What You Need to Know About the Board of Architectural Review (BAR)

A Board of Architectural Review (BAR), sometimes called an Architectural Board of Review, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Commission, or Historic and Design Review Commission, is a local government body that evaluates exterior changes to buildings and sites before permits are issued. Its job is to ensure proposed work meets adopted design standards, historic preservation criteria, or both.

In historic contexts, BAR-type boards typically issue a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior changes visible from public ways. In broader citywide design review contexts, they may issue a “project design approval” or “final design approval” for specified development types.

Although details vary by jurisdiction, BAR programs share a common structure:

1. Determine whether the project triggers design or historic review
2. Submit plans and required documentation by the deadline and pay applicable fees
3. Undergo a completeness check and staff analysis
4. Complete required public notice
5. Present at a public hearing
6. Receive a decision, approval, approval with conditions, deferral, or denial
7. Pursue administrative appeal (and if necessary, judicial review) within strict time windows

Four city examples illustrate how “BAR” can mean different, but related, regulatory regimes:

• Historic-district focused BAR (Alexandria, VA; Charleston, SC): visibility and historic character are the central triggers; COAs are the typical entitlement
• Citywide architectural design review board (Santa Barbara, CA): reviews many nonresidential and multi-unit projects, and some grading, as a prerequisite to building and grading permits, with structured stages including “project design approval” and “final approval”
• Historic preservation office and commission model (San Antonio, TX): an Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) handles some items administratively while a commission hears others in public; appeals commonly go to a Board of Adjustment

What a BAR Is and Why It Exists

A BAR is a design governance mechanism embedded in local land-use law, zoning ordinance, municipal code, and sometimes city charter, that addresses the externalities of design: how private projects impact the public realm and, in historic areas, shared cultural heritage.

In Charleston, the zoning ordinance frames BAR’s purpose as preserving and protecting historic or architecturally worthy structures and neighborhoods as visible reminders of heritage. In Alexandria, the BAR evaluates the appropriateness of exterior changes subject to public view in designated historic districts and on a protected list of older buildings, a classic COA-based historic review model. In Santa Barbara, the municipal code ties the Architectural Board of Review to broad public welfare and aesthetic goals, making ABR approval a prerequisite for certain building and grading permits, illustrating a citywide design review function that extends well beyond historic districts. In San Antonio, the Unified Development Code articulates preservation and urban design goals, and the Office of Historic Preservation requires COA approval before work can begin on covered properties.

BARs operate on a spectrum:

• Historic preservation review (COA-based): emphasizes protecting historic fabric, authenticity, context, and reversibility
• Architectural and design compatibility review (design-approval-based): emphasizes massing, scale, materials, streetscape, and neighborhood character for specified development types

Many jurisdictions combine both approaches, using staff-level administrative approvals for clearly defined minor work and reserving discretionary or high-impact items for board hearings.

Membership, Authority, and Jurisdiction

BAR authority is typically established in a zoning ordinance or municipal code, sometimes grounded in a city charter. Alexandria codifies a seven-member BAR with defined powers and duties, including adopting design criteria and guidelines within standards set by City Council, and explicit timeframes for meetings and decisions. In Santa Barbara, the municipal code states that Charter Section 814 creates the ABR and specifies membership and quorum requirements.

Typical Composition and Appointment Patterns

Across U.S. examples, member selection and expertise requirements follow a consistent logic: ensure professional competence in architecture, design, construction, or history while representing community values and managing conflicts of interest.

Types of Projects Reviewed

Historic-district BARs (Charleston, Alexandria) commonly review new construction, additions, and exterior alterations visible from public rights-of-way, as well as demolition or partial demolition under defined criteria. Some categories qualify for staff-level administrative approval with an appeal route to the board.

Citywide design boards (Santa Barbara) have much broader triggers: nonresidential, multi-unit, two-unit residential, and mixed-use exterior work; subdivision grading plans; certain grading permits; exterior color review; substantial landscape plan deviations; and minor zoning exceptions tied to ABR projects. ABR approval is required before covered building or grading permits are issued.

Historic preservation office and commission models (San Antonio) focus on historic-designated properties and overlays, require COAs before work begins, and route lower-impact items to administrative approval while sending larger items to public hearing.

Standards BARs Apply

BAR decisions are driven by codified standards and adopted design guidelines. Boards apply standards through findings: the proposal must meet enumerated criteria, compatibility, appropriateness, public welfare, and any district-specific rules.

Federal Preservation Standards

A common reference in historic review is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which cover four treatments, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction, codified at 36 CFR Part 68 for certain federal programs.

