The
Village of Waterford, Virginia
A
National Historic Landmark
|
|
|
|
Simms House – Where a Concern for History Did Not Save this HouseThe Simms House, 40153 Janney Street, was the last house in Waterford that needed restoration. Because Loudoun County works at protecting its historical structures through its Historic District Review Committee, it had been hoped that the Simms House would be saved. Unfortunately, it wasn't!
Background
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
  |
2006
December 6 - Simms
House demolished. Read the full
overview.
January 24 - Judge
Thomas D. Horne heard brief presentations yesterday regarding two
of the multiple lawsuits in the Loudoun Circuit Court regarding
Paul and Milari Madison’s home in Waterford, commonly known as
the Simms House.
2005 
This letter from Milari Madison accuses the WCA of tortuous interference,
slander and defamation by blatantly making false statements and accusations.
Madison's
Letter »
December 15 - Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) voted 4 to 1 to deny the Simms
House owners' appeal to demolish the house based on their attempt
to sell the structure only as a bona fide offer. The BZA concurred with
the Zoning Administrator's finding that in a Historic District, an owner
must offer both the structure and "the land pertaining to" for
sale to qualify as a bona fide offer under section 6-1907 of the zoning
ordinances.
December 6 - The Board of
Supervisors upholds the HDRC August 1 decision to deny the Madisons
(the owners of the Simms House) a demolition permit. Speakers in support
of the Simms House and the HDRC included historians, the chair of the
Leesburg Board of Architectural Review, a contractor who had inspected
the house. More »
November - The Simms House may stand for at least
a bit longer, but its long-term fate lies in the hands of a sharply
divided board of supervisors. Several people testified that the owners
have not only ignored consultants who said the home could be saved,
but have actively assisted in its deterioration. More »
Board of Supervisors hearing, Nov. 9th »
September - The owners appeal the HDRC
August decision denying their demolition application. The owners claim
the house should be demolished because it was economically infeasible
for them to sell the property or fix it up and that the structure is
not historically significant.
September - The owners file suit naming the Department
of Historic Resources (DHR). They state that the DHR was not allowed
to designate an entire district with either a National or Landmark
status. The owners claim this then invalidates the local historic district
designation of Waterford. The owners are siting the case of Worley
vs Washington. The county is asking this to be dismissed.
September - The owners put the Simms House
for sale, separate from the lot. They are in receipt of a letter from
the Zoning Administrator stating that this does not meet the requirements
in the ordinance for trying to sell the property in order to demolish
if it is not sold.
September 16 - The owners try to submit another certificate
of appropriateness for a new house, in anticipation of their planned
demolition related to the item above. The county does not accept the
application since the structure is currently on the property and the
owners have several outstanding applications related to the current
condition of the house.
August 15 - Planning Staff requests determination from the
Zoning Administrator as to whether the owners' offer to sell only the
structure meets the intent of Section 6-1907 of the Zoning Ordinance.
August 10 - owners submit offer to sell the house at 40153
Janney Street without the underlying land to the Department of Planning.
The offer is forwarded to the HDRC.
August 1 - After a three hour meeting, the HDRC unanimously
voted to deny the demolition petition on both accounts. The committee
determined that it is economically feasible to sell the home since
there was proof of two recent bona fide offers on file. In addition,
they stated that the Simms house does have historical significance
and that its demolition would substantially impair the historic district
as a whole. The applicant appealed the HDRC decision.
July 1- The owners of the Simms
House turn in a new application to demolish the Simms House. The
owners state that under section 6-1907 D 1 & 2
they
should be able to demolish the house immediately. The two main reasons
they list are:
1) the demolition of the Simms House would not undermine the historic
district because the house has no historical significance, and
2) it is economically infeasible for the owners to put the house
up for
sale or to restore the house.
June - The owners inform the Loudoun Board of Supervisors
in a June 24 letter that they plan to expand their pending Circuit
Court lawsuit to claim that the Waterford Historic District is invalid.
The threat of a legal challenge represents the latest flanking movement
in the owner’s more than two-year attempt to force the county government
to let them build a larger house on land they purchased in the historic
district. The lawsuit would be expanded to challenge the validity of
the historic district itself, not just the interpretation and the implementation
of the regulations, was an April 16, 2004, ruling by 20th Circuit Court
Judge Jeffery Parker that nearly resulted in the nullification of the
Town of Washington’s historic district
June 9 - owners withdraw petition via e-mail to staff.
May 9 - owners submit petition to demolish 40153 Janney
Street under Section 6-1907 (D 1) of the 1993 Revised Loudoun County
Zoning Ordinance stating that the forced sale of the structure [40153
Janney Street] would be economically infeasible in relation to its
effect on the remaining property, but
also due to the fact that the loss of the house would have no historical
or cultural impact on the historic district.
