Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, June 1st, 2026 meeting of the Arlington County Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Nia Bagley, chair. Tonight we will discuss and make motions on the following items. Arlington County zoning ordinance for electric vehicle supply equipment and local historic district designation requests for Nellie Custis Elementary School. A few pointers before we get started for participants. Presenters and speakers joining the meeting through Microsoft Teams, please keep your phones and other electronic devices muted until you are called upon by the clerk. Please turn off the sound to any devices around you to minimize interference and keep your cameras off until the clerk announces your name to speak. When called upon, you must unmute yourself by clicking on the microphone icon that is in the meeting command bar at the top of the screen. Neither the moderator nor the clerk have the ability to unmute your mic. Once you have spoken, please mute your mics and turn your cameras off. If you are dialing in by phone to join the meeting, press star six to unmute. Public speakers will be called upon by the clerk at an assigned time. Pre-registration with email confirmation is required to speak at tonight's hearing. We cannot accommodate additional speakers. All speakers, virtual or hybrid, will receive two minutes to comment as an individual. Only representatives of a county board-appointed advisory group committee and or a commission will receive three minutes to comment. A timer will be displayed on the screen if speaking virtually, and speakers in person will follow the timer stationed on the podium. Audio for tonight's meeting is available via phone. If commissioners, presenters, or speakers lose internet connectivity, please reconnect by phone. However, if you are dialing in by phone and unable to see the screen, we will provide an audible 30-second warning to wrap up your comments. You will be muted when your time has expired. The meeting chat is active for presenters or commissioners who need technical assistance only. Please do not use the meeting chat for discussion, public comment, questions about agenda items, or requests for further information. All public comments must be shared verbally for the record during the assigned public testimony period. Tonight's meeting will be available for review through the YouTube platform. A link is being provided on the Planning Commission website 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Although the meetings will no longer be a live broadcast, the meetings will be available for review with closed captioning on Comcast Xfinity channels 25 and 1073 and Verizon Fios channels 39 and 40, excuse me, 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Lastly, this is a public forum. Tonight's meeting will be recorded and posted to the county website via a link to YouTube as stated. All information associated with tonight's meeting, whether written or spoken, is subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requirements. Madam Clerk, please call our first item.

Thank you. Our first item is the ordinance to amend, reenact, and recodify several articles of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance. We have our, Emily, I apologize, I forgot your last name. We have Emily Nachbar to present this item to us this evening. Thank you.

Thank you all. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Emily Nachbar, and I am with the Department of Environmental Services. And I'm joined by my colleague, Steve Burr, who's also with DES, as well as with Jen Smith with CPHD. I'm pleased to be here tonight to present this item, which involves proposed zoning text amendments related to electric vehicle charging. The impetus for this zoning study stems from established county policy. The community energy plan, which is part of the comprehensive plan, has a goal to move more people with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, part of which can be achieved through supporting EV charging throughout the county. The carbon neutral transportation master plan identified that to achieve this goal, the county should support clear processes for EV charger deployments. Electric vehicle adoption has grown quickly in recent years. Nationwide sales of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles increased by 400% from 2019 to 2024. And over the last two years at Arlington County, EV registrations nearly doubled. However, the current zoning ordinance makes no mention of the charging stations needed to fuel these vehicles at present. Further, housing and EV registration data reveals a big disparity in who drives electric vehicles in Arlington. On the left side, we can see that 73% of housing units in the county are multifamily. And on the right side, we can see that 81% of electric vehicles are registered to residents of single family type housing. While there are many contributors to this disparity. For example, vehicle ownership is just lower amongst residents of multifamily housing, which is good for the environment. Access to home charging is a big indicator of EV adoption and charging at multifamily residences and county locations, sorry, commercial locations can be a challenge. This zoning study aims to address some of those challenges. The current interpretation of the zoning ordinance is that spaces that are reserved for EV charging only do not count toward required parking. The most restrictive signage that is allowed is to reserve parking for electric vehicles. This is challenging because it can be difficult to determine if a car is electric or not and allows stations to be blocked by cars that don't need to charge. To fix this, staff propose an update to the definition of a parking space to make it clear that it should count toward the minimum parking requirement even when reserved for charging only. Next, EV chargers are considered structures under the current zoning ordinance, which means they are not allowed in required setbacks. This limits charging because sometimes some or all parking is within the setback, making it impossible to cite chargers where cars are parked, as shown in the image on the left. Here, the setback is the greater of 50 feet from the center line or 25 feet from the property line, and we can see that the entire parking area is within this setback, making it challenging to add charging for this type of parking. It is very common outside of Arlington to site chargers along property lines as shown in the image on the right. Our proposal is that EV chargers should be allowed anywhere on a property with one exception, an eight foot setback for level three fast chargers on street fronts to promote safety and create sufficient open space. Finally, we have a few proposals to make it easier for property owners to add charging in constrained parking areas. The first element of this proposed proposal for flexibility is that standard size parking spaces served by level two and level three charging should count as one and a half parking spaces for the purpose of tabulating parking. This allows a charger to be sited between parking spaces like in the examples shown on the screen and take up essentially a parking space without needing to add another physical parking space to meet the parking requirement. This type of policy has already been established in a number of jurisdictions across the country, including Charlotte, North Carolina, and Indianapolis, Indiana. The next flexibility concept is an EV accommodation space, a new term, which is a parking space that has the same width and aisle width as a standard space, but at least the same length as a compact space. This would allow the charger to be placed essentially inside the area of a standard parking space at the far end, which can be helpful to cite EV chargers in parking garages or other places where parking spaces are bounded in a physical way. This would still count as a standard space for the purpose of tabulating parking so as not to impact the compact space ratio. The final element of flexibility is for a simpler review process. The county's proposal is that only parking spaces that are being touched by adding EV charging are required to conform to the current code. Other parts of the parking lot and property would not need to be reviewed or brought up to the current zoning regulations. The way it would work is that there must be at least as many tabulated parking spaces after adding charging as there were before, as shown in the diagram on the screen. Only six spaces are being touched, and so afterwards the tabulation adds up to six once again. If the tabulation results in more spaces than before, those spaces must be used for siting EV charging equipment or remain as parking. For this study, we've applied the communicate and consult level of engagement. In terms of the study timeline, the board approved an initiating resolution in January, and in May, staff brought forward to the board a request to advertise hearings by the planning commission and county board. We communicated the study through multiple county newsletters and presentations to four county commissions, including ZOCO, and received feedback at those presentations, as well as through an open-ended feedback form. After tonight, staff will be presenting this to the County Board at the June meeting. In closing, this amendment would improve clarity and reduce barriers to adding EV charging in Arlington County. The recommended amendment aligns with existing County policy in the comprehensive plan to move more people with fewer greenhouse gas emissions. A draft staff recommendation is for the county board to adopt the ordinance to amend, reenact, and recodify sections of the zoning ordinance related to EV charging. Thank you so much, and I'm happy to take your questions. That concludes staff presentation.

Thank you, Ms. Snagpar. Do we have any public speakers?

We do not.

Okay, thank you. And do we have a commission report, Commissioner Strainer?

Okay, let me get a little distance here. So Zoco heard this item a couple months ago, and it was a very, very positively received by everyone who was there. We talked through a lot of various hypotheticals, but we really landed and we really landed on this notion that what this is doing is this is enabling the proliferation of electric vehicles if people so choose to do it. We talked about market conditions that exist for EVs and sort of adoption more broadly. This proposal doesn't care about any of that. If people want it, they can put it in there. We're just allowing it. We're making it easier for people to have EVs in different parts of the county that they cannot exist right now. And so that's basically the general thrust of it. And people were generally pretty supportive of these amendments as they're written.

Thank you, Commissioner Striner. So with that, I will open that up, open it up for discussions. Anyone have any questions, comments, discussions? Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you. This is a question for staff, since I guess we don't even have an applicant yet. So my question is, sometimes when we are reviewing site plans, the applicant asks for a lower parking ratio than is required. And our commission is often encouraging applicants to do more EV parking, but we have a limit to how much we can require So because we're now counting EV spots as 1.5, rather than allowing a lower parking ratio in future site plans, would we just say do more EV parking? You get one and a half credit for each one.

Yes, exactly. I think the new EV parking ratio for the full size spaces should be taken into account when you're approving the parking ratio for site plans.

Okay, so as a commission, maybe we don't approve lower parking ratios than what's required, but we do say do more EV. And that's how you're going to get your lower number of actual spots or how deep you have to dig into the ground. Okay, that's helpful to know. I also wanted to know if this policy, it mentioned in the report that it only is going to apply to future projects. Would that include adaptive reuse projects?

So our goal is to have the policy apply to sort of all projects to the extent that works for existing site plans is sort of a question site plan by site plan for the county attorney. But for all future projects going forward, this is these are the would be the rules of the zoning ordinance.

OK, and so an adaptive reuse would then require this new EV. Set up.

Yeah, and the new policy doesn't require any EV charging, but just sort of allows more flexibility and clarifies the addition of EV charging, which would apply for including adaptive reuse.

OK, great. And then the last question I just had was NAOP had expressed concerns that this policy could delay projects if there were limitations in power availability. Do you see that being realistic? And or if there was a limitation in power capacity, could we have a waiver? like a temporary, you know, make them EV ready, but not necessarily install the devices yet.

So I answer one thing and then Steve is our Dominion expert through and through. There are some solutions to even when Dominion presents constraints, which are very real here in Arlington, to add EV charging within those constraints. So there's, for example, EV chargers can power share. They can be lower charging speed, which is very good for home charging when it's overnight charging. And so I think there are ways and we're looking to provide education for developers to figure out, you know, even when there are constraints, here are the ways to add EV charging. And I'll let Steve answer more of the Dominion specific question.

Yeah, I was just going to note that. Yeah, it is a real Arlington has, you know, pretty constrained distribution system. And so looking to add some of these. And so EV chargers are just any capacity. There's been a lot of delays and sort of challenges working with Dominion for this. So I think that's real. And even county projects has experienced that so I think that that's an overarching piece and then and I think that this sort of work is hoping to like create one less barrier on the county side for for folks who elect to um put in charging moving forward okay great well thank you very much for your work on this policy and I look forward to supporting it thank you any other comments questions anything um Commissioner Garcia

Thank you. I did just want to highlight, you know, and something that came up in the ZOCO meeting was just how, and in the presentation, just how valuable I think this is to bringing equity to the county and allowing people in all housing types to have access to EV charging. And so I know that came up in some of our past discussions on other development proposals. And I think I just wanted to highlight that and really how valuable I think this will be moving forward.

Thank you. Seeing no other hands or mics on, Commissioner Striner, could you read the motion?

Yes. Give me two seconds to open my phone. All right. I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board amend, reenact, and recodify Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 18 of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Attachment 2 of the Staff Report to allow electric vehicle supply equipment to encroach into required setbacks, allow EVSE as an accessory use in all zoning districts, establish standards for parking areas with EVSE, create and define the characteristics of an electric vehicle accommodation parking space and associated use standards, revise the parking space definition to include spaces used exclusively for EV charging, facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community, and for other reasons required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice.

I'll second.

Thank you. That was seconded by Commissioner Robertson.

Oh, let him tell me. Oh, let him tell me. Sorry. Smiling at me, I was like, yeah, sure. Okay, so let's go for a vote. Before we do, Madam Clerk, are Commissioners Patel and Johnson still online or...

Commissioner Patel is online. Okay. Commissioner Johnson will be joining shortly.

Very good. Okay.

Excellent.

All right. So alphabetically, Commissioner Garcia.