Many local guidelines adapt these concepts directly. Charleston’s “Charleston Standards” are explicitly adapted from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and are applied with consideration of economic and technical feasibility. They emphasize retaining historic character, avoiding “false history,” repairing rather than replacing, and making additions compatible yet distinguishable and reversible where feasible. San Antonio’s historic design review guidance similarly states that decisions are guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation alongside the city’s UDC.

Local Design Guidelines and Compatibility Criteria

Even when leveraging federal preservation standards, BARs are fundamentally local instruments. Local ordinances define what is regulated and what findings must be supported.

Charleston states that the BAR adheres to the Charleston Standards and has adopted additional policy statements for specific review issues. Alexandria’s code requires the BAR to develop and publish criteria and guidelines within standards established by City Council, and requires written reasons for denials in demolition and encapsulation contexts. Santa Barbara’s ABR guidelines emphasize maintaining high design standards and clarifying ABR criteria for projects throughout the city. The city’s appeal guidance specifies that design review appeals must center on design-related issues, size, bulk, scale, orientation, and materials, illustrating the typical language of “compatibility” review.

Where BARs operate as quasi-judicial decision-makers, they apply adopted standards to a specific property and project; some states expressly characterize COA decisions this way, describing the review as applying historic design standards to prevent changes incongruous with district character.

How to Find the Standards That Apply to Your Project

Because standards vary by jurisdiction, the best approach is to locate: (a) the enabling ordinance, (b) the adopted guidelines and policy statements, and (c) any district-specific overlays. Key code references include:

• Alexandria: Zoning Ordinance Article X, §10-401
• Charleston: Zoning ordinance provisions creating BAR-S and BAR-L; rules of procedure citing enabling state law
• Santa Barbara: Municipal Code Chapter 22.68
• San Antonio: UDC Article VI plus city OHP program guidance

How the BAR Process Works

Application-to-Decision Workflow

1. Determine jurisdiction and required approvals
2. Is BAR or design review required?
   • No → Proceed to normal permitting
   • Yes → Pre-application consult with staff / optional design committee
3. Prepare submittal package: plans, photos, narrative, exhibits
4. Submit application and pay fee by deadline
5. Completeness check, incomplete applications are returned for revision
6. Public notice: property posting, mailed notice, publication as required
7. Staff report and recommendation published
8. Public hearing: applicant presentation, questions, public comment, board deliberation
9. Decision: approved / approved with conditions / continued / denied
10. If approved: proceed to permits (revising per conditions if needed)
11. If denied: redesign or wait for refile period
12. Appeal window opens, administrative appeal (City Council or Board of Adjustment), then judicial review if necessary

Application Steps, Documents, Fees, and Timelines

Pre-application engagement is often explicitly encouraged or required. Alexandria’s design guidelines urge applicants to contact BAR staff early to discuss procedures and design alternatives. Charleston requires a pre-design conference for BAR-L conceptual review and strongly encourages outreach to neighborhood associations and adjacent owners. San Antonio’s Design Review Committee offers informal, non-binding consultation so applicants can get early feedback before investing heavily in plans.

Completeness rules are strict because agenda space is limited and public notice obligations attach once a hearing is scheduled. Alexandria will not process incomplete applications. Charleston may reject or remove from the agenda submittals that don’t conform to phase requirements. Santa Barbara schedules complete applications on a first-come, first-served basis; incomplete applications may not be placed on the agenda, and a mailed-notice hearing may require approximately 2.5 weeks to schedule.

Public notice requirements vary but follow common patterns. In Alexandria, applicants must notify adjacent and abutting owners, mail letters within required timing windows, return a certificate of notice before the hearing, post placards, and publish legal ads. Charleston requires on-property signing and public notice at least five days before the meeting, with hearings following a defined procedure covering applicant presentation, public comment, staff recommendation, board discussion, and action. Santa Barbara documents agenda posting and public availability of agendas and minutes, and specifies how hearing participation affects standing to appeal.

Fees and timelines vary widely. Charleston’s fee schedule ranges from small amounts for paint color changes to tiered project-review fees based on improvement cost, plus special meeting fees and doubled “after-the-fact” fees for work started without approval. Santa Barbara publishes design review fees by review level and project type along with appeal fees. San Antonio charges no fee for residential COAs but imposes fees for commercial COAs, demolition review, and post-work filings. Alexandria notes that administrative approvals for eligible items can often be completed in fewer than five business days.

