The Future of This Old House Is in Supervisors' Hands
Article Tools
Share This +
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The last vestige of Lunette, which was a 40-person town in eastern Loudoun County at the turn of the 20th century, is a dilapidated farmhouse stuck in a modern housing development in Aldie.
The two-story house, built in the early to mid-1800s along Braddock Road, served as the general store and post office for the tiny town, which was a few miles south of Arcola, according to "Loudoun Discovered," a series of books written by Waterford cartographer and Loudoun Extra columnist Eugene M. Scheel.
More than a century later, the issue of whether the house should be demolished or salvaged has landed in the laps of the Loudoun supervisors.
Greenvest, the developer that owns the house and the Kirkpatrick Farms subdivision in which it sits, is required to preserve the structure's facade under a proffer agreement with the county. In a June 4 letter to the Board of Supervisors, Greenvest offered to donate $100,000 to the county or to a Loudoun historical preservation society as the price for being allowed to violate that agreement and tear down the building.
Provided by the Kirkpatrick Farms Community Association
Lunette House is located in Kirkpatrick Farms in Aldie.
Several supervisors criticized the company's offer at Tuesday's board meeting. Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac) called Greenvest's handling of the house "appalling." Supervisor Kelly Burk (D-Leesburg) said the Greenvest donation was a "way for the developer to buy their way out." Ed Gorski, a former county planner who acts as a land-use officer for the Piedmont Environmental Council, said such a payment would set a "horrendous" precedent.
But board members said they also were sensitive to the views of Kirkpatrick Farms residents. Leaders of the 959-member Kirkpatrick Farms Community Association have said the facade of the stone-and-brick house holds little historical value, and they want it gone.
"This is not an asset that the community wants to retain," said homeowners association President David L. Anderson. "Lacking in historic character, at the moment it is an eyesore. It's a source of vandalism; it's a source of attracting some unwanted teen visitors on occasion. There seems to be no appropriate way to dispose of it."
The nine-member board voted unanimously Tuesday to start the process of altering Greenvest's proffer agreement with the county. Supervisors will study the issue in the coming months and could wind up allowing the developer to demolish the house or giving it permission to sell the structure to a third party.
Greenvest purchased Kirkpatrick Farms in 1999, and the family that had been living in the Lunette house moved away in 2001. Two Greens/Kirkpatrick, a Greenvest subsidiary, moved the house from one part of the development to another in 2005 and used it for office space. In recent years, the developer has tried unsuccessfully to move it to a third location and convert it into storage or meeting space for the homeowners association.
Even the supervisors who supported getting rid of the house said they disapproved of how Greenvest had cared for the property.
"The developer has not taken adequate care of this structure," said Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles), who authored the legislation to change the proffer agreement. "But I would like to cope with this in a way that meets the community's needs."
In the June 4 letter to the board, Greenvest said the original proffer agreement was flawed.
"We understand the importance of preserving history and historic structures," wrote Christopher L. Rudy, vice president of land development for Two Greens/Kirkpatrick. "We feel that the proffers, which were in place when we purchased the property, were too restrictive concerning the uses allowed for the Lunette house, and we feel the best uses for the house could not be obtained."
Tagged: Aldie, Board of Supervisors, history, home
Deal of the Day
$25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please!
Maid To Please is offering LoudounExtra.com readers $25 off their first house cleaning, or $10 their third house cleaning.
• View all deals from Maid To Please | All deals
Latest Deal
• $25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please! posted: 4/28/09
|
Search Deals and Business Directory |
Your Thoughts...
Are you happy that the school year is over?
Comments:
Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy
Greenvest:
Retracted offer on George Mason University land in Dulles South.
Tried to sell overpriced school land in middle of nowhere for Dulles South.
Wants to pull out of proffer agreement to preserve house.
Who trusts Greenvest? Would you do a deal with them?
Posted by BlindMan1 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The proffers were too restrictive when they bought the property? Why didn't they try to change it all then? Greenvest is a bunch of greedy snakes. $100k is pocket change when it comes to what it would take to rightfully restore that property now that they have treated it so poorly. Greenvest should bear the actual cost to restore it to it's rightful condition in a place that would be an asset to that community AND provide the land for such a location. Don't let them off the hook for mere pennies...
Posted by adrienne.gardner (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If a buyer signs a contract they are out of luck if later they decide the terms were too restrictive. This explanation is appalling, along with this whole situation.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where to start....Supervisor Kelly: OF COURSE the 100k offer is a "way for (Greenvest) to buy their way out." That's why they are making the offer.
