommendation and denies designation, the previously approved Melwood/Wesley Housing redevelopment (approved as a 4.1 site plan) would be able to proceed subject to any other outstanding permits and financing conditions.

Ending: The hearing produced a substantial public record with sharply divided views: county staff and many housing advocates urged denial based on compromised architectural integrity and pressing affordable-housing needs, while HLRB members and neighborhood advocates argued for preservation of a historic core. The County Board will make the final decision at its upcoming public hearing.