Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1980_11_12 339 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 . A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia, on November 12, 1980 at 7 : 30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with Mr. Tolbert giving the invocation and followed with the Salute to the Flag led by Mr. Willis . Present were: Mayor Kenneth B . Rollins, Councilmembers Charles A. Bos, Stanley D. Herrell , Jr. , G. Dewey Hill , Jr. , Marylou Hill, John W. Tolbert, Jr. and Howard M. Willis , Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Assistant Manager Jeffrey H. Minor and Town Attorney George M. Martin. The minutes of special meeting of October 14 , 1980 and regular meeting of October 22 , 1980 were approved as written . MANAGER'S REPORT: (1) Mr. Shope has prepared a Capital Projects Summary for October, and Mr. Taylor has prepared the report on Revenues and Expenditures for October, as well as a statement of cash balances . In addition, Councilmembers have received communications concern- ing the meetings we will be having with Dr. Mueller of the Uni- versity of Virginia, with dates suggested as November 20 , Decem- ber 3 and 17 . The November 20 date conflicts with the Planning Commission meeting, but the training session should be over by 8 : 00 p.m. Also, in a packet last week there was a report on utility data, which showed the third quarter water consumption up substantially . Pumped water was about 100 , 000 gpd over the average. • ( 2) Catoctin Cable has submitted a performance bond and insurance certificates required by the agreement - they are being reviewed by George Martin and the staff and will be reported on later. ( 3) Mr. Minor attended a very important meeting pertaining to this year ' s application for Community Development funds . He will be reporting to the Committee and the Council insofar as projects for this year are concerned. (4) A decision was made several weeks ago that it was too close to bad winter weather to open excavation of East Loudoun Street between King and Church Streets as planned for this year. About 95 percent of the concrete work has been done and 60 per- cent of the brick face sidewalk completed . It has been patched and will be satisfactory until next spring. ( 5) The Town Branch project (Phase IV) has now been essen- tially completed by the contractor and we are very satisfied with the work . A punch list is being prepared for minor corrections and defects but, for all intents and purposes, it is done. (6) Signals at the intersection of Plaza and East Market Streets have been installed by the Highway Department and we are trying to encourage VEPCO to complete the electrical work more quickly than they had planned . They should be operating soon. They will be on a fixed time basis for the first several weeks. As soon as the signal detectors are installed, it will be fully operational - the Plaza Street traffic will demand the light change. COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS : Mr. Tolbert asked if the delay on East Loudoun Street will have any effect on the money involving the contractor on the di- Zerega spring? Mr. Niccolls said it will not - there will have to be a separate contract for the excavation, etc. Mr.Bos commented on the little message on the bottom of the pay check stubs . 340 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1980 MEETING. Mr. Hill was concerned about the unfinished streets in Carr- vale. Some of the people living there have been living for two to three years on streets with manholes sticking up and no macadam. He suggested that perhaps Council should tighten up the Subdivi- sion Ordinance to require that these improvements be made before a house is sold or perhaps a part of the occupancy permit. He thinks the developer is taking advantage of our present ordinance . He asked that this item be placed on the Utility and Public Works Committee agenda. Mr. Willis inquired if Mr. Niccolls received a note concern- ing the completion of installation of the fire and burglar alarm system at the Log Cabin? Mr. Niccolls had received this . MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Rollins concurred with the appointment of Clagett Moxley to the Police Department - he comes from a family of life-long residents of Leesburg. Mayor Rollins said he has delayed making an appointment to the Board of Architectural Review to replace Mr. Bos because he was anxious to get a person that is a professional architect and whose philosophy is consistent with the Town ' s concerning the types of buildings and the general character of the Old and Historic District. He has found such a person, Mr. B. Calloway Jones, who lives and owns property on North Wirt Street and who is a professional architect. He is very pleased with his creden- tials and his philosophy . Mr. B. Calloway Jones is hereby ap- pointed to the Board of Architectural Review. Mr. Jones was introduced to Councilmembers . He is a new resident of Leesburg, having lived here for only two years . He is a native of Alex- andria and practiced architecture there for six years before coming to Leesburg. He had ample opportunity to be professionally before the Alexandria Historic Review Committee. His philosophy is basically a planning question. He feels very comfortable I/with the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance and the Design Manual for the Old and Historic District. Mr. Hill asked how he feels about an old house that has to be torn down because it costs too much to rebuild it? Mr. Jones said he is not wedded to an old building because it is old. In some cases, a building could have such architectural merit. He does not feel the buildings he designs should last for a lifetime. 80-113 - RESOLUTION - AFFIRMING APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs . Hill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : Council hereby affirms the appointment by the Mayor of B. Calloway Jones to fill the unexpired term of Charles A. Bos as a member of the Board of Architectural Review, said term to expire on June 30 , 1981 . Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Rollins . Nay : None. PROPOSED EMERGENCY YOUTH SHELTER AT 40 WEST LOUDOUN STREET. Mayor Rollins said he assumes the County is officially ap- pealing the disapproval of the Leesburg Planning Commission for a commission permit for an emergency youth shelter at 40 West Loudoun Street. He asked who is representing the County in this matter? Mr. Al Sharp, Assistant County Administrator, said he and Mr. Finnegan, County Attorney, are here on behalf of the County . This is an official action by the Board. It is construed by the 341 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1980 MEETING. Board to be part of the request for a commission permit. Mayor Rollins asked if Council wishes to hold a public hearing on this matter or to hear the arguments by the County and those in favor or opposed tonight and make a decision? Mr. Tolbert was against a public hearing - they have had enough time to discuss the pros and cons of this matter - either take it up tonight or cast it aside. There was no objection to hearing the appeal to- night. Mayor Rollins stated, therefore, that there will be no public hearing