Aye.

Okay. Commissioner Rivera. Aye. Commissioner Johnson's not here yet. Commissioner Lentami. Aye. Online, Commissioner Patel. Is that yes?

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Peterson? Aye. Commissioner Robertson?

Aye.

Commissioner Steinberg is not here yet. Commissioner Striner?

Aye.

Commissioner Torres? And Commissioner Bagley-Mee, I am an aye. So that's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine ayes. Got that? Excellent. Okay. Thank you so much to staff for doing this. And like I said during the ZOCO hearing, I live very close to the Central Library. When I saw all that being installed and everything, I watched. And it's extremely well used at all hours. And my first concern was that a whole bunch of people would be using the spaces to go play because the park is so full of amenities there. But it's primarily EV charging. So congratulations on that. And we look forward to other things from you in the future. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, would you call our next item?

Our next item for the evening is the Nellie Custis Elementary School Local Historic District Designation Request. Our staff persons for the evening are Michael Durack and Lauren Farris.

Good evening.

Thank you for your time. My name is Lauren Ferris. I am the supervisor of the Arlington County Historic Preservation Program, which conducted the local historic district study for the Nellie Custis Elementary School, located at 750 23rd Street South in the Aurora Highlands neighborhood. Tonight, I'm going to provide the presentation and give you a summary of our findings during that local historic district study. So between April 2024 and May 2026, the Nellie Custis School underwent several review milestones as listed here on the screen. Here is an overview of the property and a potential local historic district boundary for the Nellie Custis School property. And now I'm going to go into a little bit of the history of the property that we discovered during the study. So prior to English colonization, the land that encompasses Arlington County was the border between many indigenous societies with some using it as a seasonal or permanent residence. The Nellie Custis school site traces back to a 1669 land grant. OK. Is that better? A 1669 land grant to John Alexander and later became part of the Custis family Abingdon estate. owned by John Park Custis. During the Civil War, the surrounding area supported Union defenses of Washington, D.C., including nearby Fort Scott, though no military structure stood directly on the property. By the late 19th century, the Custis estate was subdivided into smaller tracts that became the planned Aurora Highlands Community, established in 1896. Development accelerated in the early 20th century, particularly after Henry C. Morris began subdividing and building the area in 1915. When the Nellie Custis School opened in 1924, the area was still developing with additional civic and community institutions emerging in the following decades. So the Nellie Custis School reflects broader developments in Arlington's public school system. which evolved from early free school legislation to a formal county-wide system by 1870. By the early 20th century, Aurora Highlands fell within the Jefferson Magisterial District and had Mount Vernon and Hume schools for white children and Scott and Jefferson schools for black children. Rapid population growth after World War I prompted a 10-year construction plan. And in 1922, the consolidation of three district boards into a single county-wide board helped streamline expansion

including the construction of Nellie Custis School.

In 1921, the Jefferson Magisterial District School Board purchased property from Aurora Highlands developer, Aurora Hills developer for the construction of a school. In 1922, Superintendent Fletcher Kemp identified the need for a new two classroom school in the Virginia Highlands area. The school was constructed by Frank Davis Company, and was likely designed by the architectural firm Upman and Adams. So during the 1920s, the architectural firm Upman and Adams were the primary architects for Arlington County Public Schools. And strong circumstantial evidence indicates they also designed Nellie Custis School. The building's two-story form, central entrance, horizontal massing, And cologne and revival style closely matched the firm's documented school designs from the same period. Between 1924 and 1926, Upman and Adams designed several other county schools, including Barcroft Elementary and Washington Lee High School. And they were also responsible for notable regional projects, such as Rixkey Mansion, Chevy Chase Theater, and the Longworth House Office Building. So construction of the school began in 1924 and the school was named after Eleanor Parknelly Custis. The school opened on December 8th, 1924, serving white students during Arlington's era of segregated public education. Black students attended the nearby Jefferson School, which is now Hoffman Boston Elementary. The building was expanded in 1931 with four additional classrooms and again in 1962 with major west and rear additions as the county responded to population growth. Although Arlington began desegregating its schools in 1959, Nellie Custis was among the last elementary schools to integrate in 1971 and 1972. So by the late 1960s and 1970s, declining enrollment led the school board to consider consolidation, despite continued property expansions and building improvements. Community efforts to preserve the school through a joint use library proposal were ultimately unsuccessful. On December 6th, 1978, Arlington County School Board voted to close the Nellie Custis School, transferring students to Abington Elementary. In 1979, the County School Board approved transferring the Nellie Custis School property to the county, which subsequently conveyed it to the Shelter Occupational Center of Northern Virginia, which I'll reference as SOC. The county exchanged the property for a property in Ballston, a use permit, and 350,000 in federal community development block grant funds for renovations, which SOC supplemented by $200,000. The county retained a 0.8 acre landscaped buffer, now Nellie Custis Park, and between 1980 and 1983, SOC renovated the building, including constructing an entrance addition and used the facility for nearly 40 years as an employment and training center for people with disabilities before rebranding as Linden Resources and later merging with Melwood Horticultural Training Center. The Nellie Custis School was designed in the colonial revival style, which was popular from the 1890s and the 1950s. Architectural details that exist include its two-story form, horizontal massing, its brick veneer and five-course American bond, the flat roof, the lower and upper limestone belt courses, and the protruding brick belt course at the raised basement level. Alterations include the 1962 rear and west addition, the 1995 front elevation addition to create the new entrance and gabled skylights, the replacement of all the windows and exterior doors, the use of modern brick infill to accommodate smaller replacement windows, the removal of the 1924 central main entrance, and interior changes. So the next couple slides, I'm going to show the site plan of the property. which indicates some of the different changes that I just referenced in the years that they were done. And then here are a couple of photographs of the school so you can get a sense of the setting, the front of the property, side elevation, the rear, the rear that also includes the 1962 edition, So going to the statement of significance, historic preservation program staff presented their findings to the HLRB on March 18th, 2026, to assess whether the property met at least two of the 11 Arlington County zoning ordinance designation criteria. Staff defined the Nellie Custis School's period of significance as 1924 to 1978, and that it was eligible under criterion A as a contributing resource to the Aurora Highlands National Register of Historic Places Historic District. Historic preservation staff concluded that the building did not meet the threshold to meet at least two of the 11 Arlington County zoning ordinance designation criteria and did not recommend it for designation. Historic preservation staff reviewed the 11 Arlington County zoning ordinance designation criteria and used the Secretary of Interior Aspects of Integrity to help guide and support its analysis. Applying this framework helps ensure the evaluation is consistent and aligned with acceptable professional practices. Using this framework, historic preservation staff determined that the building retains integrity of location, setting, and feeling, but lacks integrity of association, design, materials, and workmanship. In addition to the historic preservation staff study findings, the HLAB listened to the property owner, public testimony, and reviewed over 80 public comments. After extensive discussion, the HLRB passed a motion stating that the Nellie Custis School met two of the 11 designation criteria as necessary to send a local historic district recommendation to the County Board. The vote was seven yes, four no, and one abstention. The HLRB recommended that the property met criteria A, as a contributing resource to the Aurora Highlands National Register of Historic Places Historic District, and K, for the property being suitable for preservation or restoration. Further, the HLRB made the period of significance to 1924 and 1931 and included that future design guidelines protect those specific sections of the building. So historic preservation staff disagrees with the HLRB's proposed 1924-1931 period of significance and use of criterion K. HPP staff evaluated the property as it exists today, and recommended a broader period that reflects its full historical evolution. The 1924-1931 timeframe implies the building's altered state retains sufficient integrity, which staff does not support due to the extensive alterations. Additionally, the speculative nature of restoration does not represent a reliable preservation strategy. Although the ordinance allows designation based on meeting two criteria, Moving forward without property owner consent calls for a higher level of justification than the minimum standard alone provides. While regulatory authority can enforce preservation, outcomes are stronger when balanced with property rights. Accordingly, staff recommends considering designation without owner consent only when a property satisfies multiple, preferably most of the 11 criteria. Lastly, as a local historic district designation would undermine the extensive engagement process for both the GLUP study that was accepted by the County Board in 2024 and the County Board approved site plan in 2025. So tonight, the Planning Commission will determine if they support or oppose the Nellie Custis School local historic district designation. After tonight's meeting, the designation request will be considered by the County Board at their June public hearing. And that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Madam clerk, before I have you call the public speakers, we do have a number of speakers this evening and we are aware that there's a lot of stress in the world and we pride ourselves here in the Planning Commission on very thoughtful, for the most part, discussions and civility. So I will ask that everybody be respectful, whether the opinion is shared by you or not. And as chair, I do hold the final say if I feel that I need to give an adult time out there. So having said that, Madam Clerk, please let us know our speakers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A side note as well. For the speakers that are online, please pay close attention. There will be a clock displayed. Most of the speakers online, you will have two minutes to speak. And otherwise, I'll know whether or not it's two minutes and you'll see the time on the screen. For those in the audience as well, there will be a clock display with two minutes or three minutes. And for those that are representing committees and commissions, as well as the property owner, Ms. Puskar, you will be called to speak after all public testimony. Thank you. With that being said, we'll do our virtual speakers first. Our first speaker is Rekha Ayala, followed by Allison Rosa. And please remember to turn on your own mic and camera. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rekha Aylor and I live in Aurora Highlands and I'm actually directly across the street from the Nellie Custis School. So if you've driven by the school, you'll see my house that's right on the corner of 23rd and Grant Street. I've written a few letters over the years to the County Board and then more recently to the Historic Board. And I just wanted to read through my summary of some of what I've said throughout the years. I just want to clarify that I am speaking in support of the local historic district designation for Nellie Custis. So I'll proceed from there. As one of the residents most directly affected by decisions about this property, I care deeply about its future. Nellie Custis is nearly a century old and represents an important part of Arlington's history and the character of Aurora Highlands. Once it's demolished, that history is gone forever. When I purchased my own home, which is a nearly 100 year old home across the street, I chose to preserve and modernize it rather than tear it down because I believe historic structures contribute to the identity of our neighborhood. I believe Nellie Custis deserves the same consideration. After reviewing the evidence, the Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board went over what was just went over by the last presenter, the historic designation. To me, that recommendation reflects that there is judgment from Arlington County's preservation expert that the building does possess some historic significance worthy of protection and further consideration. I also believe it's important to remember that what we're speaking about here and what we're not. So the question is not whether affordable housing is important. I think we can all agree that it is. The question is whether historically significant buildings should be demolished before preservation and adaptive reuse options have been fully considered. Historic designation does not determine the ultimate future of this site. It simply just ensures that Arlington carefully establishes those options before allowing an irreplaceable community asset to disappear. I respectfully ask the planning commission to support the local historic district designation and recommend that the county board do the same. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Allison Rosa, followed by Bernie Byrne.

