HomeMy Public PortalAbout1977_08_24 276 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF -LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, AUGUST 24, 1977.
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the
Council Chambers , 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on
August 24, 1977. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at
7 : 31 P.M. , with the invocation being given by. Mr. Tolbert, and fol-
lowed by the Salute to the Flag. Present were: Mayor Mary Anne
Newman, Councilmembers Glen P. Cole, Stanley D. Herrell , Jr. ,
James A. Rock, C. Terry Titus and John W. Tolbert, Jr. ; also Town
Manager John Niccolls, Assistant to the Manager Jeffrey H. Minor
and Town Attorney George M. Martin. Absent from the meeting was
Councilmember Charles E. Bange.
One addition was made to the minutes of the regular meeting
of August 10, 1977 on Page 270 in the first sentence of the para-
graph
immmediately following Resolution 77-137 : "Mr. Chamblin
was asked 'by Mr. Tolbert' for the reason "
Otherwise, the minutes of that meeting were approved as written.
Mr. Joseph R. Crist, a resident of Normandy Village, read to
Council a letter written by him concerning the condition of a drain-
age ditch on the west side of Fairview Street. He presented a pe-
tition signed by approximately 50 residents of Normandy -Village
(99%) , requesting that the Town enclose the drainage ditch to
eliminate a hazardous health and safety condition. Attached to
that petition were 14 -snapshots of the ditch in question. This
matter was referred to the next workshop for discussion as to some
method by which this problem might be alleviated. Mr. Niccolls
said that information to Council on this problem in July of last
year will be recopied for their information. Mr. Van Dera, another
resident of Normandy Village,- echoed the statement made in the let-
ter that the builder and the salesman had stated "that the ditch
in question would be enclosed during August or September of this
year by the town. " The petition and snapshots submitted are here-
by made a part of these minutes and may be seen in the office of
the Clerk.
Mr. David Jalinek .addressed Council concerning the location of
his business sign for the Leesburg Photography Center on South King
Street. In its present location, it is not seen and is not attract-
,..ing.:business., .- It was suggested that he appear before Council at its
next workshop session on September 7th and formally request Council
to reconsider another location for his. sign. .
Public Hearing on Proposed Subdivision Ordinance.
A Public Hearing on the Proposed Subdivision Ordinance was opened
by the Mayor. There was no one to speak for the ordinance.
Mr. Arl Curry, local builder, had the following comments in oppo-
sition to specific sections of the proposed ordinance:
Sec. 13-61 (b) (3) and (4) : These sections should be deleted.
This would encourage the property owner to cut down all trees before
submission of a preliminary plat. The builder knows better which
trees should be retained - most engineers are not qualified to
identify types of trees, so the town would have to hire a forester
or a tree identification expert.
Sec. 13-61 (b) (12) : This section should be deleted. There
should be no subdivisions inside the town limits without public
water and sewer - the town and the builder should work together
on this. There have been times when the town had to go to great
expense to provide sewer at a later date.
Sec. 13-62 (c) (3) : This section should not be in a subdivision
ordinance - it should be required only for site plans. This can be
done, but would be an additional cost passed on to the buyer.
Sec. 13-62 (c) (5) : This should be deleted. He could see no
reason for requiring street lighting in an all residential area - if
the owner wants a light he can install it himself, or it can be done
by the builder at his option. This could save the taxpayer money and
would certainly conserve energy.
2 • 7
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
Sec. 13-62 (c) (6) : This section should be deleted. Land-
scaping should be left to the owner or to the builder if he chooses.
. Sec. 13-62 (d) (2) : This section should not be applied to
single family home subdivisions. Perhaps it should be required in
a commercial area - there should be separate plans for each type of
zoning.
Sec. 13-62 (e) (18) : There are some easements where trees and
shrubbery could be put in. In the case of a drainage easement, this
could not be done, but perhaps such an easement should be more clearly
defined. This section would allow utility companies to do anything
they want in their easements and the homeowner would have no recourse
in court - he thought the purpose of this ordinance was to protect
the homeowner, but this section would not.
Sec. 13-65 (a) : He agreed that street patterns should dis-
courage through-traffic in the interior of a residential subdivision,
but what can be done with Catoctin Circle, which already goes through
several subdivisions? He, therefore, questioned whether or not this
is a good requirement.