and the Council will hear the County ' s appeal to- night, as well as comments from those who wish to make a presenta- tion . Council was in agreement to act on this matter tonight. Mr. Al Sharp introduced Mr. Edward Finnegan, County Attorney, who will make a part of the County 's presentation. This will take three parts : (1) A chronology of events leading to this petition; (2) A discussion by the County Attorney on the legal issues that have arisen; ( 3) A restatement of the request for a commission permit as set forth in the Code of Virginia;_ and (4) Fundamentally a land use question that asks "Does the pro- posed youth shelter substantially comply with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Leesburg? " (1) Mr. Sharp explained that the Board, in January and February of 1980 , established and appointed members to a Site Consideration Task Force to seek an appropriate site for an Emergency Youth Shelter. In May of 1980 , the Assistant County Attorney wrote each of the towns in the County, informing them of the possibility of locating such a shelter in their town, and asked when and where such a facility would be a permitted use . Mr. Forbes, Zoning Ad- ministrator for Leesburg, responded that such a use would be per- mitted in all districts except "F-1" and "M-1" , and that a com- mission permit from the Leesburg Planning Commission would be re- quired. The Board of Supervisors directed its staff to pursue and honor the intent of Mr. Forbes ' determination. He, Mr. Sharp, personally informed several Town Council members and appointed Town officials that the Task Force was actively pursuing three possible sites within the town limits of Leesburg . They were kept informed on deliberations and lease negotiations by the Task Force. Recognition of this may be inferred by Mr. Forbes ' letter to Dr. Gable, stating that it is his correct understanding "that the shelter will not be of a penal or correctional nature and is therefore permitted by right. " The Task Force recommended to the Board that 40 West Loudoun Street was the most appropriate site available at that time. The Board heard public comments in September and authorized the application for a commission permit. The Task Force held several informational meetings with neighbors in the area of 40 West Loudoun Street. On September 18 , a case for a commission permit was presented by him (Mr. Sharp) to the Lees- burg Planning Commission. A public hearing was established and was held by the Planning Commission on October 16 . Action was deferred and a three-member committee appointed. To the County ' s knowledge, no committee meeting was held prior to the November 6th meeting of the Planning Commission, when a resolution of de- nial was passed, with no reasons stated for this denial . The Board of Supervisors, therefore, is petitioning the Leesburg Town Council to overrule the Planning Commission ' s denial and grant a commission permit for an Emergency Youth Shelter at 40 West Loudoun Street. (2) Mr. Finnegan said there are three issues for the Council to consider in this appeal , as follows : (a) Was the County afforded a fair hearing by the Planning Commission? Mr. Sharp has mentioned his problems in trying to communicate with the Planning Commission . There was an initial presentation and, without any vote at all , the Commission called a public hearing. There were no questions or concerns . The County made a presentation at the hearing - it was referred to a committee. The County requested an opportunity to be present when the committee met - in fact, the Freedom of Information Act 342 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. requires this . They were not notified. The findings presented to the Council from the Planning Commission refer to a committee meeting and report. Both he and Mr. Sharp have asked for the report and have been told there is none. (b) Did the Planning Commission communicate any findings to the Council which would support their recommendation of denial, as required by Sec. 15. 1-456 of the State Code? Their four statements were : (1) the location is not in accord with the Leesburg Comprehensive Plan; (2) the character of the proposed shelter is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan; ( 3) the extent of the proposed shelter is not in accord with the Compre- hensive Plan; and (4) opposition at the public hearing by citi- zens of the Town . The statute asks them to make a determination as to whether or not the character, location and extent is in ac- cord with the Comprehensive Plan. They have given conclusionary statements , without any supporting facts - these are not suffi- cient to deny a permit. They have a right to know the reasons for denial - a blanket statement is inappropriate. Section 15.1-456 explicitly states that the final decision lies with the Town Council . What are the reasons? He suggested that they are not there. (c) What were the facts and whether or not they indicated this use was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan? The Code of Virginia indicates that they are talking about public facili- ties in the nature of buildings . In this case, they are not deal- ing with buildings - they are dealing with residents . They are taking a four-unit dilapidated dwelling and turning it into a single family unit, as the Town ' s Zoning Administrator defines it. He, personally, does not believe a commission permit is necessary, but the Board of Supervisors came to the town at its request. Nothing has been shown to prove this is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. (3) Mr. Sharp said the central issue is one of land use, due process and the appropriate relationships between the County and I/the Town. The County has a Leesburg payroll of $4 . 5 million and brings to the town approximately 450 public employees on a daily basis . At this scale, they are concerned about efficiency and effectiveness of public operations. It is critical that offices and services are co-located wherever possible in order to mini- mize public expenditure of funds and to provide the most effec- tive services to the citizens , whether County or Town . Location of this proposed shelter in Leesburg is important because of the supportive services available from other County agencies (Mental Health/Mental Retardation, Social Services, Juvenile Courts, the Douglass Community Center and all services offered by the busi- ness community within the Town) . Leesburg has traditionally housed County government operations and Council should recognize this fact. There could be legal questions concerning the intent of Sec. 15. 