It is also amazing (but not surprising) that the people commenting on how "horrendous" and "appalling" this is are ignoring the wishes of the people who live in the very community where the house sits. The residents of the community for whom the house was supposed to serve don't want it. I guess we should ignore them though, because what do they know about the "historical" value of a house that resembles pretty much every other house that was around 100 years ago.
As for comments that Greenvest is greedy....AGAIN, OF COURSE THEY ARE, they are in the business of developing a product and selling it at a price that enables them to make a profit. I live near Kirkpatrick Farms and it appears as those there are a lot of co-conspirators in their greed....these people are called homeowners or another way to put it: Greenvest customers.
Oh, and I've driven by the so called historic house countless times over the last four years and as the pictures in the story illustrate, never once did I say, "how quaint." Its a dilapidated mess and an eye sore and it didn't just become that way recently.
Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This reminds me of Toll Brothers purchase of the original Naval Academy grounds and last standing portions of the historic site. They allowed it to fall into disrepair over five years and then wanted to tear it down for condos.
And this is a piece of history, that once gone, can never be replaced. All because newbies don't want it to offend their eyes?
Which came first? The building, or the newbies?
Posted by Bulletproof (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bulletproof: What do you consider a "newbie?" Specifically, how long does one need to live in Loudoun before they lose this distinction?
Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dean, dbc et al, before everyone gets bare-knuckle, doesn't the article say the proffer requires the FACADE to be preserved?
Ever seen Red Lion Row down in Foggy Bottom?
I remember the buildings they used to be the front of, and while it is nice in a movie-set sort of way to see the front of them still there (with a huge row of modern office space smackdab behind them), I think it is sort of a nose and face issue.
Not everything old is historic, and while each person, place and thing has a HISTORY, not all of those special unique "histories" are necessarily of earth-moving significance.
It's been jacked up for years, and sometimes photographed for articles about "sprawl" (and misidentified in the NYT as to location when it was).
If the only thing proffered to be saved was the face of it, and the community doesn't want it, start passing the hat those who regard it as sacred.
I'm sure they'll let you have it if you want it.
Is the FACADE worthy of a war against the community that would have to maintain it in perpetuity?
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This 'only remaining structure' from Lunette is mentioned in a book that's part of the "Loudoun Discovered" series. That's something noteworthy indeed.
Now, it's only this little old structure. Doesn't pose a threat to anybody. Maybe the $100K that Greenvest has to play with would pay for a pleasant restoration.
Gosh, I should think it an honor to have a restored historical structure in my fine community. How in the world would such a thing be a detriment to Kirkpatrick Farms under those circumstances?
Sooo many of us love the pleasant and remaining vestiges of "the days of yore." Take Greenvest's $100K and restore the house. Please don't do away with the privilege of keeping Loudoun's unique flair. It's an integral part of the County and her residents! What a delightful opportunity!
Posted by zzzzzzz (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
z, I believe the HOA does not want the expense of maintaining the building over time. If Greenvest had placed it on a lot in their community as they were building out and had kept it up, maybe the people would have a different view. Also, Greenvest could have donated the property (house and lot they selected) to the county as a historical place and then the county could continue to care for it.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barbara, Yes I do remember Red Lion Row but my memory is a bit foggy.. I went to GWU (on whose campus Red Lion Row sits) when the drinking age in DC was still 18. Now there is some history to celebrate!
Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
momof2 - I would not expect a HOA to be responsible for this. I would expect Greenvest to keep it in repair, and eventually put it on an appropriate lot where it could be donated to the county as a resource (community center), or sold privately with the historic designation that would require it be maintained in the future. The bottom line is that Greenvest has not handled this appropriately until now, and is not proposing a solution that is consistent with what they signed up for. It's plain old business ethics we're talking about here...or in this case, lack thereof.
Posted by adrienne.gardner (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
adrienne, that is what I was trying to say.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dbc, remember the little burger place in one of the row houses down there?
I worked at Lisner when I was in school on the other side of town, and that was a nice neighborhood.
All that remained of the row was literally the facade--pretty, but kind of strange to only preserve the face of them.
Not as bad as vaporizing Rhodes Tavern and the NEW "old" Ebbitt Grill. Yeesh.
------------------------------------
Momof2 and Ms. Gardner, does the County want the structure? Unfortunately, somebody has to pay to maintain.
In addition, if the approved proffer was facade only, this sounds like the discussion is years too late.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barbara, I don't know if the county wants the structure but they do want to be sure historical buildings will be preserved. Even preserving the facade is asking alot of an HOA.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another developer doing business in Loudoun who won't keep their word. This story is not unusual and has become all to common during Loudoun's building boom/bust.