Sec. 13-65 (d) : Concerning street improvement requirements,
in some areas where the land is relatively level, curb and gutter
could be eliminated - this could alleviate storm drainage problems
in some instances. Sidewalks could be eliminated where there is
no curb and gutter and, at the very most, should be required on
s only one side of the street. The minimum pavement width from the
face of the curb should be only 30 feet, with "No Parking" signs
on one side, thus providing a two-way street. The Town Standards
are greater for streets than those required by the Virginia De-
partment of Highways - this is inflationary and should be given
more thought. Again, landscaping should be left to the homeowner.
Sec. 13-65 (e) : This requirement does not make sense to him -
certainly everyone knows that the proper place for water and sewer
lines is in the middle of the street. •
Sec. 13-65 (k) : If a street is privately owned and maintained,
it should not have to meet public street specifications.
Sec. 13-66 (c) : If a block is over 800 feet long, the require-
ment is for a 10-foot walkway in the middle of the block. - who would
want a public walkway in the middle of only four homes? And who would
maintain and cut the grass - this would be another expense for the
town.
Sec. 13-68 : He did not feel the need for 20-foot wide easements
for utility services when 5 or 10 foot easements would do the job.
Why should the town be involved with this - it should be left up to
the engineer or the utility company.
•
Sec. 13-70: Streets should not be built for the full width as
required in the specifications - they should be cut down. We should
learn to get along with the minimum'necessary for health, safety and
welfare. Again, sidewalks should be required on one side only. A
lot of these things could hold down developer costs.
Sec. 13-72(a) : This is contradictory - in one place. it says there
shall be no dead-end water lines - in another, it states that if there
are, there shall be a blow-off valve.
Sec. 13-74 (a) : The word "underground" should be omitted from
the required facilities to carry storm, spring and surface waters.
Again, we must think about cost.
•
Sec. 13-74 (a) (3) : An explanation is needed. Mr. Niccolls ex-
plained that if there is a stream of storm water entering your prop-
erty, it should be discharged off the property after development in as
nearly the same manner as discharged prior to that time. Develop-
ment of the property shall provide for retention of accumulated storm
water on the ground in such a way that during rainstorms the down-
stream flood hazard will not be increased. This would occur in most
cases.
278
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
Sec. 13-75: Re underground systems to be installed in accordance
with the provisions of Article III - what is this Article III? , Mr.
Niccolls explained that this is an existing Chapter in the Town Code
which establishes underground systems in new subdivisions. Mr. Curry
again felt that underground systems should not be required, although
they might be encouraged. He also felt that the utility companies
should be responsible for this cost. Mr. Niccolls further, explained
that the utility companies are prohibited by the State Corporation
Commission from the expense of these underground lines -. therefore,
this cost must be borne by the customer. - the builder must be charged
the required cost per lot.
Sec. 13-78 : Again, re landscaaair.ggnd tdree cover - the only
requirement should be that excavaePd/EtEVr�� seeded and stablilized
to prevent soil erosion. This section does not follow through -
•" ' on 'one -hand it asks that trees and plantings be put in the public
ways and places - on the other, no planting is desired by the town
in its .easements. .
Sec. 13-81 : He saw no need for cluster subdivisions within
the Town limits - they belong out in the County.
Mr. Titus felt that Mr. Curry was right about the tree retention.
Also, landscaping should not be a problem for the town - this should
be up to the developer-builder. He asked Mr. Curry if he agrees that
a grading permit should be issued at the time a house is erected
on a particular lot or a block of lots? Mr. Curry said the town
had at one time gotten into such a requirement, but this posed a
problem and the builders did not want to even mention it. Mr.
Titus said some of the builders might know more about storm water
run-off, but some do not. For example: There are lots in his sub-
division that are very poorly graded. He did feel that this should
be done at the time a house is built. Mr. Titus also asked if Mr.
Curry felt that screening, fencing and retaining walls should not
be shown in the case of single family detached subdivisions only
as opposed to higher density. Mr. Curry replied that this is what
he meant.
Mr. Titus asked about the 20-foot easement on the rear or side
lot line - is it intended that such easements will be provided, even
tho they may not be needed? Mr. Curry felt that a 5 to 10-foot ease-
ment is sufficient in most cases, even though a 20-foot easement is
required.