Practical Comparison Across Cities

Decisions, Appeals, and Legal Remedies

Decision Outcomes and Documentation

BAR-type boards typically issue a written decision with explicit conditions. Charleston’s rules state that a decision disposes of a matter by granting approval, denying approval, granting approval with conditions, or affirming, modifying, or reversing an administrative decision, with deferral available for additional study. Alexandria’s preservation guidance similarly states that the BAR may approve as submitted, approve with changes, deny, or defer for restudy if requested by the applicant. Santa Barbara allows conditional approvals and staff review of minor details after final approval.

Administrative Appeals

Three common models emerge across jurisdictions:

Appeal to City Council (direct): Alexandria allows BAR decisions to be appealed to City Council within 14 days, with a filing fee that stays the BAR decision pending Council action. Santa Barbara allows ABR actions to be appealed to City Council within a 10-day filing window, with City Council serving as the final local administrative decision-maker.

Appeal from staff decisions to the board: In Charleston, staff decisions can be appealed within 15 calendar days, with the rules of procedure specifying appeal forms, narrative requirements, deadlines, and notice requirements for appeal hearings.

Appeal to a Board of Adjustment: San Antonio’s historic review process shows denial outcomes routing to a Board of Adjustment, a typical zoning-style appellate structure.

Judicial Review

After exhausting required administrative remedies, parties may seek judicial review under applicable state law. Charleston’s rules explicitly describe appeal of board decisions to Circuit Court within 30 days after the affected party receives actual notice. Santa Barbara characterizes City Council action as the final local administrative decision, with any subsequent challenge proceeding outside the city’s administrative process.

An important operational point: BAR decisions often function like quasi-judicial determinations. The decision-maker must apply adopted standards to established facts, and the record, plans, testimony, staff report, findings, is the foundation of any appeal.

Denials, Conditions, and Best Practices

Common Reasons for Denial

Denial risk increases when a project fails to demonstrate compliance with adopted criteria in one or more recurring areas:

Incompatibility with context, scale, massing, proportion, rhythm. The Alexandria BAR denied a proposed front dormer because it was not an appropriate scale or design for the front elevation at that location, illustrating a common “compatibility with facade composition” rationale.

Insufficient documentation or incomplete narrative. BAR processes require robust documentation, especially for demolition or major changes, because boards must make findings based on evidence. In Charleston, board comments on a demolition case emphasized the need for clear, itemized analysis of what portions of a building date from which era.

Historic fabric loss or “false history” concerns. Historic standards regularly reject changes that remove distinctive materials or create a false impression of historical development, logic reflected in local standards adapted from federal preservation guidelines.

Zoning misalignment or missing prerequisite approvals. Some BARs condition review on zoning compliance or other technical approvals; Charleston’s materials emphasize that zoning approvals may be required before BAR action and that nonconforming or incomplete submittals may be rejected.

Typical Conditions Imposed

Conditions are commonly used to bridge a proposal to compliance without requiring full denial. Common condition categories include:

• Material and detail corrections: requiring historically appropriate railing details, specifying siding exposure and finish, requiring roof material and color compliance, requiring window policy compliance
• Revisions with staff sign-off: requiring revised drawings to be approved by staff prior to permitting
• Demolition scope limits and partial approvals: approving removal of low-significance accessory structures while denying demolition of principal historic fabric

Best Practices for Applicants

High-performing applications treat BAR review as a structured evidentiary process, not a subjective taste test. The most consistently supported strategies across city guidance are:

Engage staff early. Early consultation is explicitly encouraged in Alexandria and San Antonio, and pre-design conferences may be required for large projects in Charleston. Removing procedural uncertainty before investing in full plans is almost always worth the time.

Treat completeness as a hard gate. Incomplete packages can be refused or removed from agendas. Santa Barbara’s ABR and Charleston’s BAR processes both stress completeness for scheduling and acceptance.

Build a finding-ready narrative. If local criteria emphasize compatibility, size, bulk, scale, materials, write your narrative so reviewers can directly map your evidence to each criterion. Santa Barbara’s appeal guidance underscores that design actions center on exactly these factors.

Use strong visual aids. Boards routinely expect multiple plan sets, context photographs, digital versions, and sometimes physical models and materials boards. “Comparison” exhibits showing before and after are often required after deferral or denial.

For historic properties, prove preservation logic and reversibility. Use the language of adopted standards: retain historic character, repair rather than replace, make additions compatible yet distinguishable, avoid conjectural historic features.

Bring technical specialists when stakes are high. For demolition or major alteration disputes, structural assessments or detailed historic research can be critical. Boards evaluate evidence linked to criteria, and a well-documented record protects applicants on appeal.

Sample Application Checklist

Sample Application Timeline