1-456 , but the Board of Supervisors is approaching the Town as a good neighbor . The location of this proposed youth shelter is consistent with the existing zoning and with the character and use within the neighborhood. It is residential, . as has been demonstrated across the State of Virginia - in no other jurisdiction has such a shelter been interpreted as any- thing other than a residential facility and, therefore, con- sistent with a primarily residental neighborhood. It will not cause the structure to be altered, especially its historical sig- nificance. The proposed shelter is in compliance with the Compre- hensive Plan and is not an institution, but a family-like resi- dence. General public access will be controlled. It should, therefore, not be excluded arbitrarily from the Leesburg location. (4) Finally, opposition at the hearing by citizens of the Town is unfortunate and inappropriate. There were also citizens of the Town in support of the proposed use. Expressed citizen con- cerns should not be a reason for permit denial - there is no issue that comes before a public body that has unanimous support or uni- versal understanding . He asked that Council issue the permit so that these services might be available to these children by human service agencies while the County provides shelter. 343 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. Mr. Herrell asked if any of these children would have crimi- nal records? Mr. Sharp said the nature of a youth shelter is not one of a correctional institution - such people would be referred to a correctional facility. This is a place to pro- vide shelter and a structured pause in a time of need. Mr. Tolbert asked how long a child would be detained there? Mr. Sharp said none of these children would be "detained" (this means holding against their will) . This would not be a secure facility - there will be no locked doors nor any policemen. Their length of stay would be from one to not more than 60 days . It is a shelter for those in need until long-term arrangements can be made - it is hoped that they might return to their family unit. Mr. Tolbert asked what type of recreation will be pro- vided? Mr. Sharp said there are non-profit organizations that have offered to put in an activity room inside the building . They would have the use of the Douglass Community Center and other areas . There is nothing wrong with going to the movies or to get an ice cream cone. It is possible to put up a basket- ball backboard. The lot is only 46 feet wide so it does not offer a playing field. Firemen ' s Field, however, is close by for a ball game when not scheduled for other activity. Some of these young people will be women who may or may not be in- terested in outside recreational activities. Mayor Rollins asked who determines placement in this facility? Mr. Sharp said there is a technical steering committee composed of agency heads of Social Services, Mental Health and Juvenile Pro- bation, as well as a shelter director, who will have ultimate determination on the appropriateness of any young people being proposed for the facility . The Juvenile Judge will have cases before him and he may view this as to whether or not it would be an appropriate placement. He would have no preeminent au- thority to place anyone there, but there has to be a balance in working with him. Mayor Rollins said there is no question that the Juvenile Judge can place a child there. Mr. Sharp said the Judge would also understand that there is a funding source that could be lost with inappropriate placement. They are dealing with local and State officials and with funding sources from two levels . Mayor Rollins asked if we are dealing with age groups? Mr. Sharp said mostly from 12 to 17 . Mr. Bos asked if the reasons for wanting this shelter in a town environment are overwhelmingly so strong that they would prefer this house (even with its deficiencies) to a larger area somewhere else with more parking, more play area, etc . ? Mr. Sharp said there is no ideal location - it ' s a question of trade-offs . The majority of the youth they are dealing with live in developed areas . To move them outside of any social activities would have a negative impact. Also, there is an inner working between this facility and other government agen- cies - it has to be in close enough proximity to save staff time. They could not have such a home where it might be iso- lated in case of a snowstorm. Mr. Tolbert suggested that the old Lucketts School would be an ideal site. Mr. Sharp said he understands the Lucketts Ruritans are trying to save it from falling down completely. It needs a roof and the::heating :is completely unusable at this time. One of the considerations throughout this search was the availability to lease a build- ing - there are no funds available to purchase a facility at this time. They would be paying $1300 a month for the proposed building, which includes a significant amount of improvements by the landowner and the County putting in a kitchen. They would be working with community groups to do the interior painting and refurbishing . The County would be purchasing equipment and furniture to equip the house and would also pay for the heat . Mr. Hill asked Mr. Finnegan to give his definition of a one-family dwelling? Mr. Finnegan felt Mr. Forbes should be the expert on this . Mr. Hill said he would want to know this, but he did not think it would be a one-family dwelling - not even a two-family dwelling. As he looks at it, , this is a per- manent type facility and the same problems will be there to cope with, both now and in the future. He is not against the 344 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. concept, but the County should approach this on a permanent basis . He knows of no place in town that rents for that amount, plus furnishing all utilities , and it does not fit the concept for a one-family situation . He felt this was the Planning Commission ' s reason for denial of the commission permit. Mr. Sharp said the definition of family was taken from the Town Manager ' s comments on September 15th. Concerning the permanency, the lease has:. a- six- month notification after the first year . He believes the Board of Supervisors wishes to try it as an approach before they go to something permanent . They think they are tackling the problems concerning youth in a multitude of ways - in dealing with their existing agencies, with diversions and with correctional insti- tutions outside the County . This has been identified as the No . 1 human service priority among all the agencies. Each of them has said they need a place to shelter young people before they can click in the other services that are available. The Board was very aware that there was a tenuousness to any leased property, but they thought it was better to try a leased facility before they commit public funds, which are very scarce these days . He will take these comments back to the Board. Mr. Willis asked if this is all County funded? Mr. Sharp said No, citizens, staff members and elected officials went to Richmond last year and got a special appropriation of $100 , 000 for the biennium, so there is $50 ,000 each year set aside by the State Legislature to the Department, ,Kdf Corrections budget'.forttheeexplicit purpose of a youth shelter in Loudoun County . This is the County ' s second attempt to deal with the needs of young people . It is the first time your delegates and State Senator have been able to work so carefully with citizens and elected officials in gathering State money . The rest of it is County money, with the possibility of some reimbursement under Title 20 , Social Services. We are, therefore, dealing with 75 percent local money. Mr. Willis inquired as to how long the lease is for? Mr. Sharp said the lease is annual, with a six-month ' s notification on either party, and with built-in clauses that carry it forth through 51 to 7 