Mr. Titus asked Mr. Curry if he favors all off-street parking.
Mr. Curry said this would probably be easier for the developer, but
he felt that there should be parking on one side of the street, with
the streets being only 30 feet wide. This would not only save the
developer money, but the town also, for maintenance costs, snow re-
moval , etc.
Mr. Titus appreciated the comments by Mr. Curry - he is the only
one that has been interested enough to come to the. hearing and make
comments, although he is not necessarily in the subdivision business.
Mayor Newman said that a meeting was held earlier at which time the
builders were invited and some did come. However, Mr. Curry is the
only one that has made any concrete remarks.
Mr. Titus said he has some comments about how long it takes to
get from one end to the other of the Subdivision Ordinance. Per-
haps it can be condensed. He was suggesting this with the provi-
sion that everything be lined up when it is first brought to the
Planning Commission. He felt there should be some effort to cut
the time down.
Mr. Rock asked Mr. Curry about his opinion that all of the addi-
tional regulations would increase the costs of developing land as
much as 25 percent. Mr. Curry thought perhaps this was a little high,
however, he did feel that the combination of his suggestions could
hold the cost down 25 percent over what is proposed.
Mayor Newman asked that the Subdivision Ordinance be considered,
along with Mr. Curry' s printed comments , at Council ' s next workshop
session. Mr. Titus suggested holding the record open for two weeks
for any additional comments. The hearing was declared closed by
Mayor Newman.
279 .
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
77-0-14 - Ordinance - Amending the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance.
On motion of Mr. Rock, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
ordinance was proposed :
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
• SECTION I. The Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby
amended by the addition of a new article to be known
as Article 7-A, "F-1" Flood Zone District Regulations,
to read as follows :
ARTICLE 7-A - "F-1" FLOOD ZONE DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS.
Sec. 7-A-1. Permitted Principal uses.
The following are permitted uses in the F-1 Flood
Zone District :
(a) Forestry, gardening, pasturage, farming and
horticulural uses.
(b), Park.
(c) Plant nursery.
(d) Horseahow grounds.
(e) Game, wildlife and natural vegetation
preserves.
S (f) Livestock grazing.
Sec. 7-A-2. Permitted Conditional uses when authorized
as a special exception by the B.Z.A.
The following are conditionally permitted uses in
the F-1 Flood Zone District when authorized as a special
exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals :
(a) Storage of equipment and materials, except
those liquids which if released into the water
body would be hazardous to humans and- damaging
to the water course ecology, including but not
limited to inflammable liquids such as petroleum,
or acids. All equipment- and material shall be
so contained or secured so as to not pose any
dangers by becoming floating debris during
periods of flood.
(b) Permanent animal occupancy - limited to ken-
. nels and stables, and exclusive of feed-lots
and confinement housing.
(c) Private recreational uses with all permanent
enclosed structures protected from- flood-
waters which have a one percent chance of
occurring each year.
Sec. 7-A-3. Permitted Accessory Uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in the
F-1 Flood Zone District:
(a) One free-standing sign and one sign attached
flat against a building, not exceeding 35
square feet in area each, located at least
5 feet from any street and which shall be
appurtenant to the property on which dis-
played.
(b) Bleachers , shelters, pens
Sec. 7-A''-4. Delineation of F-1 Flood Zone District.
The provisions of this Article shall apply to land
in the town shown within the F-1 Flood Zone District on
` Ci 0MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
the zoning map. The zone shall include all the land area
within the town which is within the 100 year flood plain
for the Town Branch and the Tuscarora Creek as identified
in the report titled "Flood Hazard Analysis, Tuscarora Creek"
prepared by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con-
servation Service and the Loudoun Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District, January 1974.
Sec. 7-A-5. Other regulations, F-1 Flood Zone District.
(a) No building or structure shall be erected within
the F-1 Flood Zone District unless its main floor
elevation is at least three feet above the level
of the 100 year flood on the site.
(b) Any structure placed within the F-1 Flood Zone
District shall cover not more than 25 percent
of the total land area under that particular
ownership so that the remaining land will be
open and allow for unobstructing passage of
water. However, open areas may be used for
parking and loading areas, landscaping, and
the required access drives and yards.