2004
July 12 - At the HDRC meeting a motion is passed to deny the
plans as submitted due to errors, inconsistencies, and deficiencies
in plans. In addition, plans still did not comply with instructions
set out at March 1, April 5, and June 7th meetings and related motions.
Twenty community members present at meeting. owners not in attendance.
June 28 - owners submit additional package to BOS members regarding
former demolition in Waterford as well as examples of what they consider
to be different standards for other applicants.
June 16 - Loudoun County building inspector sends letter to owner
stating Simms house is safe. Owners appeal determination by the inspector
to the Building Code and Appeals Board.
June 7 - At the HDRC meeting a motion is passed to defer the
March 1, 2004, plans as submitted due to errors, inconsistencies, and
deficiencies in plans. In addition, plans still did not comply with
instructions set out at March 1 meeting and related action motion.
Eighteen community members present at meeting. owners not in attendance.
June 4 - At the owners' request, Steve Rogers, state certified
building inspector, goes to Simms property to inspect with the owner
present. Inspector determines property is safe according to state code.
Early June - Realty company takes down "for sale" sign.
May 19 - Letter goes from Planning Department Program
Manager, to the owners stating that at the direction of the County
Attorney they are being advised that "the relief you seek, approval
of the addition considered by the HDRC at the March 1, 2004 meeting,
is not available through this appeal. The HDRC did not deny the design
considered at the March meeting but rather deferred the applicant,
with additional direction, to the April meeting. As such, there is
technically no final HDRC decision from which to appeal."
May 10 - owners request a second demolition permit in zoning
department.
May 4 - owners submit appeal to 80S for denial in April. They
state it is the March 1 plan that they are appealing to be able to
build. The March drawings for which the owners seek approval have
a date of February 24 on the cover "plat." The architectural
plans are dated February 17.
April 5 - During the HDRC meeting, owner states that if
they found a buyer they would not tear it down. At public comment,
Jamie Hutton offers to purchase the Simms House from the owners for
10% over purchase price. owners refuse offer.
April 5 - At the HDRC meeting, the owners turn in two different
sets of plans. One revised option has total square footage of about
3,342 with total percentage increase in square footage at 148%. The
original Simms House ell is still completely engulfed by the addition
and thus is not discernible.
The second set of plans is completely new and includes a breezeway
attached to an extremely large addition towards the back of the house.
The original Simms House is 1,344 square feet and with the proposed
addition would increase to 4,085 total sq ft. This represents a 304%
increase to the historical structure.
Both house options A and B were denied by the HDRC because the size,
scale, massing, and subordination issues were not sufficiently addressed
in the revised plans as directed by the HDRC at the March 1 meeting.
At this HDRC meeting 23 community members are present. A representative
of the Waterford Foundation and local historian speak out against proposed
addition because massing, size, and scale have still not been addressed.
March 1 - At the HDRC meeting, owners submit plans for an
addition that is even bigger than the plans that were denied on September
8,
2003, due to massing, size, and scale.
The original Simms House square footage is 1,344 and with the proposed
addition will increase 216% to 3,782 total square feet. The revised
design completely engulfs the Simms house, wrapping around the existing
structure on 3 sides. There were several errors on the plans and with
the design as submitted. The committee members suggested the owners
speak with a professional architect experienced in working in a Historic
District to get some ideas on how to meet their needs but still follow
the guidelines. The owners are instructed that the South elevation
has serious design issues.
During this meeting, the owners are asked by an HDRC member, if
they were willing to go below that size. Owners reply that given their lifestyle
they are not able to eliminate any square footage. The owners currently live
in a 4,093 square foot house on 10.91 acres about 1.5 miles down road on Waterford
Way. Their current house is within the Waterford Elementary School District.
At the HDRC meeting a motion is passed to defer the owners' application
since it does not meet the Guidelines in size, scale and massing. This
is particularly evident from the south elevation as viewed from Second
and Factory Streets. In order to be in compliance with the Guidelines
the addition should be subordinate to the existing structure. A reduction
in the size of the addition should also occur so that the original
Simms House is discernable from Factory and Second Streets.
The owners stated during the meeting that if they did not get approval
for the plans as submitted or a house as large, they would pursue their
plans to demolish the Simms House.
Testimony against the addition was given by concerned citizens, Brown
Morton (co-author of The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Properties), the Waterford Citizen's Association,
and the Waterford Foundation. Twenty-three community members were present.