years, depending on when itis clicked out. This is the only facility that was offered willingly - the rest were sought out ' and met the majority of the criteria . There was one other site in Leesburg that was offered and then withdrawn. Mr. Tolbert asked about the old school at Hillsboro? Mr. Sharp said this is being used as a Community Center. They are repairing the roof and it is under long-term lease by that Asso- ciation. Mr. Tolbert asked about the old Arcola school? Mr. Sharp said there are probably ten schools that may be under- utilized and three that have been taken back by the County for community centers. The Arcola School is being used entirely for programming - a day care center, a• senior nutrition program and classes . Mr. Tolbert said he was down there three weeks ago and it was empty - he is on the Board for the day care center. Mr. Hill said one of the reasons the Planning Commission de- nied the permit was because of public input. Why are we required to have public hearings on such matters if we can ' t usehthem2 He personally believes such hearings are very important. Mr. Finnegan said there is no requirement to have a public hearing - it is in the discretion of the Planning Commission and the Coun- cil . There must be solid reasons behind recommendations . In this case, the question was whether or not this particular loca- tion is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the opposi- tion does not say that. There were no facts brought before the Planning Commission that were transmitted to the Council, other than they are opposed. There were also people in favor. A decision by a public body must be reasonable if it is to be upheld - there must be reasons stated and none were in this case. Mayor Rollins asked if he did not think the fact that it was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan was a reason? Mr. Finnegan said a mere statement is not a sufficient reason . The Planning Commission only makes a recommendation, .land it is this Town Council that has the delegated authority to determine ap- proval or disapproval of the use - a general statement is not sufficient. There is nothing in the written record that would indicate that this use is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. General statements are not enough. 345 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. Mr. Herrell recalled that Mr. Royce Givens appeared several years ago seeking a site for a group home on South King Street. Is this the same thing? Mr. Sharp said this was not the same type facility - it was a group home - a treatment center to pro- vide long-term care. Mr. Herrell asked if they were aware that there was opposition to that? Mr. Sharp said there appears to be opposition to all group type homes, but opposition is not sufficient to deny a commission permit. Mr. Herrell said there are plenty of areas in the eastern part of the County - there is a nice facility in Sterling Park. Why would the County come to another jurisdiction when they have areas in the County? Sterl- ing Park does not have its own elective body, nor does Sugarland Run, Ashburn or Broad Run - they all are controlled by the County and all the facilities are . Leesburg provides its own police service, water and sewer - it certainly is not the only urban location they could find. Mr. Sharp said they have a group home for the emotionally retarded in Purcellville. They come to Lees- burg because it is the County seat and because other government supportive services are here. Time and transportation would amount to a great deal each time a social worker would have to go to Broad Run or other areas so far removed. As the County seat, Leesburg gains certain advantages - one being a clean employer. It also gains some disadvantages - it becomes a site for other services . These the Council will have to ultimately decide as the town and the County grow - there will be an issue as to where to provide services . Purcellville did not request a commission permit - the Council and the County staff reasoned and worked out an arrange- ment whereby the Town would work with the staff, both there and with the Mental Health and Retardation staff . This home has been there for more than two years with no problems, in fact, there were people who asked that the home stay there when it came up for renewal of the lease . Therefore, they come in terms of good neighbor relations - town residents are county residents also. When you deal with human services, you deal with residential questions as well as with office questions . Mr. Herrell asked if they looked at any facilities in Sterling Park or the Sugar- land Run area? Mr. Sharp said there are no homes in the Sterling Park area that are large enough. They looked at sites in unin- corporated areas, in Hamilton, old Sterling and the old Christian School in Leesburg. None of these were large enough except the old Christian School , but it is enormous, unheatable, the roof was leaking and the landlord was not willing to make repairs. Mr. Herrell asked if it was advertised that the County was will- ing to pay $1300 for a facility with five bedrooms and five baths? Mr. Sharp said it was advertised for an appropriate site for an emergency youth shelter in the Times-Mirror. One of the members of the Task Force called every real estate office in the County - they sent letters to these real estate firms - they followed every contact that came from private sources . It was a difficult search. Mr. Herrell believed he could build a building of block and rent it for less than $1300 and make money. Mr. Bos said the County is asking for a commission permit essentially based on the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan . The Comprehensive Plan does not even treat the issue of an emergency youth shelter. He, therefore, finds it difficult to either defend or deny the application . In the legal sense, if the Council should have to grant this permit, the youth shelter would start with overwhelming opposition from the neighborhood. Many of the people on West Loudoun Street were not contacted and they feel that they are having something thrust upon them that they were not aware of . This should all be explained to them. He asked Mr. Sharp how he thinks he is going to get this off the ground with several neighbors being substantially opposed to the concept of this? Mr. Sharp said he believes in good faith with the majority of the public - they have made their best case and they will accept the reality of it in their neigh- borhood - he and, not speak for them. There were others who were supportive of it. Rev. Wilson spoke for several of his parishoners in favor of it. It was a difficult task - they did not know whether they should go to the neighbors first or to the Board of Supervisors first . They chose to do it simul- taneously - to contact the immediate neighbors and go to the Board. The Supervisors directed them to go to their neighbors 346 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1980 MEETING. and to hold a public meeting to explain the purpose. The question is should they not go back to the body assigning them the task before they go public in terms of neighborhood and press and the media? He said they had this same dilemma when they were