(c) Any building, structure or improvement located
in the F-1 Flood Zone District shall be designed
and constructed to withstand structural demand
and erosion up to an elevation not less than
three feet above the level of the 100 year flood
on the site. All materials and equipment. located
or stored below the main floor elevation shall be
protected from flood damage. To avoid aggravat-
ing flood damage, the design of any building,
structure or improvement shall not unreasonably
impedeu.the movement or flow of water and debris.
(d) No building or zoning permit shall be issued for
any building or structure within the F-1 Flood
Zone District area unless a site development plan
for the entire site is first submitted to the
County Soil Conservation Service Engineer for an
advisory report on the proposed development plan.
(e) All buildings, other structures and fills of any
kind of materials hereafter made, placed or erected
within the F-1 Flood Zone District shall be set
back at least 20 feet from all property lines and
at least the distance required to preserve and
maintain the 100 year flood plain in an open and
unobstructed condition.
SECTION II. Section 1-1 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance
is hereby amended to read as follows :
Sec. 1-1. Districts.
For the purpose of this Ordinance the Town of Leesburg
• is hereby divided into the following districts :
"R-1" One-family Residence District.
"R-2" General Residence District.
"R-3" Town House Residence District.
"R-4" . Multi-family Residence District.
"MC"' ' Medical-Hospital Center District.
"B-1" Community Business District.
"B-2" General Business District.
"M-1" Industrial District.
"F-1" Flood Zone District.
The term "R" Districts, as used hereinafter, means the
"R-1", "R-2", "R-3" and "R-4" Districts ; "B" Districts mean
the "B-1" and "B-2" Districts.
SECTION III. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after
its passage.
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING. 281-
v
Mr. Titus inquired as to whether there have been any comments from
the developers of the proposed warehouses. Mr. Niccolls reported
that a meeting was held between their engineers, attorney and Mr.
Digiulian and the Town' s engineers, Mr. Shope and himself. Mr.
Digiulian complained that the analysis done by Toups and Loiderman
compared 100-year flood elevations prepared by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service as existing with calculated flood elevations which
would exist after the warehouses are constructed andithat these two
elevations were calculated using different formulae and a different
computer program. Our engineers agreed that this was true but that
results of these two programs is, likely to be insignificant. It,
therefore, seemed appropriate to have the calculations done in par-
allel . This report will be given to Council as soon as it is com-
pleted. Also, Mr. Hanes had requested that this matter be tabled,
but Council decided to proceed and denied their site plan. Mr.
Martin will have to decide whether or not this would be"grandfathered" /
in. The ordinance was adopted unanimously: v
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
77-146 - Resolution - Commenting on the pro;osed housing project for
the elderly and handicapped.
-� On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and adopted after some discussion:
WHEREAS , the Town of Leesburg has been invited pursuant to
Section 213 (c) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, to comment on a Section 8 assisted housing project
for the elderly and handicapped as proposed by the Virginia
Housing Development Authority, relative to housing need and
availability of public facilities to the project; and
WHEREAS, this Council does recognize the need in Leesburg
and Loudoun County for quality rental housing for the el-
derly and the handicapped at rents they can afford; and
WHEREAS, there are no water-tap connections remaining under
a maximum connection limit imposed by the State Health De-
partment until additional sources of water supply are found:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I. The concept of Section 8 assisted housing for
the elderly and handicapped, subject to all of the Town' s
existing ordinances, rules and regulations, is endorsed.
SECTION II. At the present time public water supply is
not available to the proposed site.
SECTION III. The Manager is authorized and directed to
transmit a copy of this resolution to the U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development as this Council ' s response
to the proposed project.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
77-147 - Resolution - Granting waiver of certain site plan requirements.
On motion of Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Titus, the following reso-
lution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as
follows :
SECTION I. The typical street section, bonding requirements,
and site plan fees provided in Chapter 9A of the Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance, are hereby waived in accordance with Sec-
tion 9A-6-12 of said Ordinance, for the construction of park-
ing facilities for the Loudoun County Courthouse complex.
)(Am X
X ?}S<$b
282 MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
SECTION II. Continuation of this waiver requires that the
sidewalk on the north side of Cornwall be extended to the
intersection with Slack Lane.