Hi, good evening. There's a lot of information out there, and it's a hard one to follow, but I was originally a student at Nellie Custis, and as a former student, and I still live in the neighborhood just up the hill on 23rd Street, in fact, and as a former student, the building holds personal meaning for me. But my support's not really just for Nassau, support of it being designated a historic district, but it's not just as nostalgia. The building's part of a significant historic building, civic building, and it deserves the protection because of what it tells about our community. There's the building itself, and I'd say the pictures that were shared really don't do it justice because the backside is pretty unattractive, and it always was, and that playground was hideous even when I was a kid. But even Melwood's done a beautiful job of incorporating the evergreen that's in the front that's giant and huge, and that I remember looking out in fourth grade at the windows, you know, looking out the big windows in the front and loving that evergreen. And they light it up every Christmas. It's part of our neighborhood. What's being designed or what's in design just wipe out. It won't look like anything other than a really large structure. And I don't think it's within the keeping of the neighborhood and certainly not in the flavor of that street at all. So, I mean, it's, I just feel like we should be considering it as a historic building, which it is. And I think it's already been, I think that the planning commission or the historic commission, I'm not sure, I'm not really keeping up with all of the ins and outs, but they've already said their piece and, you know, I'm in support of it. And I really hope that you all agree. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Bernie Byrne, followed by Carl Allen. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. This is about spelling. The county's advertised name for this historic district is Nellie Custer Elementary School, with the word Nellie spelled as N-E-L-L-Y. However, this advertiser misspells the first word of that name. Despite a comment that I made, when the county board first considered advertising the item. The following six documents, which are historic documents mostly, spell the first word of the school's name as N-E-L-L-I-E, not Y. These are, one, a photograph of the school entitled, quote, Nellie Questis, 1930, two and three, a 1936 Sanborn fire insurance map, and a 1940 Arlington County street map that identified the building as, quote, Nellie Custis Public School. Four, a 1971 document the Arlington School Board authored entitled, quote, Architectural Report on the Aurora Hills Library, Nellie Custis Elementary School, Consolidation Study. Five, a 1999 Arlington Historical Magazine article that the Arlington Historical Society published, which states, quote, Nellie Custis was closed for several years after it had been renovated in 1975. Six, the Arlington Historical Society's current webpage on the Yume School, which states that the Nellie Custis Elementary School was built in 1928 and held almost 300 students. All of these spelled the name N-E-L-L-I-E. Or in addition, there was this one that you just saw, which actually said that spelling. Please therefore recommend that if the county board approves this designation, it should spell the first word in the school's name as N-E-L-L-I-E, not as N-E-L-L-Y.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carl Allen, followed by Rachel Hicks.

Yes, thank you. My point on this is very simple. I think you have an opportunity tonight to not only preserve a building that enhances the neighborhood, but also significantly impacts on the quality of the services provided to these special needs students. That at present, you walk down the street and anyone looking at the building says, oh, this is a school. A student going into the building realizes that this is their place, their school. It is a school. If we tear it down and put in a housing project, someone will look at it and say, oh, this is a housing project. The students will walk into one floor of a housing project that happens to be where their facilities are located, but it's no longer their school. And I think that particularly for this population is significant. So when you change the character of the building, you're going to be impacting on the character of the education and the quality of the education that these students will do. So I think what you have in your hands now is an opportunity to preserve a building that speaks to the students and says, this is your place. You're important. We are going to focus on you. And I think that's particularly true as we look at Melwood. I mean, they're rapidly expanding. And this is a tough task. They've already had one partner who they had to fire. So you're going to be very disruptive for the construction period of time, at the end of which you're going to have a building that's no longer a school and will not feel special to the students there. So I think you have a chance to preserve the historic use of this building and what it says to the students who walk through the front door. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rachel Hicks, followed by Jeffrey Williams.

Do we have Rachel Hicks on the line?

Okay, we'll come back to her. Mr. Williams will be followed by Dan Alban.

Mr. Williams, can you turn your mic on, please?

There's a button.

I'm Jeffrey Williams, and I've lived in Arlington since 1963. I support Melwood's proposal to replace the Nellie Custis School Building with housing for adults with disabilities and residents with lower incomes. Having seen Arlington change over many decades, I do not believe nostalgia should prevent our community from addressing present and future needs. Preservation should serve residents rather than protect buildings for their own sake. I agree with HPP's conclusion that the Nellie Custis School lacks the architectural integrity needed to qualify as historically significant, and I note that staff do not recommend local historic district designation. At the March 18th HALRB, the chair said the board would exclude from their deliberations that the property owner opposed LHD and the approved affordable housing site plan. Although HALRB did not approve local historic district designation for the full site, it did approve a revised designation covering only the 1924 and 31 portions of the building. Designating a portion of the building as local historic district would create major uncertainty for the approved Melwood affordable housing site plan. It will block the approved plan from moving forward. It requires HLRB to develop new design guidelines before any changes can proceed and leaves unresolved how the non-historic portions of the site can be developed. Yet very important questions remain unanswered. Who will pay to restore and preserve the 1924-31 building under design guidelines that have yet to be written? Does the county intend to acquire the property and fund the work? the county must take into account these factors that were excluded from the HALRB deliberations. Melwood should also be commended for echoing the school's original entrance in the new 23rd Street facade. That approach preserves the spirit of the building while thoughtfully reinterpreting altered features in a contemporary design. Please do not approve the local historic district nomination for the Nellie Custer School. Instead, allow the Melwood project to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dan Albin, followed by Meg Tosillo.

Hello, I'm Dan Albin. I've lived in Arlington for 20 years and I've seen a lot of change in that time, although I wouldn't say any of it was things that could have been designated historic. I sure miss what Clarendon used to be like with all the Vietnamese Pho restaurants and a little hole in the wall businesses. And those things were an important part of Arlington. But Arlington changes, and it's important that we allow Arlington to change and the property owners to change the uses of property. Just because something is old does not mean it is historically significant. The Custis School Building has been modified so many times that there is very little left of what anyone would want to preserve as historic. And that's one of the reasons that no one suggested until 2024, when Melwood was considering redevelopment, that it be preserved historically. And let's be clear, that was not because of this great interest that had been bubbling up for years in preserving the historical Nellie Custis School. It is a disingenuous use of historical preservation to prevent redevelopment and stop housing by neighbors who don't want the housing to go through. Now, the Arlington County Board already approved the development a year ago, but this is a last ditch attempt to stymie that. And the property owner has said that if this historical designation goes through, it will not make the development viable. That is something very important to consider because the property owner should really receive a precedence here. When only one or maybe two criteria are satisfied, I think the commission should really look at what the property owner wants to do. And that's importantly because criteria K would only be satisfied if the property owner actually decided to do all of the things that the NALRB said they would do. But that is not the plan, and this commission and Arlington County should not override that. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Meg Tosillo, followed by Anne Ohmschneider.

Good evening. I'm Meg Tosillo. I'm a member of Nova Catholic Community, part of VOICE, and retired APS assistant superintendent. Nellie Custis, like other Arlington Elementary schools at the time, offered very limited services to students with disabilities, and especially those with significant disabilities, were not offered support or services in the building but were sent elsewhere, out of the community further away. A wide range of services and accessibility issues were not fully addressed in APS until after this school closed. This is the history we would be preserving by reviving the limitations and non-welcoming of individuals with disabilities that previously existed. Is this the history that we want to proudly preserve The historic preservation program determined the building does not retain enough architectural integrity to convey the historic significance. I would suggest we add moral integrity to the list of qualifications to consider. Moral integrity. The right thing to do. To provide affordable units for individuals previously excluded in the history of Nellie Custis.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Anne Olmschneider followed by Camilla McAfee.

Good evening. My name is Anne Olmschneider and I've lived in Arlington for 50 years. I encourage the Commission to reject historic designation for the Melwood site. Arlington's need for affordable housing is more important than recognition of a historic footnote. The opportunity to add 105 committed affordable units is too important to pass up. The plan has the added benefit of including units set aside for people with disabilities. I have observed many families who face the daunting challenge of finding homes for adult members with disabilities. Parents who are able to care for children at home when they are young worry about what will happen when they themselves are gone. Two of my friends had a son who was born with severe disabilities. They supported his care and development through childhood with the support of excellent school and community services. When he became an adult, They were able to place him in a small group home in an Arlington neighborhood. That group home had faced strong opposition from neighbors when it was proposed, but eventually it became an accepted part of the neighborhood. Six residents have a place to call home where they are safe and supported. The story of the group home shows how Arlington can accommodate people. from many backgrounds and experiences. Approving the Melwood plan will bring Arlington a step closer to realizing its vision of being a welcoming, inclusive community. 30 more people with disabilities can find safe homes by renting the units set aside for them. Okay. And they will have Melwood services. Thanks.

Thank you. Camilla McAfee is followed by Larsa Cutts.

Good evening, Chair Bagley, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Camilla McAfee. I'm the president and CEO of Wesley Housing. For more than 50 years, Wesley Housing has built, preserved, and operated high-quality, affordable housing across the greater Washington region. Our mission is more than just building the housing, though. We aim to build up lives as well. by creating stable, inclusive communities and connecting residents to supportive services that help them to thrive. That commitment to access and opportunity has brought Wesley and Melwood together. We deeply admire Melwood's decision to make its private property available to help address Arlington's affordable housing crisis, particularly for people with disabilities. Their vision aligns with Arlington County's own vision to be a diverse and inclusive world-class urban community. Together we can create a disability forward, excuse me, a disability forward mixed use development that provides modern program space for Melwood's operations and 105 new service enriched affordable homes located in a transit accessible high opportunity neighborhood. As you know, multiple experts have concluded that the Nellie Custis School is not worthy of designation. The county's own historic preservation program staff concluded that the school building does not retain sufficient architectural integrity to recommend the property for local historic district designation. A local historic district designation would threaten a multi-year public planning process and jeopardize an impactful development that advances affordability, accessibility, inclusion, and economic vitality against the wishes of the property owner. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission reject the proposed Local Historic District designation for the Nellie Custis Elementary School and allow this important project to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Larissa Kotz, followed by Lee Clark.

Hi, good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Arlington County Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Larissa Kautz, and I'm the President and CEO of Melwood. More importantly, I'm the mom of a child who is autistic and the daughter of two parents that had significant invisible disabilities. Since 1963, Melwood has been working to create a world where people with disabilities are fully included. Community partnerships are central to our work. We're so proud and excited to partner with Wesley Housing to transform our 23rd Street property into a new state-of-the-art building, including affordable, accessible, mixed-use housing and continued services and programs for people with disabilities. This builds on a long-standing legacy. For decades, this site has supported employment and independence for people with disabilities. Housing remains one of their biggest challenges. It's now time for the next chapter for this property and for a development that will grow with Arlington. When complete, this community will provide 105 affordable homes for people with and without disabilities, including working families. It will also feature 17,000 square feet of updated program space. I want to be clear, 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. The HLRB recommendation followed a lengthy debate and resulted in a split vote. Designation would make this project financially and logistically unfeasible, effectively stopping it. We respectfully ask you to continue Arlington's leadership and reject the historic designation recommendation and allow this project to move forward. We're not trying to demolish history. We're trying to create history. We're trying to continue Arlington's commitment to affordability, accessibility, inclusion, and economic vitality. We need to position Arlington as a national leader in disability-forward inclusive housing. This type of development only exists in under 10 places right now in the country, and we'd like to make this the next site. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lee Clark, followed by Susan English.

My name is Lee Clark, and I realized driving over here tonight that my dad went to Nellie Custis in the late 30s for a couple of years. I'm here to ask you to oppose the historic designation application for Nellie Custis School. This is an inappropriate tactic to derail an important project which will provide more than 100 affordable housing units and social services to vulnerable and underserved groups. The county board approved this project almost 18 months ago. It should be built. The structure at 750 21st Street is no longer the school building my dad went to. The original entrance and cantilever canopy were demolished. The original multi-pane windows were replaced with modern aluminum frames. The original interior was gutted. The current building is a shell of its 1931 self with unsympathetic additions and features from the 60s and 90s added on. This property wasn't considered historic in 1962 or in 1978 or in 1993 or in 2018 or even in 2025. We must ask, Why was it suddenly submitted for historic designation in March of 2026? The answer is clear. Solely to prevent Melwood from building affordable housing on their property at 750 23rd Street. I can't accept that. I hope that you will not either. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Susan English, followed by Pamela Van Hines.