looking at another site in Leesburg . He was sorry that this issue has become so emotionally charged. He believes the County does things to the best of its ability . Mrs . Hill said the announce- ment was made on Friday prior to the Board of Supervisors ' meet- ing . Mr. Sharp said the agenda packet goes out to the press on Thursday afternoon or Friday morning and the radio apparently "jumped the gun. " He apologized if there was any mishandling on the part of the Supervisors or the staff . Mr. Willis asked if this permit is granted, what time frame are they talking about in taking over the building, remodeling, etc. ? Mr. Sharp said there are several conditions in the lease agreement: (1) A com- mission permit be granted by the Town of Leesburg; ( 2) Selection of an acceptable site by the appropriate State agencies; (3) There must be staff on board two months in terms of training be- fore this shelter can begin to receive young people. So they are talking about two to four months. Mr. Willis asked if any provi- sion has been made to relocate the families that will be put out? Mr. Sharp said any citizen has access to the County Housing As- sistance Program - they could work with this group. Mrs . Gerry Gardner, member of the Board of Supervisors and a member of the Task Force, said she worked diligently with the citizens in the County to try to find a house for this purpose. There is a demonstrated need for the youth in the County . As to using the Arcola School, she did not think uses could be mixed - this is already being used as a nutrition center for adult citi- zens . The Sterling Park Community Center serves the whole eastern end of the County (approximately 30, 000 people) . It is inade- quate now and they are in the process of asking the School Board for use of the old Annex in Sterling as an annex to the Com- munity Center. They have 125 members and average 80 at the meetings . The Board of Supervisors will soon have to provide a nutrition site for the Sterling Park seniors. The Sterling Park houses are not anything like large enough to house a youth shelter. Mr. Hill suggested the County buy a house. Two or three years ago, there was money in the County budget for a house (they had an option on one in Purcellville and one in Lees- burg) . ! There was so much opposition it was killed. Buying a house is probably the best way to go, but right now they need something that will meet the need for a few years . The County is not in a position to buy right now. She regrets that the neighbors are upset but, more regrettable, the youth that would be served with this shelter will be more upset that they are not wanted. They will need our support and she feels the neighbors would . be the first to respond to these needs . Mrs . Winslow Williams read to Council a letter from Mrs . Mae Bass Mitchell , a resident of 47 West Loudoun Street, and who is incapacitated as a result of recent knee surgery. This letter stated reasons for not wanting the youth shelter as fol- lows : (1) Building. not suitable; (2) Not enough space in front, side, rear or interior for any recreation; ( 3) Not appropriate for Historic District; (4) Will decrease value of property in area; ( 5) Heavy traffic and no parking in the area; (6) Already have firehouse, ball park, church and school for small children - these create_ heavy traffic; (6) Homeowners have studied type of people who1can be placed there and are truly frightened. Ms . Jan McVay, a resident of 17 West Royal Street, believed someone should give support to the children Mrs . Gardner spoke of. However, this facility does not have enough room and it is a de- plorable place to put young children with problems - they will be thrown on the streets and can ' t be helped with such an environment. She understands there is a $50, 000 fund from the State of Virginia and there is a $90, 000 fund from the County for this; ,This would give them $140, 000 for one year. She understands they will re=do the kitchen - the Board of Health will inspect it. That alone makes it sound like an institution - not a one-family home. She MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. asked the proposed Director if she felt Loudoun Street is an 347 ideal location. She said they had never thought that. It boils down to a bad location, but one that will be extremely profitable for the man who owns the property. She just learned that the lease could be terminated with six months notice - how much money could conceivably be spent by the town and by the county in that six months? Mr. James Wilhoit, a resident of 17 West Loudoun Street, spoke for himself and others living in the area in opposition to the es- tablishment of an emergency youth shelter at 40 West Loudoun Street. He had in his possession a copy of the original proposal and the issues considered by the Board of Supervisors in finally voting on this matter. He added that what was presented to the residents of the area was not what was presented to the Board. He quoted from the proposal to the Board on January 22 , 1980 : "The purpose of a juvenile group home or emergency shelter is to provide temporary shelter, counseling and rehabilitation to prevent reoccurence of problem behavior leading to delinquency and criminal charges . " This is not a residence. Among the categories of children in need of supervision and services are incorrigibility, ungovernability, "repeated or habitual disregard and disobedience of the reasonable CO lawful authority of parents , guardians or other custodians by a CO juvenile, wayward tendencies or sexual delinquency, behavior which N endangers or threatens the healthy morals of a juvenile. " Also included are "run-a-ways, school truancy and violation of curfews" . W These youth are referred to Social Services via the Juvenile Court, Q Mental Health, school system, parents, the Health Department and Q sometimes by the youths themselves. To 'state that .the emergency. . youth shelter 'fits the category of a-•reidende 'as defined in :the Town ordinances is 'far from the truth. There are several things that put this shelter in the category of an institution - there must be Health Department approval of the kitchen facilities, so many baths per number of inhabitants and habitational insurance . The County admitted at the public hearing that they have no rules and regulations governing this shelter. How can they expect the Planning Commission to know what it is if they don ' t know them- selves? He felt that if Mr. Forbes knew there were no rules and regulations, he would not have ruled this a residence. When the Planning Commission denied the permit, they said it was not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan - this is reason enough. ' The County should certainly think about how much they will be pay- ing for a house that needs so much. A judge can assign anyone he wants to such a shelter. There were only two people, other than the County, in favor of it and one of those was a tenant. He asked the Council to uphold the Planning Commission ' s recommendation to deny the commission permit. Mr. William McDonald, a resident of 106 W. Market Street, asked the Council to support the Planning Commission ' s recommendation to deny this permit on the grounds that it is a flagrant encroach- ment