Such is the case of the “Lunette House,” once part of the quiet hamlet of Lunette on the old Colchester (now Braddock) Road, but now considered an eyesore in Greenvest L.C.’s Kirkpatrick Farms development in Dulles South. The building itself did not move more than a couple of feet; it was development that came to Lunette.
There is no question that the house has historic value. According to the survey done by the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission in 1982, the brick portion of the “Lunette House” dates back to the early 1800s. Loudoun historian Eugene M. Scheel notes that it was owned by the Carter family in the 19th century with the frame section added in 1894 or 1895 by Charles Ashby “Frank” Thomas.
An entrepreneur, Thomas opened a general store and post office in the building, and five years later built a gasoline-powered grist mill to the west of his store. But businesses never boomed in Lunette. In “Eastern Loudoun: Goin’ Down the Country,” Scheel writes that the post office was closed in 1907, when RFD mail service was established out of Arcola. The store closed in 1910, and the Lunette House reverted to a private residence.
A few others tried to sell general merchandise in the area in the years that followed, including Frank Byrne who operated the last store in nearby “Byrne’s Corner” until 1946.
Development, controversy Come to Lunette
Located west of South Riding, Lunette was prime residential property by the mid-1990s. Greenvest acquired the property to develop Kirkpatrick Farms. In a proffer that recognized the significance of the structure, Greenvest made a commitment to “…preserve the façade of the historic Lunette house,” and to “…cause that house to be used either as a community facility or a private residence and moved to an appropriate location depending on use.” The arrangement was approved on July 2, 1997.
The Lunette House remained occupied as a residence until 2001, at which time the house was vacated and Greenvest used it as a project field office. According to county documents, when amendments to the 1997 Kirkpatrick Farms proffers were submitted and approved in December 2004, nothing was mentioned about the Lunette House.
In 2005, field operations were moved out of the house, and it was moved a short distance from its original site to the intersection of Braddock Road and Supreme Drive when the new Braddock Road was built.
After leaving the house sitting above the ground on blocks and timbers since 2005, Greenvest recently removed the roof, apparently in preparation to move the structure under power lines to another location, but the Kirkpatrick Farms Homeowners Association objected to the move.
Miller Offers Amendment
In an effort to resolve the situation, Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles) consulted with Greenvest officials and presented a Board Member Initiative to amend the developer’s proffer at the Board of Supervisors’ June 16, 2009 business meeting. “There is damage to the inside of the house, the siding and the porch,” said Miller in his recommendation. “At this point, preserving the house would be costly and would require relocating it because of an adjacent proposed day care center.”
As for the requirement that the house be used for “community facility,” that was part of the original requirement, Stevens the structure needed extensive repairs to the roof and interior due to water damage, and if it were to become a community facility, it would be costly to make it ADA compliant. “HOA residents have expressed strong support for demolishing the house because it has become dangerous and an eyesore to the community,” he added.
Stevens addressed the importance of “safeguarding the heritage of the county,” and the value of preserving historic sites “as a resource and educational tool to the community, and can also attract tourism.” But given the condition of the Lunette House and other issues, Miller recommended that the board accept an amendment to the original proffer.
“In recognition of the significance of historic sites and their non-compliance with the July 2, 1997 proffer, the developer has agreed to contribute $100,000 to a preservation organization,” stated Miller in his recommendation. “The county should ensure that the money be donated to a local historic preservation organization, preferably in the Dulles District, with the intent that the money go directly to a project that will benefit the public.”
Miller also recommended that the county absorb the cost of processing the amendment–estimated at $25,000 in staff time and resources–so that the net amount received by the historic preservation organization remain the full $100,000.
“I further move that the board state that this ZCPA (proffer amendment) is not setting a precedent for allowing the destruction of historic sites or structures, and this should not be seen or used as an easy remedy for the negligence of the owner,” Miller concluded in his draft motion.
During discussion, the supervisors questioned Miller about how the situation had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where demolition was considered an option, when the original intent was to preserve and reuse the structure. He replied that it was true that the developer hadn’t taken care of the house, but the county lacked the authority, since the language of the proffer “…had no teeth.” Miller stressed that at this point, he was trying cope with the situation in a way that meets the (Kirkpatrick Farms) community.”
“I see this as a way for the developers to buy their way out,” said Supervisor Kelly Burk (D-Leesburg), adding that the emphasis on historic preservation in Loudoun always seemed focused on Leesburg and west. “Perhaps nothing historic happened there (at the
Lunette House), but it is a farmhouse that represents the community’s past,” she added.
During discussion, it was revealed that part of the problem goes back to the fact that the structure was originally intended to be located in a commercial area of the subdivision that was removed from the plan due to traffic concerns. Also, county staff reported that during a site visit, they had been approached by an individual who offered to move and repair the house if Greenvest would sell it to him for $1, but they were not aware if the offer was valid or had been given to Greenvest for consideration.
During the wide-ranging discussion that followed, it was quickly that the majority on the board felt that the $100,000 offered by Greenvest was probably too low, and that the $25,000 to prepare the amendment would not be borne by the county. Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac) moved that the issue be sent to the Transportation and Land Use Committee and the Public Safety Committee for study, but the motion was defeated 7-2, with only McGimsey and Burk supporting the continued study.
Some comments regarding Greenvest and its relationship with Loudoun County were less than complimentary.
Supervisor Lori Waters (D-Broad Run) asked why the Greenvest project was not shut down when it was apparent that the developer was not adhering to the agreement. According to staff, “…there was no trigger” to bring the problem to a head while the subdivision was being built.
Kurtz noted that Greenvest already had a history with the county, and that the story of “demolition by neglect,” should that come to pass, would not be forgotten. McGimsey stated that she was “suspicious” of the developer.
Supervisors Chairman Scott York (I-At Large) summarized many of the comments in a friendly amendment to Miller’s motion that removed the language about creating a precedent; called on county staff to clarify the value of the proffer given to the developer; and added language that would encourage sale of the property to a third party who would buy and preserve the house.
York went on to say that while he found the current situation with Greenvest disappointing, he felt that residents of Kirkpatrick Farms deserved a timely solution, and that by supporting the amended motion, the county would be initiating a thorough public process, including public hearings. In support of the motion, Supervisor Susan Buckley (D-Sugarland Run) added that “The community wants to see this issue resolved,” and that “The change in language would allow someone else to take it (the house) over.
Miller closed the discussion by reiterating that it was the desires of the residents of Kirkland Farms and the owners and customers of the proposed Minnieland Day Care that the board should be concerned with, but added, “If we let this house be demolished, it doesn’t mean that we don’t care about history.”
The amended motion passed unanimously, and will be taken up with the Greenvest. In the meantime, the Lunette House has been spared, with the hope that if the developer won’t live up to its original commitment, someone else will take it off Greenvest’s hands–and the valuable, street-side lot in Kirkpatrick Farms it is sitting on.
Here is the real problem: "made a commitment to “…preserve the façade of the historic Lunette house,” "
The facade appears to be intact, and that is what the agreement required.
The discussion of preserving the whole house is over twelve years too late, no matter how much time and money is spent in an attempt to rewrite the original flaw.