There followed lengthy discussion concerning the fact that the Plan-
ning Commission took no action to recommend this waiver to the Council.
Mr. Mervin Jackson, a member of the Planning Commission, explained that
the Commission voted to forward the request to the Council without
recommendation - the street did not meet Town specifications. Mr.
Titus felt that Council should take no action on any waiver until
it sees action of the Planning Commission. He also asked what would
happen if the trees die from construction. Mr. Chamberlin felt it
would be no problem to secure a, letter from the County, stating that
it would remove the trees if necessary. The resolution was then
unanimously adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor, Newman.
Nay: None.
77-148 - Resolution - Authorizing an agreement, approving a cash bond
to guarantee installation of public improvements
and approving water extensions for K Mart.
•
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Herrell , the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I. The Town Manager is authorized and -directed to
execute the standard agreement, and the cash bond in the
amount of $122, 350 is approved, both of which are to guaran-
tee installation of public improvements for K Mart, in ac-
cordance with plans approved by the Director of Engineering.
SECTION II. Extension of the municipal water works for this
installation is approved.
Mr. Niccolls said that curb, gutter and sidewalk are all included
in the site plan, including dedication along Route 7. Commonwealth
Bank is also dedicating right-of-way along Route 7. The resolution
was unanimously adopted: _
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
77-149 - Resolution - Authorizing expenditure of Revenue Sharing en-
titlements for maintenance of- public safety in
the Town of Leesburg, Virginia.
On motion of Mayor Newman, seconded by Mr. Cole, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, funds are needed in the General Fund for the main-
tenance costs of public safety programs in the Town of Lees-
burg, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Revenue Sharing Entitlement's paid by the U. S. Gov-
ernment may be used for paying the cost of public safety -
programs ; and
WHEREAS, balances in the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund are suf-
ficient
uf
ficient to pay at' least $96, 000.00 toward such costs in fis-
cal year ending June 30, 1978 :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
The Director of Finance is authorized and directed to trans-
fer $96, 000. 00 from the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund to the
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING. 283
General Fund in the fiscal year ending June 30, .1978, for
the purpose of paying part of the costs of public safety
salaries.
Mr. Niccolls said this amount, and probably more, will be received
from Revenue Sharing this year. The resolution was adopted by a
vote of 5 to 1 :
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Titus, Tolbert and Mayor
Newman.
Nay: Councilmember Rock.
77-150 - Resolution - Commenting and objecting to Draft 208 Plan
Segments.'
On motion of Mr. Titus, seconded by Mr. Cole, for purposes of
discussion, the following resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
Leesburg' s response to NVPDC' s request .for comments on the
draft report on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System prepared as part of the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment
Planning Process and the Preliminary Sewer Service Area Map
distributed by the Washington area Council of Governments
Department of Water Resources shall be as follows:
_ (1) So long as the draft report contains no recommendations
concerning future NPDES permit conditions for the Leesburg
Sewage Treatment Plant, Leesburg has no comments.
(2) The service area for the Leesburg Sewage Treatment
Plant shown on the Preliminary Sewer Service Area Map con-
flicts with:
(a) The future service area designated in the Lees-
burg Facility Plan; and
(b) The approved Water Quality Management Plan for'
Northern Virginia prepared by the Northern Virginia Plan-
ning District Commission (Study Area I, Plan and• Program
1-5) which states "The existing treatment plant serving
the Town of Leesburg will be expanded on an incremental
basis, to serve the needs of the town as well as the sur-
rounding areas of Loudoun County, within the Tuscarora
watershed". Leesburg strenuously objects to any descrip-
tion of the Leesburg Service Area that conflicts with the
Leesburg Facility Plan or the Northern Virginia Water
Quality Management Plan.