upon the present zoning in Leesburg. The reasons stated in Mrs . Mitchell ' s letter are ample, as well as others who have spoken. The Board of Supervisors should have taken more heed of the abomi- nable location for such a shelter. In Leesburg, we have to make every effort to preserve the areas as they are now constituted. They should turn aside another political entity that comes to the Council to lift its rules. Dr. James T. Gable, a resident of 68 N. King Street and owner of 43 West Loudoun Street, was overwhelmed with the "good neighbor- liness" of the County Government. He felt such a shelter does not belong in this particular environment, irregardless of the struc- ture itself . This does not have community support. He was the writer of the letter that prompted Mr. Forbes ' response. He was not sure he is the last word in the definition and understanding of zoning and was sorry his telephone conversation with Mr. Forbes was not recorded - he disagreed with his interpretation . Some- times the best offense is a good defense . He would like to see Council respond to the community and to the Commission and oppose it. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. 348 Miss Pat Tavenner, a resident of 30 West Loudoun Street, said the neighbors are very opposed to this site. She is out- raged every time they hear the remark "they don ' t understand" or that the homeowners do not have a say. Most of the people in this neighborhood have lived there for a long time - Mrs . diZer.eaa was born in her house 80 years ago and others have owned their homes for 40, 35 or 25 years. They take pride in living in the old part of Leesburg and have restored their homes and raised their children here. There is no parking in the area, there is no playground. This house is a firetrap - there is not enough land to put a fire escape on either side, so they are going to put one on the back of the house. If the house caught fire in the middle, they would be trapped. There are senior citizens in the neighborhood and some of them are terrified of teen-agers . If the County is going to have "angels" , why do they buy unbreakable furniture and why does the County get $50 , 000 from the State penal institutions? She suggested that the County go back to the drawing board and, since they are going to close some of the schools, perhaps they can get something they already own. She thanked the Town for the time given for a public hearing - this was certainly more than the County did. They thought they would railroad it through and if it hadn ' t been for WAGE, they would not have known it. A petition has been submitted to the Plan- ning Commission from a cross-section of the town . She asked that it be turned over to the Town Council . Mayor Rollins said the Council will certainly take note of this . Mr. Terry Titus, representing Mrs. Hannah Brown diZerega who lives and is part-owner of 29 W. Loudoun Street, spoke in oppo- sition to this emergency home. It is not proper to put this home in an old and established neighborhood. This is a game of semantics - whether you call it a residence or an institution. Council can make this decision, as well as Mr. Forbes did. He asked them to look at this "residence" - if it is not an institution, then what is it? Dr. Ronald McLeod, one of the part owners of the house next door to the proposed shelter, said they were never notified until Mrs. Williams called him and said it was at that moment before the Board of Supervisors . The community should have been notified - the Task Force should have sought out the thoughts of those living in the neighborhood. The real concern is the type of children who will be placed there. They are incorrigible children, the type Mr. Sharp describes as not responding to reasonable authority; they are chronic truants; they are children who use and possess alcohol . One description by the County talks about sexual deviation - this is not an abused child. The newly hired Director indicated that an abused child would only be centered there as a secondary utiliza- tion of this house . The primary use would be so-called "children in need of service" . Whether this is an institution or not, Mr. Sharp described to him that these would be children of anti-social behavior. Are they going to put lights or alarms on the doors at night? This sounds like an institution to him. This area can be developed as a residential neighborhood for older people so they can walk the streets in peace and quiet. He urged the Council to support the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Perry Winston asked Mr. Sharp why the prior owner was not contacted if they wanted to lease the property - he understood he was never notified concerning the payment of such an extravagant rent of $1300 per month? This is just a case of somebody trying to feather their own pockets . Mrs. Helen Williams, part owner of Winslow Williams Realtors Associates, said no-one contacted them seeking a place in Leesburg for this group of children. Mr. Herrell asked who owns this building - now or before? Mr. Sharp said Bill Chamberlin came forward and said he had an option to buy this property . - the County did not approach him. He is the sole signee of the lease. He did not know who the previous owner is. Mr. Chamberlin represented himself - he ex- plained a time frame before the Board of Supervisors in terms of his financial arrangements . The bank subsequently announced a reduction in interest rates upon the Board ' s decision to seek a commission permit. There was no contact with the previous owner. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. 349 Mr. English Cole, said a Dr. Kapp owned the house prior to Mr. Chamberlin ' s purchase. In fact, he owned it for four days after the County authorized the signing of the lease, which he understood was September 11th . Dr. Kapp said he did not settle for the house until September 15th - his wife was out of the area and he had to acquire her signature. This accounted for the lapse between the time the deed was drawn and actually signed. He thought it very unfortunate that the man who has the ultimate say from the County side as to whether it is placed in his district has never appeared at any of these hearings . It is a question of professional courtesy among supervisors that nothing is placed in the district affected unless it gets the approval of the super- visor representing that district. Leesburg ' s supervisor has never been represented. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Cole if he thought the ap- proval of the Board had anything to do with the sale of the prop- erty? He said Mr. Chamberlin had a contract on the house . The contract called for settlement on September 1 . Mr. Chamberlin asked for an extension, which Dr. Kapp granted - he lives in New Jersey and knew nothing of what was going on down here . Dr. Kapp said he had never been approached with this proposition, although he was the owner of the house after the signing of the lease was approved. CO CO Mr. Sharp asked for time to comment on some erroneous state- CU ments made. This was granted. Q (1) As to whether the signing of the lease had anything to do with it - the owner, Mr. Chamberlin, is a reputable business man Q and reported to have an interest and they went to settlement on the date mentioned. (2) As to the calling of real estate agents - an agent of Winslow Williams showed them a house outside of Purcellville. A member of the real estate board on their ethics committee made the calls to the real estate agents . He suggested that this was an honorable person and did his best. (3) As to unbreakable furniture - it seems that what they are proposing to buy is upside down furniture which so many people use in their game rooms and they are dealing with active teen-agers. No-one would put period pieces or antiques in their own game room, nor would the County in a shelter which is proposed for young people. It is not indestructible furniture - it is a contemporary type of furniture that is durable. (4) As to the health and safety - the building has been gone over by the County Engineer, the County Fire Marshal and the Health Department. They set forth certain conditions in the lease that it would be brought up to standard code, that a fire escape be put on the back of the building so that it would not, visually ithpact. . on the historic district. The painting of the building was set forth in the lease to be appropriate for the historic district and the owner went to the historic commission for that permit. ( 5) As to the kitchen and Mrs . McVay ' s comments - They are using the Health Department as a referral agency to help them not have an institutional investigation on whether or not the kitchen is appropriate. They are talking about hiring a housekeeper-cook, but they are talking about a residential cooking facility. ( 6) They are- talking about a facility to house as many as 12 to 15 children. At certain times of the year, there might be only one, two or three. . (7) They have made contact ,with an adjoining church to give them access for parking. They have delayed action on this . If not, if the site is within walking distance of the County parking lot or the Town ' s paid parking lot , they will use that. Mrs . Gardner said an agent from Winslow Williams did take them to a house in Purcellville. Mayor Rollins declared a recess, with Council to take up this matter afterward. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12 , 1980 MEETING. 3 50 Council reconvened at 9 : 50 p.m. , with Mayor Rollins stating the floor is open for discussion concerning the request for a com- mission permit by the County of Loudoun for the proposed youth shelter. 80-114 - RESOLUTION - DENYING COMMISSION PERMIT FOR LOUDOUN COUNTY EMERGENCY YOUTH SHELTER AT 40. WEST LOUDOUN STREET. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following resolution was proposed: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : The Council denies the commission permit applied for by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors for an Emergency Youth Shelter at 40 West Loudoun Street and supports the Planning Commission ' s decision becuase it does not conform to the Leesburg Comprehensive Plan. It is not a single family residence as defined in Section 15-1-30 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Bos read Section 15-1-30 of the Zoning Ordinance, which men- tions a "single housekeeping unit. " Mrs. Hill agreed to change "single family residence" to "single housekeeping unit. " Mr. Hill believed this deserves something because of the work put into it. The one family concept was his primary concern, along with objections from the neighbors, and he felt these people had a right to say how they. felt. The County has recently been faced with a similar issue in trying to select a park site - the. people in the area didn 't want it and the Board felt strongly enough that they could not support it. He is placed in that same posi- tion. He hoped the County fully realizes that this is a decision the Council had to make and that their relationship will not be so tarnished that they can ' t work together on other matters. Mrs . Hill asked to have "single family residence"included 'in the resolution following "single housekeeping unit. " Mr. Bos said the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance is coming up for revision soon and will include broader definitions of terms. We are also facing updating of our Comprehensive Plan and cooperation with the County on our Resource Management Plan. He hoped the people will be con- cerned about what does or does not belong in these ordinances,.and cooperative in the future on these proposed amendments. The reso- lution as changed was adopted by a unanimous roll call vote, and reads as follows : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : The Council denies the commission permit applied for, by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors for an Emergency Youth Shelter at 40 West Loudoun Street and supports the planning Commission ' s decision because it does not con- form to the Leesburg Comprehensive Plan. It is not a single housekeeping unit and single family residence, as defined in Section 15-1-30 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordi- nance. Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Rollins. Nay: None. 80-115 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICES OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON A PREAPPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS . On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow- ing resolution was proposedand unanimously adopted: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1980 MEETING. Notices of public hearings to receive citizen input and 351 suggestions concerning a preapplication for community development grant funds shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on November 20, 1980 for public hearing on November 26 , 1980 and on November 27, 1980 for public hear- ing on December 10, 1980 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Cham- bers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia . Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Rollins . Nay: None . 80-116 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADD NEW SECTION 17-79 TO THE TOWN CODE RE LICENSE TAXES ON CABLE TELEVISION OPERATORS . On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Herrell, the follow- ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : COA notice of a public hearing to consider the proposed adop- N tion of Section 17-79 to the Town Code regarding license taxes on cable television operators shall be published in W the Loudoun Times-Mirror on November 20, 1980 for a public Q hearing on November 26 , 1980 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Q Chambers , 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill , M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Rollins . Nay : None . 