Good evening and thank you. I'm a 43 year resident of Arlington Ridge, eight blocks from Melwood. I've been a guest of Melwood often to vote. My husband served 10 years there as an elections officer. I appreciate the county historic preservation staff's thorough report as well as the Arlington Historical Society's deep knowledge of neighborhood history, both official and unofficial. However, Not only does the current building not meet the qualifications for historic designation, which its owner never desired nor requested, but clearly it would require many millions of dollars to dismantle 64 years of major alterations and additions to return it to a theoretical original form, at which point it would be unusable by its owner or anyone else. To think about the owner's planned and board-approved redevelopment proposal, I turn to the county's equity lens. Who benefits, is burdened, is missing, how do we know, and what do we do? Who benefits? The new residents who could live close to metro, bus, and jobs, those workers and families who support us, and those who enrich our community life. Who is burdened? Future residents who will have waited nine years commuting from distant places before they could find homes with training here. Who is missing? All who were forced to relocate away from here because they could not wait. How do we know? Melwood and Wesley have records and deep knowledge. The county has years of data. What could we do? The answer is clear. We can grow beyond nostalgia for the past. We can strongly support a solid, heartfelt proposal to provide homes and job skills here in our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Susan English is followed by Pamela, I'm sorry, Pamela Van Hine is followed by Peter Bronis.

Planning Commission Chair, Commissioners, and staff, thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight and for all of your hard work. I'm Pamela Van Hine, a 41-year resident of Aurora Highlands. and a pedestrian advocate. These are my personal comments of support for the draft Nellie Custis School LHD designation report and for my continuing strong support of the Melwood project. The HALRB voted to designate LHD status to the Nellie Custis School, but applied LHD status to only the 1924 and 1931 section of the building. The request for LHC designation should apply to the entire 1924 through 1976 buildings, as was spoken by the staff. Even for the oldest sections that described in detail in the staff report have had significant modifications, including the removal of the original grand entrance to the 1924 building. Second, I strongly agree with and quote Steph's conclusions that only criterion A is a contributing resource within the Aurora Highlands NHRP, but that in contrast, if the Nellie Custer School were evaluated as a standalone property, HPP staff believe that its extensive alterations have compromised its architectural integrity to a degree that would render it ineligible for individual listing in the NRHP. Although the Nellie Custer School building remains an element of the Aurora Highlands neighborhood and Arlington's broader heritage, it does not retain sufficient architectural integrity of association, design, materials, and workmanship related to the period of historic significance. Finally, I want to reiterate my strong support for the Melwood Project which has gone through thorough Arlington approval process. I hope that the Melwood project can finally move forward if the Planning Commission and then the County Board support the recommendations of the staff report and reject the recommendations of the HALRB. This opportunity to provide additional, convenient, accessible, affordable housing, especially for those with neurodivergent disabilities, should not be missed. Let's get this done. Thank you.

Thank you. Peter Broniz is followed by Tarcy Dunlop.

Hello.

Good evening. Thank you to the Commission for the opportunity to speak, and thank you to staff for their thoughtful and exhaustive review of the Melwood site. I enjoyed learning about the history of the neighborhood around my century-old home as I read the full staff report and the associated National Registry entry. What stands out to me about Aurora Highlands in those readings is evolution and adaptation. It was designed as a peripheral community, boasting privacies that today require a super commute from Loudoun County. Evolution and adaptation are particularly visible in the history of the Nellie Custis site. It expanded many times, culminating in the swamping tide of school-age baby boomers. When that tide receded, it transitioned to the critical social service mission that it performs to this day. Now, our community needs Nellie Custis to adapt again, just as it did in 1931, 1962, 1979, 1995, and 2017. Today's challenge is spiraling housing costs, a labor market disrupted by AI and war, and a tax base weakened by remote work and federal whimsy. The proposed redevelopment directly addresses those needs. It would be foolish to compromise that strong affirmative vision for the sake of the site's deeply compromised physical architecture. The Nellie Custis legacy doesn't live in its often modified walls and windows. It's not the tired flooring, drab walls, and exposed mechanical equipment. The historic value of the Melwood site is its legacy of constant adaptation to the evolving needs of the surrounding community. So please do not burden our community with a foolishly compromised redevelopment. Protect the Melwood site's true legacy. Oppose the Nellie Custis School LHD designation and let the site grow and change with us one more time. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Tarsi Dunlop, followed by Greg Dumas.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I am a 15-year resident of 22202, moving between buildings in Pentagon and Crystal City. I witnessed a lot of neighborhood growth and change. I've seen how rents increase year to year in a transit-dense and accessible neighborhood. As a now individual renter and a nonprofit employee, I struggle to be able to stay here. I am a strong proponent of affordable housing and greater equity, a commitment that is written into the principles of Arlington County's draft comprehensive plan in many places. I can appreciate how unique this opportunity is for a facility to have an owner that wants to develop affordable housing, especially deeply affordable units at 30% AMI, with a third of them available for people with disabilities. Opposition to this effort is effectively telling a property owner they cannot do what they would like with their land, which could render this site ineligible for redevelopment. To what end for them? Other entities have concluded this site and this building do not qualify for historical designation status. Many are supportive of affordable housing until it's in their backyard. Loan funds have been secured as well as a federal investment. Delays cost money and drive up costs. Its timeless property had a new and important purpose for this century, providing opportunity and care for vulnerable residents who will benefit from the access Melwood wants to deliver. I do not support the local historic designation. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Greg Dumas, followed by Jason Schwartz.

Shut that off, sorry. Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Greg Dumas. I'm a resident of Aurora Highlands and have lived two streets from the Melwood site for several years. It is a familiar landmark in my corner of the neighborhood. When reading over the HPP staff report on LHD designation, I was surprised to learn how much this building has changed over the years. Others can speak better as to how these changes impact the merits of its proposed historic designation. What I want to speak to is the process. And in the years since Melwood applied for its GLUP amendment, there's been a substantial amount of process. In assembling a history of Melwood's proposal, I counted at least eight commission, committee, and board meetings, a public comment period, a walking tour, multiple engagements between Melwood and my civic association in Aurora Highlands, and more letters between the entities than I can count. This high degree of public scrutiny finally led to the county board approving the GLUP amendment site plan and rezoning last February. I'm concerned by the precedent that could be set if the LHD nomination is approved on the basis of a narrow HALRRB majority at odds with county preservation staff, unwinding years of work from a community partner that has gone through this process in good faith, and imposing a preservation designation on a non-consenting property owner. I've heard a lot of comments throughout Melwood's project process about what my neighborhood wants, but I'm a part of this neighborhood too, and I want Melwood's project to go forward. As you prepare to decide, I ask you to consider who else has a stake in this outcome. The people waiting for an affordable place to call home in Arlington who have not had the same organized institutionalized presence at this table. They will be, I hope, my future neighbors. Please align with HPP staff and recommend rejection of the LHD. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Schwartz, followed by Nicholas Giacobi.

Hi, I'm Jason Schwartz, and so far everyone has said there's almost nothing for me to say because things have been said so eloquently and so amazing. But I do want to take the time to highlight this absolute fire proposal to put this amazing housing here by Melwood and Wesley Housing. This is going to be fully accessible. This is going to be super quiet, not only on the outside, it's surrounded not by major arterial roads or highways, but it's going to be Nice, quiet, calm streets and the interiors are going to have extra sound deadening, which is super, super nice. This is going to be extremely dignified housing. So it's absolutely awesome. I wish it was bigger. I mean, this site should be maxed out for whatever the wood frame construction is, but OK, maybe the next one will be second. The staff, the experts in the room here said that this is not historic. OK, that should be it. But I really want to echo what has been said about the process This will have taken by the time the first residents move in eight years. That is not good. We really need to take a look and think about what are we doing? What are we doing when we talk about inclusion, equity? Because the words lose meaning when we have this red tape that is dragging down our society. You see what's going on nowadays in our society. You see the divergence in outcomes between people who are increasingly struggling out there and it's horrible. I grew up here and it is very hard out now to find housing. It's really hard to save money. It's hard to really live a fulfilling life because we have these insane processes. I testified at the LRPC that this is something we need to look at for our long-term vision. We really need to look at HALRB and the role of historic preservation because it's a major barrier to housing. And I believe in removing all the barriers I believe in going full send for housing because I want everyone to have a home. Okay, so please reject this and let's move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. Nicholas Giacobi is followed by Scott Donaldson.

Thanks, Giselle. Commissioner Bagley, members of the commission, I'm Nick Giacobi. I live around the corner from Melwood. I urge you to support the decision that was made by the HALRB. The county board has charged them with the role of examining the arlington county zoning zoning ordinance and after a lengthy discussion they reviewed it and they did their work and they came to the conclusion that the building was worthy of preservation i submitted comments and i want to point out that a lot of other people have submitted comments as well i go to a lot of these meetings as you as you know um and a lot of times people are counting you know how many are in favor how many spoke in favor how many against and it's often a referendum so i encourage you also to look at the written comments, because there are tens of written letters out there. There are about 300 people who have signed a petition on change.org, and there are various organizations, civic associations, and others representing thousands of Arlingtonians who've also weighed in on this. So one thing I want to admit, Nellie Custis School, spelled with a Y, spelled with an IE, it's not a grand estate. It's not a mansion. It's not a notable theater. It's just an everyday civic building that reflects the lived history of Arlington. The good, the bad, the ugly, it's all there. Generations of our children have attended that school, and that was where our community identity was found. Unfortunately, we have lost far too many of those touchstones with the past. The HALRB decided that it's worthy of preservation, and this can be one of those touchstones. They preserved a portion of it, recommended preserving a portion of it. I encourage you to support the HALRB. because this can be one of those places where it's a touchstone. We talk about creating place. This is a good basis to create place, and it will be a great place for people to live. And adaptive reuse is one of the things we're doing a lot of around the county, and this is a great opportunity. So I urge you to support the HLRB, tireless volunteers who work as hard as the Planning Commission does. Thank you very much.

Excuse me, thank you. Our next speaker is John Musso. Followed by Alice Hogan.

