Not too long ago, the Lunette House on Braddock Road in the Dulles South section of Loudoun County was still in reasonable condition, having been used as a residence until 2001, and later as a field office by Greenvest L.C. during the development of Kirkpatrick Farms. In the very beginning, the historical value of the house was established, as “preserving the façade” of the house and providing for its reuse was part of Greenvest’s 1997 proffer agreement with the county.
In 2005, Greenvest employees vacated the house when it had to be moved back from Braddock Road. The house was raised from its foundation, separated into two sections, and placed on beams and piers. Preparations were made to move the house across Braddock Road to a vacant lot in Kirkpatrick Farms, and its roof was removed so it could pass under the power lines.
However, builders and members of the community association complained that the house was an eyesore, and even if restored would not fit into the neighborhood, putting the plan on hold. Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles) reportedly attended a homeowners association meeting, and was made aware of their feelings.
After consulting with Greenvest, Miller presented a Board Member Initiative at the supervisors meeting on June 16, 2009, recommending an amendment to Greenvest’s proffer that would allow the developer to demolish the house, and mitigate the loss by making a $100,000 contribution to a local preservation organization. Another issue was the $25,000 cost in staff time and expenses required to execute the amendment; the board quickly rejected Millers’ recommendation that the county absorb that cost.
The roof-less Lunette House now sits in a vulnerable condition, with nowhere to go. A daycare center wants to build a facility on the prime property it now occupies, increasing the pressure for action. But according to a source at Greenvest’s Dulles South Field Office, the company is still willing to fulfill its obligation to preserve the façade of the structure and prepare it for reuse, as originally required. But convincing the neighbors to go along with the plan has become difficult.
What is the Lunette House?
County staff has traced the earliest part of the house–the brick section–back to the 1760s, when it was built along the old Colchester Road. Sondra Foley is a descendant of Benjamin James (1765-1831) of Loudoun County, who owned the property in the early 19th century. She recently became aware of the controversy involving the Lunette House.
“I have some pictures from the cemetery (at Lunette), and I’ve been doing genealogical research for several years,” she wrote recently. “I live in Missouri and have never been in Virginia. I have always hoped to go to visit, but it does not look like that will happen now, as I live on a limited budget and I’m older than dirt.”
According to the survey of the property done by the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission in 1982, “Lunette is supposedly a Carter family house. The Yardley Taylor Map of 1853 indicates ‘W. Foley’ owned the house at that time. The frame addition was built by Charles Ashby Thomas who operated the Lunette Post office and Store in the house from 1895 to 1907.”
At the time of the 1982 survey, the house was owned by S.A. Hazout, and occupied by the Hayward family.
“The house is in good condition,” according to the survey, which goes on to describe the older section as “…a two-story, hall parlor plan, five course American bond brick structure with a single interior end chimney. A Victorian three-bay porch extends across the front.”
Moving to Thomas’ 1894-95 addition, the survey describes, “A large, late 19th century, frame and novelty siding, two-story addition built to the east. It has a two-story bay window projection, a cross gable roof, central brick chimney, and four-bay frame porch…this addition re-oriented the house to the east.”
The surveyor notes that the interior features “…a high degree of sophisticated woodwork. The stair in the original brick section has a tapering newel, elaborate scroll brackets, simple balusters, and the stair rail is repeated on the far wall.”
Other unique interior features include “molded chair rail, flared window reveals with reeding, symmetrically molded trim with bull’s eye corner blocks, and a handsomely carved mantel consisting of fluted pilasters, a lower frieze with a flower motif, intrically carved band on the upper frieze, and a molded shelf. Cupboards with paneled doors flank the mantels.”
Details like the doors and windows did not fail to impress the surveyor. “The (front) door has flanking sidelights and a three-light transom above, all dating from the late 19th century,” according to the description. “Original 9/6 double-sash windows remain at the rear, while 2/2 double-sash windows are at the front.”
Irreplaceable Assets
Acknowledging the fact that much of eastern Loudoun’s architectural heritage has been lost, preserving the Lunette House–even removed from its original location–would be the right thing to do, even if it were not part of a legitimate proffer. Greenvest has spent a lot of money on the house already, and if given the cooperation of the neighborhood, is willing to follow through, as required.
From a purely practical standpoint, skeptics note that the Lunette House won’t look like the rest of the homes in the community. Given the restoration work needed to make it livable, it is unlikely that it would become a private residence; and a public facility in the midst of private homes in a subdivision does not appeal to others. But that was the agreement before the first house in the subdivision was built–the Lunette House was there first, if that makes any difference.
The Board of Supervisors struggled with the issue of the Lunette House at their June 16 meeting. In the end, they voted to modify Miller’s language, opening the door wider for Greenvest to sell the house to someone else who would uphold the terms of the proffer. Failing that, county staff was directed to determine the value of the proffer as it relates to the house, and going back to Greenvest with a new–and predictably higher–figure. Regarding responsibility for the $25,000 cost to amend the proffer and allow demolition, it has been suggested that the community association consider footing the bill.
%7Cutmcsr%3D(direct)%7Cutmcmd%3D(none)%3B%2B__utmv%3D87865160.-%3B)
I WANT THE OLD HOME!! My problem is I have no land to place it on nor cash to restore it. If the community wishes to destroy history by paying to do so, put the money in a trust and give the house to me. I will use the money to restore the home.
Why do we constantly feel the need to destroy our history? Our lives are made up of the past history of not only our families but the nation as a whole. Good or bad, this nation has grown to be a large, multiethnic, world for us. Throwing away our past is a mistake. Our children already have little or no idea where we come from because of the nature of moving around as much as we Americans do.
This home represents the first home in this area. It needs to be preserved as such so our children can have an opportunity to know where our area began. What was life like? Why did the family start a home here?
If someone has a piece of land that the house could be placed on, with water and sewer hook-ups, why not put it there. If there were a trust on the house, then the house could be worked on and restored to it's original spendor for all to enjoy.
South Riding spent time restoring the Settle Dean cottage and it looks fine. It's fun to look through the windows and dream of another day when things were much simplier. Why not put the Lunette house nexzt to the South Riding house? I have no clue what South Riding would say, but to preserve history, it might be a question to ask.
Again, I want the house, but have no place to put it or the cash to turn it into it's original glory. Anyone else feel the same??