Early Spring - Local couple verbally offer Simms House realtor
what the owners have invested in the house. owners refuse offer.
February
2 - owners withdraw January plans and related application at
4:30 pm on night of HDRC meeting.
July 28 - Board of Building Code
Appeals (BBCA) rules that the Simms House is a safe structure according to
Loudoun County rules and cannot be demolished as an unsafe structure.
September - Zoning Administrator sites owners for a "failure to maintain the house in good repair and reasonably protected
against decay and deterioration" under Section 6-1906A of
the county zoning ordinance.
October 25 - County files temporary injunction on owners to protect
the house from decay and deterioration. A hearing is held in Circuit Court
and both sides are told to return with cost estimates to protect the house.
Photo
of house's 2004 condition
|
2003
December 23 - owners submit appeal of BZA decision to circuit
court, seeking demolition of Simms House. The owners feel the county
is infringing on their constitutional right to develop their property
the way they see fit.
December 10 - owners receive written signed contract for purchase
of Simms House for $265K ($80K above their purchase price). Owners
counter with $292,500. Offer expires.
December 2 - Over 40 village residents show their support at the Board
of Supervisors hearing to uphold the HDRC September 8 determination.
Testimony against the addition was given by concerned citizens, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, local historians, the Waterford
Citizens’ Association, and the Waterford Foundation. The BOS upholds
the HDRC September 8 decision to deny the proposed addition.
November 20 - Over 55 village residents show their support for the
preservation of the Simms House at the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
hearing. Testimony against the demolition was given by concerned citizens;
the National Trust for Historic Preservation; Professor Brown Morton,
the co-author of The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation;
local historians; the Waterford Citizen's Association; and the Waterford
Foundation. Zoning Administrator Artman's letter and related denial
was upheld by the BZA.
October 7 - owners submit an appeal to the BOS regarding the Historic
District Review Committee denial of their application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness.
October 1 - 2 - owners submit an appeal to the BZA regarding
the demolition perm cancellation and related Zoning Administrator Artman's
letter dated 9 -25-03.
September 14 - Jim Gosses, real estate agent, puts a "For Sale" sign
in front of the Simms house. List price is $395,000.
September 12 - the owner starts a large trash fire (consisting of
large branches, sheets of plywood, and other miscellaneous materials
from the property) approximately 20 feet from the house at 8:00 am.
the owner had informed the fire department of her plan to burn that
morning. However, due to the proximity of the fire to the Simms How
and the flames in excess of two stories high, the Fire Marshal was
called to the scene, The Fire Marshal determines the fire is not in
compliance with fire code regulation because it is within the required
50 foot setback from a structure. Marshal instructs the owner to
extinguish the fire which she does.
September 8 - At the HDRC 6:00 pm meeting a motion is passed
to deny owners' application for Certificate of Appropriateness due
to the inappropriate size, scale, and massing of the addition. Concerned
citizens, as well a representative of the Waterford Foundation, testify
against the proposed addition due to the inappropriate nature of the
plans and the noncompliance with the Historic District Guidelines.
Approximately 1 members of the community are present. When asked by
HDRC member Leah Thayer, .. "your
plan right now just so I .. .is to preserve the existing house ... ".
The owner answered "That is what we hope to do." Throughout
the meeting the owners indicated their intention was to preserve
the existing house. At no time did the owners mention that they had
applied for a demolition permit for the Simms House earlier that day.
About September 10-11 - According to documents distributed
by the Board of Zoning Appeals a' 2003 the November 20, hearing a site
visit is conducted under the authorization of the Loudoun County building
official. Property is determined to be safe. Application for demolition
permit is denied and marked "cancelled",
when zoning staff realize property is in a Historic District and does
not fall under other zoning regulations since the property has been
inspected and deemed safe.
September 8 - owners submit an application for demolition
for the Simms House. They submit a "straight" application
(i.e. as if house was in a regular neighborhood, not in a Historic
District).
September 2 - A petition was sent to the HDRC and zoning staff with
86 signatures from Waterford village residents protesting the addition
based on specific Historic District guidelines.
Early September - Advised by county employees as a necessity prior
to demolition, the owners order that the electric lines be disconnected
from Simms House. Once the county staff realized the Simms House was
in a Historic District they put a stop to the demolition permit and
stop advising on preparation of the property for demolition.
August 7 - The owners submit application for Certificate of Appropriateness
to put an addition on the Simms House
August 4 - the owner goes to HDRC meeting to discuss plans "unofficially
and off the record." Eleven village residents are present to hear
discussion. Members of the HDRC spoke to the owner at length about
issues with her proposed plans, emphasizing the importance of massing,
size, and scale in relation to following the Historic District Guidelines.