Good evening members of the Planning Commission. John Musso, Government Affairs Manager at the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Arlington Chamber, I wish to urge you all to please recommend the denial of the local historic designation before you tonight. This designation, if adopted, would go against both Arlington County precedent and against the determination of county staff, as mentioned earlier this evening. It would also negatively impact Melwood's already approved redevelopment project, which we all know was unanimously recommended by you all last February. A local historic designation should not be sought without the agreement of the property owner, and Melwood has not, in this case, consented to such a designation. We ask that you please recognize and honor this longstanding county precedent of not moving forward with such a designation without that consent. Additionally, this property has undergone substantial modification, as mentioned earlier, over four decades of private use. Some staff, professional staff, have determined that it does not meet the requisite integrity typically required of such a designation. Given the unanimous in the Planning Commission's case support of this ultimate redevelopment project at this site, we believe that enacting this designation post zoning approval without owner consent and without consideration of the impact such a designation would have would risk compromising a project such as this. And it would also potentially set forward a negative precedent for other projects that could be subject to such designation in the future. So we urge you as planning commissioners to recognize, again, the considerable value of Melwood that you all recognized when you supported this project last February and ultimately reject designation here. Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Alice Hogan, followed by Scott Donaldson.

good evening planning commissioners staff owner developer arlingtonians it's great to be here together my name is alice hogan i am the arlington director for the northern virginia affordable housing alliance and we enthusiastically support the redevelopment of the melwood property on 23rd street south navaja strongly opposes any special designation of this property And we hope that the Planning Commission will also oppose the designation. As many have mentioned, Melwood is the property owner does not want this historic district designation. They would like to further their mission by providing affordable homes on the site where their daily clients come for job training. The building's designation as a contributing resource to the Aurora Highlands Historic District is only due to the context of the overall neighborhood. not the significance of any specific building. When evaluated under its own merits, the integrity of this existing building is compromised to such a degree that it is rendered ineligible for listing on the National Registry. The county's own historic preservation staff professionals did a deep research project, an extensive report that you have before you this evening, and they concluded that the Millwood property and the building itself are not suitable for designation. An independent historic preservation analysis was also contracted, and they deemed as well that this property is unsuitable for designation because too many changes have been made over many, many years. This designation would make Millwood's project financially and logistically infeasible, effectively preventing the redevelopment altogether. In the last 80 years, this property was never nominated for specific preservation or any historic designation, until 2024 when the Melwood Prop proposal began. The Melwood proposal has already been fully vetted in over 20 community meetings to include the input and values of the community. The design that is put forth includes many features to reflect the original structure and entrance, which no longer exist on the site today. What an enhancement to have a new building with this mission that actually brings back the historic look that is now missing on the site. As we've heard, the county board already approved this redevelopment in 2025. The developer just won the Arlington's NOFA for $11 million of loan funds to help finance this redevelopment. U.S. Senators Kaine and Warner also were able to designate a half a million dollars for this redevelopment. And the list goes on. Arlington wants and needs affordable units at 30% AMI. And with just over 100 new affordable units, a full third of them will be reserved for adults with disabilities who will receive on-site support services from Melwood as well as our stomping ground. Melwood should be able to modernize its facilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Scott Donaldson, followed by Stacey Mayer.

I'm from Marlington.

Here to speak on behalf of the Nellie Custis Historic District. This former school building has stood in our community over a hundred years. Building structure is super solid, both inside and out, and should not be entirely demolished in total. It is the only historic building left in the Royal Highlands. No one argues the importance of affordable housing, but our history doesn't have to be destroyed in the process as well. Both preservation and rework can be done. Adaptive reuse of this building for portable housing is attainable and certainly is more environmentally friendly and reuse is much more in line with community action plan recently adopted. And as a building contractor, I can speak with some authority on that. The HALRB has carefully reviewed the property and its historic history and agreed with many local orgs, civic associations that the historic district should be approved. Please, please listen to the HALRB and community and approve this historic district.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Stacey Mayer, followed by Rachel Hicks.

Hello, I'm Stacey Meyer, the president of the Aurora Highlands Civic Association. Thank you for allowing us to speak tonight. When the Melwood project was proposed way back in 2022, our civic association immediately, nearly unanimously raised concerns about the scale and the impact of the historic district and the park. In response, we did what the county asked us to do. We participated in the process. And we proposed an alternative envelope, which is complementary to what this local historic district is proposing. It preserves the 1932 building, respects the park, and still allows a substantial amount, nearly 80,000 square feet of redevelopment. It's not no development. It never has been. It's a better development. When the county board approved the upzoning, it became clear that the normal planning process was not going to protect the historic resource. That's why this local historic district application exists. It continues the discussion we had already had about historic preservation. This is a textbook example of adaptive reuse. As we sent in many examples that we sent you and photographs of the site, I hope that you were able to review those. The form of the building is obviously there. Its brickwork is in excellent shape. The windows were replaced within the existing masonry openings. And the additions were tacked on. They can be taken off. So like the alternative envelope, the historic district protects what's historically significant while allowing redevelopment to move forward. Thousands of people in the community support the application, as Nick said. HLRB, including all four past chairs, support this application. And it's the kind of compromise that even Wesley Housing, we found, had appeared to contemplated in dialogue back with Virginia Housing back in 2024. And as Alice said, this financial $11 million that Arlington is putting into this project will go a long way to making a better project that's feasible with local historic district and keeping the existing building. So I respectfully ask that you approve the local historic district and help preserve a place because once lost, it can't be replaced. Thank you.

Rachel Hicks.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, please notice the time clock on the screen.

It's not visible to me online, but that's okay. I trust that you will cut me off appropriately.

I sure will.

Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Rachel Hicks and I was the previous president of the Aurora Highland Civic Association and I used my, oh, I can see the clock now. Thank you. I draw upon the feedback of the members I received over the last two years as president As I make these comments, I would like to highlight that in today's discussion, what matters most of all is the importance of community. We are all here to be heard because we are passionate. And although there are differences among us, I'm so grateful to live in a place where the rule of law is respected. And it is so essential that those who've been elected and appointed uphold the rule of law. Here we are at a time when many clamor that there are differences among us that are insurmountable, but I know that the Arlington Way is alive and well, and I hope that it will follow through today as this Planning Commission votes. The Arlington Way is one of compromise, and here we see that Melwood and Wesley Housing already anticipated this. They presented a plan to the Aurora Highland Civic Association preserving the building. They also talked about this plan with the Virginia Housing Commission. They planned to preserve part of the building. they anticipated that this compromise was coming. For that reason alone, I think it is disingenuous. Well, that might be too strong of a word. I think it is difficult to square what we've heard today. Additionally, the environmental impacts are great. The tree at the front of this building is a hallmark of the community. And with the recent development around Crystal House, much of the mature trees have been sacrificed in this area for affordable housing. There's a balance needed here. Additionally, Community needs this resource. It was donated to the county for school use because this area needed community space. Although equity has been discussed, equity is not one of the listed principles we should look at. It is historic. There is incredible vacancy in the Crystal House community two blocks away, which already has a contract with our stomping ground, which was announced in 2022, which already is planning resources for the population this building is intended to serve. Additionally, there's been concerns from the community about how this building will meet the needs of the individuals in the building being over two miles away or being over a mile away from the grocery store. We respectfully ask that you uphold this historic designation and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Steinberger, do you have a HALRB report?

I don't believe that I do.

I am here as the chair and I do.

Yeah, I think HLRB is going to speak on their own behalf. I don't, sorry.

Okay, no worries.

I don't think so.

Yes, Ms. Myers, please excuse me. Please go. Great, thank you.

And I just wanted to confirm, do I have? Excuse me, ma'am. Sorry, sorry. I'll turn that mic off. Madam Chair, we actually have three committee commissioners to represent, if I may say. We have Audrey Krimmer, we have Katie Myers, and we have Kathy Puskar for the property owner. Awesome. Thank you.

Okay. So do you want to call them in the order that you just said?

I would.

Thank you.

Thank you. And since we're already on virtual, we'll go with Audrey Krimmer and Katie Myers will follow. Thank you.

Okay. I am Audrey Kramer and I'm a Commissioner on the Arlington Commission on Aging and I chair the Housing Committee. And I want to say first off that we support the redevelopment of Melwood. As you have heard from many people, Arlington is in need of affordable housing and we are in need of the employment training that Melwood provides. The training alone is not sufficient to create an inclusive environment. where clients with disabilities can work and live given the cost of housing. Melwood's redevelopment will provide 105 apartments for people with disabilities and for people living at very low incomes, ranging from 30% to 60% AMI. This redevelopment will also provide much needed family housing with 60% of the units being two bedroom and 21% being three bedrooms. So that's 63 units and 22 units suitable for families. Of the affordable units, the 105, fully a third of them will be reserved for adults with disabilities, and they will receive the onsite support services from Melwood, as well as our stomping ground to keep them healthy and safe. Just a few more points that people have made and I want to just reiterate, Melwood as the property owner does not want this historical designation and they want to continue their mission by providing affordable homes on the site where their clients come daily for job training. The county's own historic preservation staff did in-depth research and came back and concluded that the property and building itself are not suitable for such a designation. This project has been vetted by 20 community meetings to include the input and values of the community. The design includes many features to reflect the original structure and entrance, which no longer exist today at all. The redevelopment has already received significant funding from the county board and the federal government. The project is ready to be developed and has been waiting for years. If adopted, an historic designation of this building would make the project financially and logistically infeasible, effectively preventing the redevelopment altogether. As a result, the Commission on Aging does not support the historic designation of Fennelly Custis School, and we believe that Melwood should be allowed to pursue their mission on their own property to benefit both those with disabilities and others living far below the average median income who cannot find suitable housing in Arlington. Thanks for the opportunity to express our support of the redevelopment of the Millwood property.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Myers, followed by Kathy Puskar.

Thank you. OK, if you can put up my figures that I sent in, that would be great, but if not, that's fine as well. My name is great. Thank you. My name is Katie Myers. I'm the chair of the Historical Affairs and Landmark Review Board, and I'm here to explain why the HLRB recommended that the 1924 and 1931 portions of the Nellie Custis School be designated a local historic district and why we believe that the LHD recommendation deserves your support. And you'll see the 1924 and 1931 portions of the building are here in yellow and blue. So it's quite a small portion of the site. First, why does the historic school qualify? After extensive review, public testimony and deliberation, the HLRB voted to recommend designation because we found that the historic school met two of the criteria established in Arlington County zoning ordinance. It's a contributing resource within the Aurora Highlands National Register Historic District already, and the school is suitable for preservation and restoration. The Historic School is a colonial revival building located in the heart of Aurora Highlands, and it's served as a defining feature of the neighborhood for over a century. It serves as a reminder of both the positive and negative aspects of Arlington's educational history. It's been a visual and spatial anchor to its historic neighborhood, and it's an opportunity for preservation and restoration. The original portions of the building retain many defining characteristics that make colonial revival architecture so enduring. A formal symmetrical composition, brick veneer construction, limestone detailing and belt courses, and a strong civic presence that reflects the architectural ideals of public education in the early 20th century. A key factor in our recommendation was the viability of adaptive reuse. The HLRB heard considerable discussion about whether preservation and redevelopment could coexist, and we believe they can. The 1924 and 1931 school building could be retained while removing the later additions without compromising the historic school, restoring the original central entrance, inserting more historically appropriate windows and doors in the existing original masonry openings, and constructing substantial new additions to the south and west sides of the historic school. And if you want to scroll down so we can see what the 1924 and 1931 building looked like, that's great. You can just leave it there. Many members of the public expressed disappointment that the county never seriously advocated for adaptive reuse here, especially since the developer had considered a renovation slash expansion site plan as one of two options in 2024. I do want to address some arguments raised against designation, including those raised by our historic preservation program staff. First, many people referenced HPP staff's conclusion that the historic school lacks sufficient historic or architectural integrity based on this definition of historic integrity in the National Park Service guidelines. The Arlington County Zoning Ordinance establishes 11 separate criteria for designation. And historic integrity is relevant to some of those criteria, but it's not an independent threshold requirement that overrides everything else. Reasonable people may disagree about the degree of architectural integrity that remains. However, that question is not dispositive here because the HLRB's recommendation rested on criteria A and K. Not on a finding that the building is an exceptional architectural gem. Finally, some have argued that the lack of property owner support should somehow be determinative here. Neither the ordinance nor Arlington's preservation history makes owner consent the deciding factor. at either ATLRB or county board level, nor does the ordinance specify that a property must meet more designation criteria to be designated without property owner support. Although we have not been able to do an extensive study of all LHDs, both Maywood Historic District and the Buckingham Historic District did not enjoy broad property owner support, and they were still designated LHDs. And interestingly, in Buckingham's case, their 30-year affordable housing protections are expiring in a couple years. And now the historic district is the only thing effectively protecting both the historic buildings and existing affordable housing on that site. Throughout Arlington history, historic preservation has been used to protect, not destroy, affordable housing. As was the case with Maywood and Buckingham, often the county needs to make a hard decision to protect an historic resource. even if the property owner has an approved site plan that doesn't contemplate preservation and even if they don't support designation. The question tonight is not whether change should occur on the site. The question is whether change can occur while retaining a significant historic resource that continues to contribute to Arlington's identity. Although historic preservation is often pitted against density and affordable housing, the HLRB and HPP staff continuously strive to make both possible within the context of historic preservation. Recent examples of this are our work on the Barcraft Garden Apartments, which will have additional density and the preservation of existing affordable housing, and the Reevesland Farmhouse, which has been preserved and is being rehabilitated into a shared living home for individuals with disabilities. So we would like the opportunity to do the same with this project. We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to support the HLRB's recommendation for a local historic district designation for the Nellie Custis School to help create a path forward that honors both historic preservation and thoughtful redevelopment through adaptive reuse. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much. This is Pascale.