Mr. Niccolls explained a memorandum of August 24 concerning the COG
A-95 review. At a meeting held last month by the Water Resources
Planning Board attended by Mayor Newman, Mr. DeFalco and himself,
that Board was convinced that it would be prudent to delay action
on this report because the Water Control Board representative re-
quested it and because the Town had submitted additional information
about the practicality of overland flow or spray irrigation as treat-
ment methods. In the past 48 hours he has contacted Mr. Lamb of the
COG group, NVPDC and the Water Control Board and, has learned that the
Water Control Board staff members in the Northern Virginia office,
with Richmond' s approval , will be formally requesting Leesburg to
substantiate its argument that land application is not practical
and to give a more detailed analysis of the availability of land
for this method. At this meeting tomorrow, the Water Control Board
member will request another delay. This will be supported by Horace
Hallett of the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority unless he is other-
wise directed. The City of Fairfax will agree with this request -
they are cooperating on behalf of Leesburg s plan because they dis-
agree with proposals for land application in the Goose Creek water-
shed. He felt that Leesburg will have to ask the Water Control Board
for 75 percent of anything additional in cost - this could be another
284
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
$10, 000 job. Mr. Rock suggested that the Council ask Mr. Librach,
who started this whole thing, to come and meet with them. He said
the Council will fight this all the way through until the last brick
is laid. Mr. Niccolls said there is a member of the Fairfax Board
of Supervisors on the Water Resources Planning Board that is very
much opposed to any discharges upstream of their water intake and
she will try to force Leesburg. Mr. Niccolls felt that we should
wait until the letter is received from the Water Control Board -
we will then know what will be necessary in the way of an additional
study. This is just the first of the 208 documents that we are com-
menting on. Mr. Titus felt that we should do this right - hire a
soil scientist to do a complete study of the areas in question.
The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
77-151 - Resolution - Authorizing purchase of two police patrol
vehicles.
On motion of Mr. Titus, seconded by Mr. Herrell, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Councilof the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I. The manager is authorized and directed to enter
into a purchase agreement with Leesburg Motors, Inc. , P. 0.
Box 1202, Leesburg, Virginia for two police patrol vehicles
in accordance with a proposal received August 8, 1977 at a
cost not to exceed $10, 560. 00.
SECTION II. An appropriation is hereby made to Account No.
9010. 803, Police Automotive Equipment, in the amount of
$10, 560. 00 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1978.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
77-152 - Resolution - Waiving business license requirements and es-
tablishing certain conditions for the Leesburg
Optimist Club Bluegrass Festival.
On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I. Authorization is granted for the Leesburg Opti-
mist Club Bluegrass Festival to be held September 24, 1977 ,
or in case of rain, October 1, 1977 , in line with their let-
ter of July 29.
SECTION II. Section 17-55 and 17-63 of the Town Code regard-
ing business licenses are waived for the festival.
SECTION III. This authorization and waiver require that no
additional parking spaces be used other than those within
the current off-street and on-street parking system. It is
further required that, in addition to the police department' s
normal patrol of special events, at least two other peace
officers shall be employed, not at town expense, to provide
supplemental police protection for the festival.
There was some discussion as to whether or not the County' s mass as-
sembly ordinance will apply in this case. Mr. Niccolls said it would
if there are more than 500 people in attendance, however, the appli-
cant says there will be less than 500. Mr. Herrell suggested that
the residents on Loudoun Street be notified of this Festival. The
resolution was adopted by a vote of 4 to 2 :
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Tolbert and Mayor Newman.
Nay: Councilmembers Rock and Titus .
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING. 285
77-153 - Resolution - Making an appropriation for the fiscal year
ending June 30,. 1978.
On motion of Mr. Titus, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
An appropriation is made to Account No. 50000. 803, Capital
Projects Engineering, in the amount of $3, 380. 00 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1978.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
Mr. Niccolls called attention to a Memo concerning the 100 water
permits issued. Copies of the Governor' s Proclamation concerning the
existence of a potential water shortage have been distributed. Also,
the need for assistance during this shortage has been identified by
the State Attorney General ' s Office to the Governor' s Office for
water users outside the corporate limits. A similar request will
have to be made by Loudoun County to the Governor for this.