Design of roof lines was also discussed.
July 23 - In response to the owner's statement of intent to demolish
the Simms House, 24 village residents write a letter to the HDRC stating
their concerns regarding the possible demolition and/ or inappropriate
addition to the historic Simms House because it is a prime example
of turn-of-the century vernacular rural African American home in the
Historic District and a vital part of the Second Street school program.
During July - the owner consults with three local architects,
Kevin Ruedisueli, Allen Kitselmen, and Russell Versace. All three architects
inform the owner that her proposed plan is not in compliance with
the Historic District Guidelines. Mr. Kitselman provides the owner
with his opinion in a letter stating the plan would need to change
considerably to pass the HDRC and receive a certificate of appropriateness.
July 16 - Lien on Simms House was paid in full.
July 15 - owners go to settlement on Simms house. Purchase price
is $185K
July 8 - The house is sold and the new
owners (the Madisons) ask approval from the Historic District Review
Committee (HDRC) to expand the house from 1,344 square feet to approximately
3,200. Email from HDRC staff liaison in the Loudoun County Planning
Department, to owners stating that massing is an issue with proposed
plans.
About July 1 - Planning to purchase the Simms House, the owner
calls adjacent home owner. The owner states she plans to demolish
Simms House and would like to build a house similar to his (the neighbor's
home is about 3,700 sq. ft). The owner asks the neighbor for the name
of his architect and contractor. He replies that the owner will
not be able to demolish the historic structure. He points out that
there are Historic District Guidelines (HDG) that must be followed.
The owner responds that if she can't demolish the house, then she will
build around the original Simms House in order to have a house of 3,700
square feet. Again the neighbor reiterates that this size house will
not be likely to pass the HDRC due to noncompliance with the HDG.
April 7 - At the HDRC meeting, the owners reaches an agreement
with HDRC that he will replace the siding with custom milled "novelty" siding
unless it is "cost prohibitive."
2002
November 9 - Lien was put on Simms house in the amount
of 61K by an unpaid contractor hired by the owners to work on
the Simms House. In the statement of work, instructions include
taking off and disposing of all siding.
First week of October - Work stops on Simms house.
Late summer - Fall - Zoning inspector fined the
owners and stated all work had to stop until the fine was paid
and a remedy for destroying the siding was determined.
Late summer - Verbal and written complaints were filed with the
zoning department when 100-year-old siding was torn off and taken off
the house and removed from the property in violation of the approved
Certificate of Appropriateness.
2001
Early August -
owners receive signed "Certificate of Appropriateness" to
build their proposed addition after applying and attending one HDRC
meeting. The addition would increase the size of the original
Simms House by 52% for a total of 2040 square feet.
2000
July 19 - Waterford residents contact Virginia Simms
and subsequently purchase the Simms House for $65K. One year was required
to track down all of the potenial heirs to obtain a clear title.
1997
April 1 - The Simms House is put on the market for a short
period of time. List price is $135,000.
1996
April 1 - An
attempt to raze the house failed when a potential developer withdrew
their application after a large contingency from the village of Waterford
voiced their opposition. Loudoun County historic guidelines only allow
the demolition of an historic building if it is structurally unsafe.
The applicants withdraw their application for demolition after seeing
the Village residents present.
1984
Second Street School program begins. During the next 20 years over
25,000 Loudoun County school children participate and learn about life
in the 1800s in a segregated school in Loudoun County. Lizzie Simms,
an African-American woman born in the Waterford area just after the
Civil War, spent all her life in or near the village. Ms. Simms was
a teaching assistant at the school. After her house was built in the
early 20th century, just up the street from the school, it provided
drinking water for the school.
Late 1960s
Simms family moves out of Simms House. Prior to its sale in 2000, Mrs.
Virginia Simms (daughter in law of Lizzie Simms) and her late husband
Charles kept the house and grounds maintained. The house was occupied
during 1970-1980s by friends of the Simms.
| Home | Site index |
| Waterford
history
| Loudoun
history |
simms house, loudoun county historic district review committee (HDRC), zoning, permits, Historic District Review Board, Waterford, va, milari madison, paul madison, virginia, waterford va, historic towns, loudoun county, civil war towns, villages, village, national historic landmark, simm's house
If she can't get the county to let her build a house on the property, Madison said, the next step is to get rid of the historic designation that gives the county the authority to hold her up. Her petition to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources claims, "The designation [Historic District] is used as a basis for limiting the Petitioner's property rights." The designation, she charged in the petition, is and always has been "faulty, unlawful, and obsolete ..."
|
|
- 12/11/2007 |