Good evening. For the record, I am Kathy Puskar with Walsh Colucci, and I'm here tonight on behalf of my clients, Wesley Housing and Melwood. My clients participated in the multi-year Arlington County Special GLUP study process and the 4.1 site plan process, and at the end, obtained approval for a groundbreaking, innovative mixed-use project containing affordable, accessible housing, coupled with programming and services for people with disabilities. To be clear, that project does not include retention of the existing building, despite what you may have heard from others. A local historic district should not be imposed without the owner's consent. Melwood, the owner of this property, does not consent. Our historic preservation consultant provided a thorough study to Arlington County and concluded that the building does not meet two of the 11 criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance and is therefore not worthy of designation. Arlington County historic preservation staff conducted their own research and analysis and concluded that the building is not worthy of designation. And the HALRB had a thorough debate and also concluded that the building was not worthy of designation by a vote of eight to four, only to recommend approval of the designation with another split vote of seven to four to one by reducing the period of significance to a seven-year window between 1924 and 1931. So the picture that was posted during Ms. Meyer's comments was a nice snapshot of a moment in time, of a moment in 1931. But by not including the timeframe between 1931 to 1978, the HLRB failed to account for the impacts of the rear and west additions to the building that were created in 1962 and the 1995 alterations to the main facade, all of which significantly affected the architectural integrity of the original building. It also eliminated any consideration of the school's history post-1931, merely deciding that, one, the property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and two, that the property is suitable for preservation or restoration even though they could not come to consensus on what the word suitable means. We do not agree that two of the 11 criteria in section 11.3.4A6 were met, but even if they were, pursuant to that same section of the zoning ordinance, you retain the authority to not recommend designation. Last year, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the 4.1 site plan after a thorough process, including many, many meetings, and multiple revisions to the design. The Planning Commission determined that the project was consistent with the county's adopted plans and policies, and importantly, the recently approved special GLUP study principles, including principle five, to prioritize affordable, accessible, equitable housing with redevelopment. It is an important factor for consideration. Do not let this nomination thwart the progress that has been made to date. Do not let it stand in the way of what is to come. Do not let it outweigh other county priorities as reinforced through the GLUP study principles. Do not support the local historic district designation. Thank you.

Thank you. That is our last speaker.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, once again for keeping everything on track. What would we do without you? Would not be good. Okay. Having said that, the matter is now in front of us. So are there any questions, comments? Yeah, hold on. Okay. So Commissioner Torres and then Commissioner Steinberger and then Commissioner Peterson.

So I actually went back because I wasn't part of the Commission when this got approved in 2004. And I went back because I was very confused as to why it took two years for this to come back and become an issue. And I was really surprised to see that the fact that it's a historic building just because of its age wasn't really discussed back in 2024. So my question would be, what is the design keeping Because I did see the design, so I don't know if the county can answer that. I mean, I feel like there's not enough information to know what parts of the historic building are being kept. And or is it just being demolished? That's the first thing I would want to know.

Go ahead.

The entire building is being demolished with the approved 4.1 site plan project. However, we did work with the SPRC to interpret the original facade in the new design and to include a historic marker representing the history and architecture of the site. Can I ask you one more question? So you're going to restore, you're going to rebuild the facade? we're going to interpret the facade. So it will be an all new building and we will be interpreting the architecture through that new design, but not replicating it. Are you going to reuse the bricks? I believe there was a request that we look at whether that might be possible, but I believe it's going to be cost prohibitive.

OK. Mr. Steinberger.

Hi. I had a couple questions and apologies if this, you know, you know, did get addressed and I just missed it. My understanding, I've been on the Commission for a bit of time, this is a question for staff, is that it is certainly atypical for an LHD to be established when the site owner is not in support of such a designation. Have we ever made an LHD designation where the property owner itself was not in support?

Thank you for that question. I have to admit, I don't have a comprehensive review of all the local historic districts. We have 44 of them. The one that I think might be the last one where that happened would have been Buckingham Local Historic District. That was nominated in the early 90s, and that was against property owner consent.

And the designation went through.

Yes.

In the early 1990s.

And multiple times in the 2000s, it was expanded.

Buckingham was expanded. Correct.

Buckingham.

So that's one example initially dating back to the 1990s where an owner was opposed to an LHD, but you don't have to sign this answer in blood, but to your knowledge, you don't have another example more recently of that occurring.

No, I don't.

Okay. Can I ask another question? Okay. So I do sort of recall that at the time when we were going through the GLOP and the site plan, there were sort of discussions of sort of in the background of, oh, maybe, you know, there should be a pursuit of a local historic district here, and what would that look like if we were able to pursue that? Why did it take so long to get to now? Because I'm real unhappy with the timeline here, and I'm really struggling with, it's been a while since I served on the HALRB, and I appreciate the good work that the HALRB does. I enjoy being their liaison, and I like the, I think it is important to have a robust discussion around what can and should be preserved in Arlington County as a, you know, long-standing county. And we do have history here and we should, you know, take those things seriously. But I'm really struggling with the timeline on this one and feeling comfortable in any way, shape, or form with what's going on here.

Sure, happy to answer that. So anybody want to refresh my memory? The site plan was approved in February 2025. I think that was the date. So the local historic historic preservation program had a backlog of local historic district applications in its work queue, and typically the program would process those in the order that they are received. And we had three ahead of the application the Melwood Local Historic District designation. We were able to get through two of those. That takes approximately around six months, which we tried our best to stick to that time for at least two of them. A third one was dropped out, and then our study started on this project in October of 2025. And so getting to the timeline when we then were able to get to the HLRB being in March is right around the time when we were at six or seven months. So that's partly why it took so long for you all to hear this local historic district application designation.

OK, and. Can I ask a follow up? Thank you. We have a very lenient chair. She's very nice to me. Thank you. OK, so understanding that timeline when was and I think this was in the materials and I'm just not recalling the date. When was the initial application filed for consideration of LHD for

I believe it was April 2024 and then the was approved in May of 2024. That's my recollection. Okay.

Okay. So I think that that's helpful information. It doesn't change how I feel about the timing, the timeline overall. It does provide some context. I think that where I'm landing with that is that we have a process problem as much as anything else here, because if it's taking that long to be able to have a fulsome discussion on a pending LHD related to an SPRC process that is not moving in sync with the ongoing LHD process, I don't know how we square that. and I fear we're going to be back in this situation again, and I dislike that, because I like to learn from things. So where that kind of leaves me feeling is maybe the resolution to that, and it's not going to get solved tonight, is that if there is an SPRC in the works that could be impacted by a corresponding LHD, that we need to have some sort of a process to pair those things up so they do happen in in the same time frame more or less and not two years apart um because i'm not going to vote to support the local historic district here because we are two years down the line from where we were and i don't feel comfortable backtracking into something you know not because anyone did anything that wasn't appropriate to the process that is established but the process isn't working and i don't think that that is the fault of the applicant on either the folks pursuing the LHD or Melwood as the site owner. So I'm struggling with how we make this better for next time, but I'm not going to undo the fulsome work we've already done to get to this point for the site plan for this site. I don't know if potentially in the future we're in this situation, maybe those pursuing the LHD need to pay an expediting fee to align it to the SPRC, that's just ballparking, or if there needs to be some other way we pair these things up. But the process isn't working. Those are my thoughts. I have no more questions. Thank you.

I'm just going to interject as I remember last year, by the way, I was the one that asked about the BRICS. I do recall In the process of all the SPR season everything that I believe miss Myers had said that the neighborhood had put in the application so we were aware of it at that time it's unfortunate that the there was no concurrence of anything and I will align my. I will align myself with Commissioner Steinberger and that Commissioner Peterson and then Commissioner Torres oh I'm sorry.

So thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you very much to all of the public speakers who have come out here on a Monday night to tell us what you think. It's really important and it is an important part of the Arlington Way. So tonight we heard a lot about the different aspects of the project and I just want to recenter ourselves because tonight really the question that we're asking ourselves is, is this a historic building or not? We are not relitigating the Melwood project, whether it fits in with the neighborhood, the scale of the project, or the environmental impacts. I don't even think this discussion tonight is about the process, though I do agree, Commissioner Steinberger, that the process is not working if there's that long of a delay. And we're not even talking about if we like the project because the Planning Commission has already voted in support of it. We know that we like it. This is about whether the building is historic. Our staff experts use the Secretary of the Interior's Aspects of Integrity and our zoning ordinance to assess the project. This framework is used so we can consistently review projects. They determined that only one of the 11 criteria was met. The usual standard is that at least two criteria need to be met if the property owner is in support of a project. The current owner does not consent to this historic designation. They will not invest the money to restore this building. I respect my colleagues on the HALRB, but I do not agree with the split decision that this site should be designated because two of the 11 criteria were met. Both staff and the HALRB did not find that this property has character, interest, or value to the community heritage or cultural characteristics of the county. Neither staff or HALRB found that this project is a site of local, significant local or state national event. They did not find that the property is associated with a person or persons of who have significantly contributed to the development of our of our area. They did not find that this building is has distinguishing characteristics of architectural style. They did not find that the that the project is a work of. I'm sorry that the building is a work of a master builder architect or landscape architect. They did not find that it is structurally or architecturally significant. They did not find that it is a distinctive location. They did not find that it is utilitarian structure representing the period or style in the commercial, industrial, agricultural development of the county. And they did not find that it has potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of our region. So I... Again, staff experts use their Secretary of the Interior-based framework to assess the historic integrity of this building and using the criteria that I just mentioned. And they did not find that this is historic. Their process was thorough. And so for all of those reasons, I do support the staff recommendation to deny this as a historic district. I'm glad we have this process. I'm glad that we have the ability to review sites so that we can preserve the right projects for our collective benefit. But I do not think this project meets the Secretary of the Interior's integrity guidelines or the zoning ordinance.

Thank you. Commissioner Land, tell me, then Commissioner Garcia.

First, I'd like to go on record of aligning myself with Commissioner Steinberger and Peterson. Totally agree with both of their takes on this. The other thing is I was chair of the special club study process and I attended all of the SBRC meetings that went on for this. The status of this building, the fact that it is 100 years old, was raised at every single step of the way. At almost every single meeting, we discussed this. We went back and forth. very closely drilled the applicant on. Can you keep any of this? Is there any of this salvageable? Can this be done? And we were at the end of the process satisfied that no, it didn't work and that the use that the applicant was planning very much outweighed any possible historic preservation issue on this. It was. very very well vetted this is not a surprise that this was an old building and that the neighborhood loved it and i agree with that i understand why they love it but when it came down to the end we went through all of this constantly and made the decision collectively that this was the better use was what melwood and wesley are proposing here on public policy ground and for the good of the entire county and for the for the underserved people that it is going to be using this facility. So I will be also voting very much to not make this a historic district. Thank you. Commissioner Garcia.