4-4-, Mr. Niccolls also reported that the well driller has had some
equipment failures, but is scheduled Co begin drilling Monday. Ar-
rangements have been made to have chemical, biological and other
necessary tests on the lime kilt quarry water. to determine whether
the water has any major identifiable problems under the clean water
act and whether there are any materials in the water that would run
up the tfeatment costs. This report should be available in about
two weeks. Arrangements are also being made for pumping the lime
kiln quarry to determine if it can sustain pumping at the rate of
about 1 , 000 gpm for 48 hours. It will take about two weeks to line
up the pumps and the equipment. If the chemical tests reveal that
this is an unsuitable source of supply, there will, of course, be
no point in pumping . it. Also discussed was the possibility that
the water in the lime kiln quarry may not be a continuing source
of water. It was suggested that perhaps the Fire -Department might
pump it for a period of six hours andsee what happens.
Mayor Newman appointed Mr. Titus and herself as a committee to
work with Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Dickerson of Kamstra, Dickerson & Associates,
Mr. Niccolls and Mr. Martin concerning the possible annexation of the .
Hoffman tract. This will be_ an open meeting. These people will be
advised when a date has been set for such a meeting.
Mr. Titus noted that a permit had been issued for a temporary
closing of the sidewalk. He asked if this means the driving of ve-
hicles on the sidewalk. Mr. Niccolls said he is obligated to make
the necessary repairs to the walk and he claims he is going to re-
place it with brick. Mr. Titus suggested that we obtain a signature
on this .
Mr. Titus also requested that material from the Town Office
either be delivered by 8: 00 P.M. or wait until the next day unless
it is of an emergency nature. .
Mr. Titus questioned the fact that a zonkpg pgTnilt was. issued
for a swimming pool , when the Town is •facing w eft`"shortage. Mr.
Niccolls said no limitation has been made for the use of swimming
pools - he thought perhaps this should be done. He said the best
way to regulate this would be an "excess water usage charge."
77-154 - Resolution - Making an appropriation for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1978.
On motion of Mr. Titus, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows:
286
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
An appropriation is made . to Account No. 10300. 819, Utility
Relocation, in the amount of $14, 950.00 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1978.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
77-155 - Resolution - Granting waiver of site plan requirements.
On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted;
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Planning Coumtission has recommended
the following waiver of Site Plan Requirements :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
The Site Plan Requirements of Chapter 9A of the Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance are hereby waived, in accordance with
Sec. 9A-6-12 of said Zoning Ordinance,, for the erection
of an athleticstorage building to be constructed on the
football field at Loudoun County High School as per a
written request from Edgar B. Hatrick, Principal of Loudoun
County High School, and in accordance with plans submitted
with this request.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
Request by Judge Archibald M. Aiken for privacy fence at his residence.
A request was received fora privacy fence at the residence of
Judge Aiken on the west side of his property located at the corner
of Cornwall and Church Streets . This request stemmed from the fact
that Town employees trimmed out a hedge on that side of the house,
thus leaving the "privacy" of the residents intruded upon according
to Judge Aiken' s request. On motionof Mr. Rock, seconded by Mr.
Tolbert, the following motion was made and unanimously adopted:
Judge Aiken shall be informed that the Council considered
his request 'for a privacy fence and rejected it.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
Also discussed was the fact that Judge Aiken had withheld payment
of the utility tax on his electric bill, pending the outcome of the
above request for a fence. It was felt that Council should be advised
what recourse it has for the collection of such utility taxes before
any action' would be taken in this regard. This information will be
furnished for the next Council workshop.
Council discussed briefly a 'request from Mr. Herbert Pearson for
an encroachment easement for two show windows at 23-25 S. King Street.
However, Mr. Rock objected to consideration of this request at this
time - it was felt that Mr. Pearson should. get approval from the
Board of Architectural Review before he comes to Council. Mr.
Niccolls will present a comprehensive report on Mr. Pearson' s build-
ing.
Mayor Newman said it has been suggested that Certificates of Ap-
preciation be presented .to individuals involved in the presentation
of "August Court Days:" No action was taken at this time.
On motion of Mayor Newman, seconded by Mr. Herrell, Council voted
unanimously to go into executive session to discuss a personnel matter:
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman.
Nay: None.
287
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1977 MEETING.
On motion of Mr. Rock, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council voted
unanimously to reconvene at 10: 14 P.M.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herren ,. Rock, Titus, Tolbert and
Mayor Newman. .
Nay: None .
On motion of Mr. Rock, seconded by Mr. Cole, Council voted to
recess this meeting until 7 : 30 P.M. on August 31 , 1977.
Mayor
etfiCouncil