80-117 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT, APPROVING A PER- FORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR INSTALLATION OF PUB- LIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A WATER MAIN EXTENSION FOR LOWE 'S OF LEESBURG. On motion of Mr. Bos , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed: RESOLVED by. the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : SECTION I . The manager is authorized and directed to exe- cute the standard agreement for public improvements for Lowe ' s of Leesburg, Lot 8 - Cardinal Industrial Park. SECTION II . The extension of municipal water works for Lowe 's of Leesburg is approved. SECTION III . A cash performance guarantee in the amount of $12, 181 guaranteeing installation of public improve- ments at Lowe ' s of Leesburg, Lot 8 - Cardinal Industrial Park in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Engineering is approved. Mr. Hill asked about sewer for this project? Mr. Niccolls explained that this will be served by the gravity sanitary sewer that connects to the Interceptor that crosses the old W&OD right-of-way. The pub- lic sewer does not need to be extended to serve that - there is a water main extension through the property for sprinkler purposes. The water extension for Lowe ' s is the first individual water exten- sion that is going into the subdivision outside the town, for which Council gave a general extension approval about a year ago. This will be the first lot to be developed there. Mayor Rollins asked if the County has to approve this? Mr. Niccolls said not in his view - this would be on the order of a service extension within the lot. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Rollins . Nay : None. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1980 MEETING. 352 80-118 - RESOLUTION - RECEIVING AND REFERRING THE APPLICATION OF WILLIAM J. CHEWNING FOR REVISION OF ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER CHAPTER 11, TITLE 15. 1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED. There being no objection to considering tonight, on motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Bos, the following resolution was proposed: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : The application of William J . Chewning for revision of the zoning district map, assigned No. ZM-30 , is received and referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11, Title 15. 1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Mrs. Hill explained that this is the first house on South King Street looking north and next to the filling station. The request is to rezone it to commercial (B-2) . The resolution was unani- mously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Rollins . Nay: None . 80-119 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUB- DIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. There being no objection to considering tonight, on motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following resolution was pro- posed : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : A Notice of Public Hearing to consider proposed amendments to Sections 13-54 , 13-56 , 13-61, 13-64, 13-66 , 13-68, 13-70 , 13-71 , 13-75, 13-80 , 13-89 , 13-93 and 13-97 of the Subdi- vision and Land Development Regulations shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on November 20 , 1980 and No- vember 27 , 1980 for public hearing on December 10, 1980 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia. Mrs. Hill said the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of this. Mr. Herrell said Section 13-64 requires full development plans and Planning Commission action even when no public facili- ties are proposed. Every time the Council votes on something the Planning Commission wants, it is something that gives the Commis- sion more power and costs the taxpayers more money. He would like to see this out of the proposed amendments now. Mayor Rollins had a lot of problems with these changes also . Mrs. Hill said they talked with Mr. Shope and were satisfied that this is neces- sary. Mr. Herrell felt this is putting an unnecessary burden on those who wish to put a small addition on a building, or some such small change. There followed further discussion on this par- ticular section of the proposed amendments. On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mr. Hill, it was proposed to amend the reso- lution to delete Section 13-64 from the advertisement for public hearing . Mr. Niccolls pointed out that these amendments are about 90 percent bookkeeping and technical changes . The proposed amend- ment was defeated by a vote of 5 to 2 : Aye : Councilmembers Herrell and Tolbert. Nay: Councilmembers Bos, D. Hill, M. Hill, Willis and Mayor Rollins . The original resolution was adopted by a vote of 6 to 1 : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill , M. Hill, Tolbert and Willis . Nay: Mayor Rollins. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1980 MEETING. 9 C 80-120 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH EARTH DESIGN/ J J ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN OF THE PLAZA STREET PARK. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Hill , the follow- ing resolution was proposed : RESOLVED by the Council for the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, as follows : SECTION I . The Manager shall enter into a contract in a form approved by the Town Attorney on behalf of the Town with Earth Design/Associates, Casanova, Virginia 22017 for design development, construction documents, bidding assistance and contract administration for the Plaza Street Park project at a cost of up to $23, 300 plus an allowance for boundary and topographic surveys of up to $1, 500 . SECTION II. An appropriation is made from the General Fund to ccount No. 11020 . 801, Plaza Neighborhood Park, CO in the amount of $24, 800 . 00 for the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1981 . COCO Mr. Bos asked if this is based on the negotiated amount? Mr. W Niccolls said Yes, it is about $4 , 000 less than the original Q proposal . Mr. Hill asked if it looks as though we ' re going to Q be able to keep this within the bounds of the grant? Mr. Nic- colls said Yes, he will report on the land acquisition next week, but it looks very favorable. We will be able to make draws against a letter of credit, so there will be no cash flows from our funds. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Rollins . Nay: None. There was some discussion concerning a proposed street name and numbering system recently presented to Council . Mayor Rollins asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the Utility and Public Works Committee. Mayor Rollins said the County has asked that someone be ap- pointed to serve on behalf of the town when they undertake another Leesburg Area Management Plan. Items to be considered will include boundaries of the town, proposed zoning ( such as industrial in the area of the Airport) and who will service this area (this to be a crucial point) . He appointed Mr. Hill to represent the town - a large part of the discussion will be utilities that will serve this area around Leesburg. If this matter is not approached in a cooperative manner, we might see the proposed annexation date advanced drastically. This is a sphere of influence and Leesburg has the facilities there and the County needs to recognize this. Mr. Bos said they are asking for our ideas and our input. Mayor Rollins asked Mr. Niccolls to notify the County of the appoint- ment of Mr. Hill to represent the town. This will give the town two members since Mr. Bos is on another committee concerning this . On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, the meeting 111 was adjourned. Mayor de Clerk of to Council