Thank you so much. You know, I thank you, Commissioner Lentelli. I really appreciate you providing that history on the whole process. You know, I, as kind of the president of Arlington Ridge Civic Association participated in some of those meetings. And I appreciate knowing, you know, that extensive effort that was made in order to try to preserve the building. If I recall correctly, you know, there was discussion of keeping the entrance and trying to really take that facade and preserve it. And I appreciate and I think that that was a good effort that was done by the county and the developer to do that. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ALIGN MYSELF WITH COMMISSIONER PETERSON'S COMMENTS. WE ARE NOT HERE TO REASSESS THE DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT. WE ARE HERE REALLY TO DISCUSS THAT FINAL CRITERIA, I THINK, AT LEAST IN MY PERSPECTIVE, OF WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS SUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION. THAT IS THE KEY CRITERIA THAT WAS IN DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN the county staff, the Historic Preservation Program staff, and the Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board. And based on everything that was just conveyed by Commissioner Lantelmi, and based on, I think, the HPP assessment, I think it is hard to argue that it would be suitable for preservation. And more importantly, you know, restoration. I did, however, kind of have a follow-up question for staff. I would like to understand, you know, as another piece of I think that discussion is not all the building was identified by the HALRB. as being, you know, meeting all the criteria. Can you explain a little bit more? I mean, what would that look like if you designate part of it and not the rest? And is that ever the case? Has that been the case in past developments where you would, I guess, parse out some of the building for preservation and restoration and other parts you wouldn't?

Thank you for your question. So to answer the first part, the HLRB during their discussion at the March 18th public hearing and what their motion kind of implied was that they saw the historic significance as the 1924 and 1931 section of the building. the property were to become a local historic district, then staff would need to develop design guidelines. Those are the that's the mechanism that we use in order to be able to be good stewards to that property for all future property owners to be good stewards and adapt any changes to that property. So if this were to be the case, we would have to look at how the 1924 and 1931 section of the building should be appropriately managed and make sure that if there's any new construction that's going to happen would have to be sensitively done so that it would be appropriate to that historic core of the building. To answer your second question, there have been some local historic district properties, plenty actually, a lot of them in Clarendon where there are historic facades or historic building kept and large reconstruction can be built in the back, usually in the rear, maybe to the side. However, I don't know of an example where there was a local historic district where only a portion of the building and then the rest was demolished. But again, there's definitely been examples of adaptive reuse and there has been examples of new construction being compatible with historic architecture.

Can I add a quick follow-up on? So just then, you know, to clarify, so the county would then, I guess, provide kind of guidelines on how the property should be renovated, preserved or restored. And so in this case, right, the existing property, you know, has a number of areas, for example, bricked over. So that would then be incumbent upon the property owner to then do that restoration. I'm understanding and I believe you pointed out in your briefing that that would be not enforceable. Is that an accurate understanding?

That's correct. So when a property becomes a local historic district, we are looking at that building the way that it is, which is why my program looked at it in full. There is no way that we would be able to force the property owner to restore it to a previous time. There is no way that we would be able to enforce them to do a certain level of it. And There could be a situation where what you see of the 1924 and 1931 section of the building would stay like that and then something else could be built behind it or to the side. One key thing I do want to mention though about the examples where we have done stuff like that in Arlington County had those types of projects which are really creative and usually are celebrated. Those would have been properties that the property owner was in favor of that because they would have already been local historic districts. So those properties would have had enough space in order to accommodate new construction and they would have been looking to find a way to have that historic property because they have to because it has the overlay already on it and then be allowed some way to have new construction. So those are some key things to remember with those previous examples.

Thank you so much, Lauren. And I do appreciate, as everyone said, all the hard work of the staff and doing this research and putting together your report.

Thank you.

Commissioner Striner.

Okay, so I want to pull on that thread a little bit more. I mean, we heard from a lot of people in Aurora Highlands and a lot of neighbors across Arlington that have concerns about this project. So I want to make sure that we're really stress testing what is being brought up here. You know, as Commissioner Donatelme alluded to, from our my assessment we did we stress tested every possible angle when it comes to the buildings viability of going forward and sort of repurposing that so the sort of adaptive reuse comment that was something that I was thinking about over the weekend trying to square in my head and it that coupled with my memories of the process coupled with what I'm hearing tonight I don't know if that's necessarily viable but the question here is that is this site a historic historic landmark, an LHD worthy location. And so the HLRB mentioned pieces of architecture on the outside, the brick veneer, different aspects of the building itself. And for staff, this question is for you. In your report, you mentioned that there are limited original materials that are historically significant. Can you speak to why you all came to that conclusion and why HLRB did not. And sort of in terms of like, I guess you can't really speak for HLRB, but on your side of it, you know, why does staff feel that there are such, that the amount of historic materials is so limited that it does not qualify here?

Thank you for that question. And speaking of our approach when we were looking at the building, as in my presentation, there was a list of alterations and I could see that when looking at the property during the GLUP study process, as well as during the site plan. And then when I was fortunate to be able to do an entire historic study, was able to really see the details where it was changed. And with the fact that this school building, when it was constructed in 1924, was actually a very simple building. We say it's colonial revival style, but it was actually very simple. And sometimes when you have let's say you have a limited budget to be able to construct a building, you're going to put probably a lot of emphasis in one section or a couple key details. And one of the things that really solidified my recommendation of this property was the changes to the central entrance. We saw that in the photograph that the HRLV chair had up on the screen, as well as what was in my presentation. That is completely gone. That would have been a big, stylistic elements of that building. And then as I looked at it, I started looking at the windows. Totally see that the windows were changed. Well, there are plenty of instances where we have local historic districts where the windows have been changed. But the more I studied the property, I could see that the fenestration pattern, meaning the type of windows that were there, were completely gone. And then further research, the window sizes were completely altered. The bricks, you see this sometimes in historic buildings where people want to put more energy efficient windows in and they have to reduce the size of that window opening. Every single one of the windows in that building have been altered, the window openings. And there are windows that used to be there that are gone and windows that weren't there before. Then also looking at the fact that you had the very obvious additions. We often have additions on historic properties. However, the thing that threw me the most is the fact that you have the new entrance and that kind of atrium skylight. That was a whole new kind of change that happened in the 80s that, again, just was really not compatible to the building. So those big items alone would very much be a reason why we don't see the historic material there anymore. And another thing historic preservationists like to always say is that the soul of the building or the windows and the doors, those types of elements, the doors have all been replaced too. So what do you have left? You have brick, you have some extra masonry details with the frieze that is closer to the coping, the roofline of the building, some other details that are closest to the foundation, and you have what you can see, a 1924 and 1931 building form. That, to me, is not enough architectural integrity in order to preserve a building in a tangible way. And that doesn't mean that the history of the building is not significant. It doesn't mean that that story isn't something that the community values. In fact, we've learned a lot about this building. But there is the question of, is it appropriate or not for you to preserve a building tangibly to tell that story? And I could not see that. And that was where my stance was professionally.

Yeah, thank you. That fundamental question is what I've been grappling with on this particular issue, and I think that articulates it very well for me. I think one of the other pieces of this that I'm hanging on right now is what is the role of us as the Arlington County government for us to approve something, a specific site plan for this site, and then two years later pull this back, sort of, again, without the consent of building owner and and impose these new restrictions and i again i guess this is more of a civics question and an urban planning question necessarily but you know what does that do to our credibility as a as a government or the credibility of site plans and and if we create this kind of example these are just again it's not really for any response or anybody in particular it's just something i'm struggling with and so um yeah i i think i think this is tough and you know very sympathetic to to the neighbors here in aurora highlands and you know i understand that this this is a this is a building you all have probably walked by thousands and thousands and thousands of times over the course of your lives and and so i understand that argument and uh you know i just hope we can do right by you as best as we can here commissioner this is for staff i know one of the reasons um

sort of the designation as being made is because of Upman and Adams and their involvement. From what I understand, of course, Nellie Clustis was 1924, Liberty High School was 1925, the Lee Center in 1926, the years that they were built. My question for you is for Liberty High School, can you remind me, was that completely demolished when the renovations happened?

So I couldn't find the likely architect of the building for a long time until like the last month of my research. And because of that, I ended up looking at multiple different schools to get a sense of who were the architects. Maybe I could see a pattern, a style. And when looking at Washington and Liberty, I'm sorry, I get all the names mixed up sometimes with the schools. But I'm looking at that and realizing that Adams did build that. The renovations, I believe, really did renovate the building, but so much so that you can't see a remnant of it anymore. That's something sometimes you can get like a sense of what the building was before, but I can't see it anymore. But I don't think I was working for Arlington County at the time when that was being constructed, so I didn't see the process, but it supposedly wasn't completely demolished. but there's nothing left.

But even so, I would wonder, I wonder if, I mean, Arlington County itself didn't seek a designation, right? Perhaps they did keep some of it that doesn't even look like the original one anymore, but they didn't see value as much in it to say, to try to make it be a historical designation of any sort, or am I correct or incorrect in that notion?

Unfortunately, I can't really speak very clearly on that because I don't know all of the discussion, but I do know that there's, I believe that there's been multiple times where there has been discussion of designating the school, especially some of the more modern architecture elements to it. But I don't know the full details of how that came about.

Okay. And then a separate question from that. I saw that a community member sent in sort of information about I'm not recalling the exact person, but about how this historic designation has been sort of imbalanced between North and South Arlington and how some are more approved in North Arlington than in South Arlington. And so I'm wondering, does that have any impact or have you guys taken that into consideration more fully and make this actually more, I suppose, willing to have that historic designation?

I have looked at Different schools from Arlington County that were built at different times and were different styles. I think that we have not really looked to see where there might be a gap of local historic districts within Arlington County. Right now, we're trying to evaluate everything from historic markers that maybe don't that maybe there's like a desert of historic markers. We haven't really considered that for local historic districts, but that's definitely something that we can do or consider in the future. But for this instance, we did not look into that. That would not have been a reason to, in my opinion, compromise what the 11 criteria say about a building as well as trying to use the methodology from the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Right. And it would be irrespective, right? Because it has those 11 elements that you're specifically looking at. I would say maybe this is for future consideration to look into. I understand it doesn't apply in this context, but I do think given that even for Washington Liberty, you can't even, it doesn't even look like any resemblance from the original. even the county itself didn't try to preserve it in a substantial way. So I think it's hard for me to make the leap to say that this building in itself has that sort of historical significance that perhaps we would, that others are asking us to consider. So just thank you for answering my questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Robertson and then me. I've been patiently waiting. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. These are important issues and I do not mean in any way to make light of them. I find myself in violent agreement with all of my colleagues on the dais that this does not deserve a historic designation, but I want to go home and therefore will not speak further.

Okay, I just have a few questions. This is for staff. So with Dr. Byrne's comments, does it matter that Nellie is spelled differently in many places? I'm just curious.

Thank you for that question. And Dr. Byrne and I had a conversation over email about this. And we actually did make an adjustment in our local historic district designation report. which is attachment B, we did make an adjustment because buildings can have different names at different periods of time. And yes, the school did use the spelling of N-E-L-L-I-E. However, we also follow a lot of times, architectural historians, historic preservationists will follow how the property was addressed in other reports. So in the National Register for Historic Places, Historic District nomination form, it is spelled with a Y. In the GLUP study in the site plan, it's spelled with a Y. As well as, I think I even tried to find how Nellie spelled her name. So trying to get a sense of how that name is referenced, we tried to make sure that we pointed out that leading throughout the report, we were going to stick with Y, especially because of these other reports and the fact that it does go back and forth. So we appreciate Dr. Byrne wanting to keep us accountable to the facts.

Yes. Another question. So is this the second oldest still existing structure that used to be a school in the county?

No, it is the seventh oldest.

Okay. And is this the only Older slash historic building in Aurora Highlands neighborhood.

No, Aurora Highlands, the Hume School, which is also the headquarters of the Arlington Historical Society, which is built in the 1890s, is the oldest school in that neighborhood.

Because I read all these things. There was a question that this, when the review was done by staff on this, that they used... the historic resources index and that that had never been used for school buildings, but instead for garden apartments, shopping centers and community buildings. Is that correct?

The historic resources inventory, known as the HRI, is an inventory of our garden style apartment complexes, commercial buildings and shopping centers. They did not take into consideration any civic buildings, churches. Therefore, the fact that this property is not in that inventory is not relevant.

Got it. Okay. Then a couple comments. Number one, for the applicant, regardless of what happens here tonight or with the county board, I do believe that you will have some fence mending to do. And not sure how to do that, but I just believe that there are a number of neighbors who view this as something that's super special to them. I understand that. And I do know in the process when we all voted, some of the former commissioners and I and some of us up here voted unanimously for this, we were thrilled that we had at least got some throwback look. But the way that you do this is super important, I believe, moving forward. This is something that the community needs for those folks who spoke as to the motivation of why the historic district was requested. I don't believe that anyone here unless you know some of these people really know what that motivation is and I would caution you that that is a divisive thing and that it should not be used that way. Last but not least, as a former Civic Association president myself, when things like this came up, this doesn't come up for us very often, but in Boston, Virginia Square, I believe it was Dr. Byrne who put in the application to have the Ball Cemetery at the corner of Stafford and Fairfax preserved. Everybody went bananas and the Civic Association decided to jump in on that because it's the Ball family, Ballston, George Washington roots, big history. The second one that came up was the Ed Center. And that application was actually put in by Nancy Iacomini, former planning commissioner. And I just have to tell you that both of those nominators were vilified as well as the civic association. It's not appropriate. We all got to live here together. There will be things in the neighborhood that change. Be respectful of one another. Be respectful of the fact that some people appreciate history. And I do not believe that historic preservation stands in the way of progress it just has to be done in a very careful means so that everybody comes out ahead but right now there's work on everybody's part here to moving forward make this better regardless of what happens here tonight or with the county board so thank you for that. Commissioner Steinberger and then Commissioner Garcia.

I was just going to align myself with our chair's comments with regards to sort of the where we go from here moment, because I think that there's only so much that we as a planning commission body can and honestly should do. The reality is that we all live in our neighborhoods, we all live in our communities, everything is integrated, and I think appropriately so. And if we're... I recall back when we were going through the site plan approval process for this site and talking about sort of bringing new neighbors into the community and new people who are going to be members of the Aurora Highlands Civic Association and what that sense of community is going to be and kind of growing neighbors. And I hope that all parties involved can take that approach that I think Commissioner Bagley very eloquently expressed. Feelings are very strong and very immediate right now I look forward to getting to a moment where everyone is building towards a future of this community that works for everyone involved. I think we can and will get there, even if it doesn't feel that way right now individually for a lot of folks in a lot of ways. That's what I am cautiously optimistic we can get to. But that doesn't come from something that planning commission or the county board dictates down. That has to happen in the grassroots, like in the neighborhood setting. And I don't have a solution for that from the dais. I don't think the county board has a solution for that. So I need all parties to kind of think what that looks like. Thank you.

Commissioner Torres.

Excuse me for one moment. Just wanted to mention Commissioner Patel has her hand up. Thank you. Oh, she was she first?

Commissioner Patel, you want to go ahead and then we'll go back here to the dais.

Thank you. I just want to align myself. I appreciate Commissioner Robertson's comments. And certainly, of course, everybody knows me on the dais knows that I absolutely and viciously align myself with him. But I do want to make sure that I specifically align myself with the comments made by Commissioner Peterson around the narrow scope of what it is that we're doing here. And also, I want to take this opportunity I'm not going to say any of the things that the chair and Commissioner Steinberger said, but I think what is probably more important is what Commissioner Steinberger said before, and that is that we have to figure out what to do around this process because, you know, the SPRC process, then the Civic Association's request to meet planning commissioners and have conversations around the value of this building, that came, you know, step in time. And so IF WE KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, IF WE KNEW THAT IT WAS GOING TO GO BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD, IF WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE THESE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY SOME DELAYS IN THE PROCESS, WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO WORK THROUGH THAT WORK PLAN AND MAKE SURE THAT THESE THINGS DON'T TAKE AS LONG AS THEY DO BECAUSE IT JUST SHOULD NOT, YOU KNOW, TAKE US THIS LONG TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE THE SOLE ISSUE WE ARE FOCUSED ON RIGHT NOW IS THIS HISTORIC DESIGNATION AFTER ALL THESE REVIEWS AND processes have taken place. That is not the Arlington way. I just want to be very clear about that. The Arlington way was when we had this matter come before us the first time and when we knew about these issues. And so if we have to work through some of these other things, they needed to be worked through contemporaneously. So I just ask staff to take that back with you and try to figure out how do we fix this because there will be a next time and there was a time before this, you know, this is going to be an ongoing issue. The more we find ourselves in these delays, the more divided we become as a community. So if we are talking about unity, and I don't put that on the applicant, I don't put that on the community, but the longer these things drag out, the more divisive they become and the harder it is for people to feel like they belong in the communities in which they live. Particularly, I will raise up the people who are going to be living in this space. They should feel welcome and not that the community was against them. And I know that that's not what the community would want them to feel based on the comments that they've made tonight. So big, big picture issue is the process. I think we could do better by all of all of us in this community by having a better process.

Thank you. Before I come back here, Commissioner Johnson.

Thank you and I hope you can hear me. I just wanted to make sure that I aligned myself with Commissioner Patel's comments as well. I just want to make sure that we are very clear in the way in which we talk about the Arlington Way. It does not sit right with everybody. It does not mean the same thing to everyone. And so we need to caution ourselves in how we use that language in these spaces. And on top of that, we want to make sure that this community feels welcome into this space. I am a born and raised, people think I was born and raised in Green Valley. I actually am a born and raised Aurora Highlands girl. And so I know what it is to walk 23rd Street and walk by that building on a regular basis and go to the Christmas tree lighting in December and all those things. And so I appreciate, you know, the historic context of this building. But at the same time, you know, I think that we have to make some changes. If we're going to be the community of whom we are going to be, then we have to address that accordingly. And so I thank you all for bringing this up to us tonight, but I will be aligning myself with the majority of our commissioners tonight. Thank you.

Commissioner Torres, then Commissioner Garcia, then I think we're done.

I'm saddened by this project because the community shouldn't have been divided to begin with. You could have had both. You could have had affordable housing, kept the historic aspect of it, and you could have had ADA compliant units. I've done it before. And the reason why I'm saddened is because I'm noticing that in Arlington, we probably don't put as much emphasis on historic buildings as, let's say, Alexandria, Georgetown, Washington, D.C., North D.C. And the problem with this is I've worked on buildings that a car crashed into the into the small teeny row house, and we somehow reconstructed it. I've worked on buildings where nothing was left except for the facade, and we had to figure out how to restore the windows, restore it, look at pictures, look at history, and restore it because it's that important. I've worked on buildings in Alexandria that were next to a historic building. The building next to it was done in the 80s, but they're so strict about it that they said, no, you're right next to a historic building. It's so historic that we're not even going to let you change this 80s facade. You can only mess with the inside. So when I tell you that as a community, you shouldn't have been divided to begin with, and you should have worked together to make sure all of you have something beautiful, it is possible. And what could have happened is The historic aspect of this building of this site should have informed the new architecture a lot more. Like I'm saying like 50 times 100 times more. So please don't let it divide you and we have to find a way to save because if it's if the process is going to be like this. I mean, there's people that restore cars that are rusted. Right, and they say, Some people will look at it and just say it's a piece of junk. And someone will look at it and say, I'm going to restore that.

So.

Commissioner Garcia.

Apologies to Commissioners Robertson and Patel, since I am going to be slightly long-winded. I do actually really want to speak to some of my neighbors. So for those of you guys who know, you know, I am the current outgoing president of the Arlington Ridge Civic Association, where the Hume School is located and is not in ACCA. And I appreciated hearing all their voices. And I especially, I really appreciated hearing the voices from the ACCA community members who came out in, you know, opposition to this designation and in kind of support of the development. Based on, you know, and I'm specifically saying all this because I do hope that as I vote to kind of oppose this designation that you all at least still smile at me as I still walk through and run through ACCA because I really am focusing on the issue at hand. And I feel that based on the numerous renovations that have taken what might've been a suitable building with historic character to what it is now. And I think that designating part of this building and not all of it would really push us to a solution that was restoration vice preservation. I believe history is important, you know, and I understand that we all want to carry forward, you know, the wonderful history of this county. But I think we also heard from community tonight, you know, Arlington changes, it evolves, it modernizes. And the legacy, I love the idea of the legacy is constant evolution to this community and making it a better place. And I was very specifically moved by this statement, I think it Meg Distillo is her name, if I'm saying your name correctly, about this really being an opportunity to right a historic wrong. Let's make this a welcoming place for community members with disabilities, not one that excludes them. And I think that I look at moving forward and, you know, as I vote at this being an opportunity to deliver a state of the art facility and really build up the lives of community members that we want to welcome. into our community. And so I do want to say that all that for my neighbors who might be disappointed in my vote.

Okay. And I have asked our vice chair to read the motion this evening. So thank you.

Great. Thank you. I move that the planning commission recommend to the county board to deny the proposed local historic district designation request for Nellie Custis Elementary School slash Melwood, located at 750 23rd Street South, RPC 36039015, as the property does not meet at least two of the 11 designation criteria as outlined in 11.3.4 of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance.

Second. Seconded by Commissioner Lantelli. Okay, so we're going to go to a vote. Commissioner Garcia.

Aye.

Commissioner Rivera.

Aye.

Commissioner Johnson online.

Aye.

Commissioner Lantellami.

Aye.

Commissioner Patel. Was that an aye? I'm lip reading. Yes, aye. Okay. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Commissioner Robertson.

Aye.

Commissioner Steinberger.

Aye.

Commissioner Streiner.

Aye.

Commissioner Torres.

Nay.

Okay. And Commissioner Bagley-Mee, I am going to abstain. So that is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 abstention. Got it? Awesome. So that concludes this part of our hearing. Again, I want to thank the neighbors and other folks for coming and also for those who sent us lots of comments, which we did read, and for caring and also for keeping this pretty civil and pretty thoughtful. I hope that you come away, regardless of what side of the fence you're on here, That adequate time and thought has been given by this body to all the things that were in front of us. That's super important to all of us. So I do want to thank again everybody for being here this evening. Again, thank you staff. I know this wasn't an easy one to do because of course your mission is to try to save history so and applicant. Good luck with the County Board so. Thank you all very much for coming. Thank you again, Madam Clerk and staff for keeping us sort of going this evening. And with this, we will recess until Wednesday evening when we will have a biophilic presentation and we will also hear the Alexan redevelopment.

Thank you. Thank you. Good night.