.
BOS- don't let them off the hook for a measly 100K. Look into what it would cost them to follow their contractual obligations, then add 10% for the expense of having to follow Greenvest around like kindergardeners.
Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This discussion is years too late. Greenvest has considered this to be something to ignore from the very start. I asked about it years ago (when Pinebrook was first being built)and the only comment I recieved was "...oh we don't know WHAT we're going to do with that thing..." It seems doing nothing until it was too late was the choice they made. Now we have to live with it.
Posted by Triciah (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The discussion of saving the whole house is years too late in that if the approved proffer was facade only, the whole house has never been under discussion until now.
The time to have the whole house discussion was back when Kirkpatrick was in process.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The County has spent millions suing, suing and continuing to sue the Madisons in Waterford (litigation ongoing) to force them to restore an old home the way they want, to build the way they want-- no matter how expensive to the Madisons, yet when it is expedient, for the County, oh well... just forget about it?
The County held up and continues to hold up the Millers over the restoration of their property in Lincoln--the Millers want to restore it! But the County puts obstacle after obstacle in their way, and has treated them unfairly...
Beat up on private landowners, who will have a difficult time defending their rights, but the County gets a pass?
Such double standards!
Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets talk about another developer wiggling out of commitments. Van Metre proferred to provide a standalone public library building in Stone Ridge. When that commitment became inconvient, it petitioned the last board to allow it to convert the library to the first floor of an office building. Of course the last BOS was pleased to do whatever backflip its bosses demanded so the change was approved. Think about that, kids going into an office building rather a library refuge. And what type of offices would go on the 2nd floor - impotence clinics, family planning services, mental health counselors? Obviously the last board and its benefactors cared squat about the welfare of its constituents children. And people wondering why Gum Spring Road construction languishes? Two word answer - Greenvest heal-dragging.
Hopefully this board has the principles not to be bought off on this latest fiasco
Posted by tv.conway (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Conway, is this your opinion, or that of your wife, our planning commissioner?
Actually, Gum Spring Road's proffers have been held up because of right of way, in some cases.
One even formerly being that of your own by right community.
Others are in court.
None of which has anything to do with your wife trying to remove 659 relocated from the countywide transportation plan, and move the tri-county parkway back to the middle of South Riding (perhaps her main motivation for trying to kill schools everywhere BUT on alignment F), even though the state has chosen and approved a different alignment.
Funny how she brought Bob Marshall in to a worksession to speak AGAINST 659, when he's on record fussing about the delay of the stoplight at 659 and Braddock, calling 659 a route of vital importance to both Loudoun and Prince William.
Perhaps if the county would take responsibility for getting ROW when accepting proffers to build the roads, it wouldn't HAVE to end up in court when the private entity has been through all the hoops and still can't obtain it.
But then of course, people like you and your missus couldn't sit around and point at "greedy evil developers".
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So what about the library? Is it so true and so bad that even you cannot dig out a defense for this travesty?
Yes Sandra Chaloux is my wife. And I am very proud of her for her actions as an activist and now as planning commissioner. However, I have a mind of my own and my own opinions. On the former and latter, I exercise them independently and generally without coordination with her.
Posted by tv.conway (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What ABOUT the library? The little clot of protest-everything folks have battled it every step of the way. Whether it is in an office building or not, something WILL be built on that land as part of the planned rezoning there.
Your exaggerated arguments about what else will be in the building are specious, and immaterial: completely separate entrances to the differing portions of the building.
What about the 659 issues and playing both sides of them?
Nothing on that?
Isn't this an article about a house in Kirkpatrick, or is it a place for you to pump some misinformation about the library, and more disinfo about a road Ms. C would like to stagnate anyway?
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The subject of the article (the house) is symptomatic of a much larger problem which continues to manifest itself in numerous negative instances.
Posted by tv.conway (anonymous) on June 21, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The way the article is being discussed by some is equally symptomatic of a comparable problem.
Where was everybody when the proffer was being approved for a facade only preserve?
Now, how many years later, is there interest in something that was decided, and has been ongoing, for literally years? All of a sudden, it's immediate?
And then let's take the opportunity (while the CTP is up for grabs) to complain about a road we may not really WANT fixed, and have occasionally tried to keep from getting fixed?
And by the way take another slap at the library we couldn't get killed?
Yes, let's talk about the story, and my question remains, where was everybody when the proffer was approved for the facade?
(I realize you personally can't be held accountable for that Mr. Conway, because when Kirkpatrick was approved, I don't think you and Ms. Chaloux had developed your home here yet.)
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 21, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment