HomeMy Public PortalAbout1981_01_14 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, JANUARY 14 , 1981
376
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in
the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia
on January 14 , 1981 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 I4iccol'ls, As-
sistant Manager Jeffrey H. Minor and Town Attorney George M.
Martin.
The minutes of the regular meeting of November 26 , 1980 and
the regular meeting of December 10 , 1980 were approved as sub-
mitted.
MANAGER' S REPORT :
(1) A written .Activity Report was distributed the first of
the week .
(2) A cash and investments report dated January 1 has been
distributed tonight .
( 3) A Capital Projects Summary has also been forwarded to
Council members tonight.
(4) Papers concerning a complex construction claims dispute
regarding the Potomac River Filtration Plant are also available.
( 5) A report from the Planning Commission indicates approval
of certain commission permits for the Plaza Street Neighborhood Park
and the South Harrison Street project; also an application from
the County at 101 Davis Avenue.
(6) A major water main and sewer main break have been found
on Route 654 between Route 7 and the FAA back parking lot. This is
a substantial leak and is in a very deep area where the old mains
have been buried to an exceptional depth (16 ' to 18 ' ) and the roads
raised. We do not have the equipment to reach that deep, nor do we
have access to a crane to handle the necessary trench protection
devices , etc., so we have been looking around for a materials and
labor contract from a private contractor to assist in the excava-
tion. We will do the actual repair ourselves . This will dis-
turb the road out there and it will be very expensive . In fact,
it could exceed $15 , 000 for equipment rental and services. The
Public Works Department has been aware for sometime that there was
a leak but didn' t know where it originated. The normal method of
leak detection didn ' t reveal closely where it was. Recently, how-
ever, there is water running down the side road ditch opposite the
Highway Department office . When you open certain manholes you can
see the water rushing through, but the sewer manhole at Rt. 7 and
Rt. 654 is essentially dry. About 125 feet down there is a man-
hole about one-half full of water. This will be a very difficult
and dangerous repair to make. We know it is our water because we
can check the fluoride content. We need to get on this repair
within the next week . We need to make some kind of agreement
with a contractor on an emergency basis - there is not enough
time to get a lot of bids . We have talked with Perry Engineering
and need to establish rates for the various pieces of equipment
that will be used. We know exactly where the sewer is broken -
the backfill was full of rock - when the road was raised, it put
a lot of pressure on it. Once we repair the sewer, it is hoped
it will be easier to locate the source of the water. They are
considering abandoning the four-inch line that serves only the
FAA and reconnecting them to the six-inch line that runs off the
Route 7 eight-inch line . The problem with that is that the valves
have been buried. This might be necessary if we can ' t find the
four-inch line without excessive exbavation, but this will cost
money too. The depth is the concern. We are possibly losing
50, 000 to 100 , 000 gallons per day at a cost of about 35 cents a
thousand :or about $25 .00 a day maximum, but it also runs into
the sewer plant. We will be spending some money that is not bud-
geted. If there is no objection to the staff arranging for a con-
tract of this kind, they will know how much it has cost and can
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
put it on the agenda. He may have an upper limit for the com- 377
mittees the first of the week. Part of the equipment Perry would
use is in another town right now and they couldn 't start before
Monday anyway.
81-1 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING TOWN MANAGER TO CORRECT WATER AND
SEWER MAINS ON ROUTE 654 .
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir-
ginia as follows :
The Town Manager is authorized to proceed to correct the
water and sewer mains on Route 654 .
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill , M. Hill , Tolbert
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS :
COMr. Bos said the second meeting of the Leesburg Area Management
Plan was held last night, with he and Mr. Hill both being present.
N Four committees have been assigned - residential, commercial, trans-
portation and rural land beautification. There was a big concern
Q voiced about .not knowing what Leesburg is up to. Mr.. Niccolls had
a given them a copy of the Comprehensive Plan first planning phase -
this will be distributed to the committee members . They will be
requesting a zoning map and existing zoning area designations so
that they will know what is going on in the County. The timing
of the plan for the first three or four meetings is to set major
goals in each committee and to set objectives after that. He was
appointed spokesman of the residential committee.
Mr. Bos asked the staff to furnish him with copies of the an-
nexation bills adopted by the Legislature in its last session.
Mr. Niccolls said the simplest thing would be to copy that part
of the Code in its entirety.
Mr. Bos referred to a recent article in the newspaper concern-
ing high water rates in Prince William County. He asked if the town
has any recent information on rates in other jurisdictions? Mayor
Rollins said Mr. Taylor has this information.
Mr. Hill said that he is "sort of a Maverick" on this area
management committee and suggested that perhaps he should be taken
off. It disturbs him that there are people from many other areas
of the County taking part in the discussions concerning Leesburg ' s
plan for growth. Sterling made its own decision and why shouldn 't
Leesburg make its own? Mr. Bos pointed out that the Board adopted
the Resource Management Plan last year, which was a general overall
set of County goals not specific. There were several basic state-
ments, such as the rural areas and agricultural areas should be
preserved and growth should be in and around the towns or in the
already developed area. There are 10 or 12 area plans that they
intend to accomplish over the next couple of years. The area out-
side of the corporate limits is County land, so the County and
the Board of Supervisors want to set some sort of goals as to how
this area should be developed. Each County Planning Commission mem-
ber has appointed two citizens at large from his nearby area (22
people) . Annexation will be a fact sooner or later and they want
to say what Leesburg will and can do . Mrs. Hill and Mr. Herrell
agreed with Mr. Hill - it boils down to "how big Leesburg will be. "
They felt that perhaps Council should take a stand on it now. Mr.
Niccolls said he and members of the Town staff will assist the com-
mittee in any way they can - he felt there will be ample oppor-
tunity to make comments on the drafts as they come in. The County
may decide to do what it wants, regardless of even the committees '
recommendations - the Planning Commission can certainly overrule
those. Mr. Herrell emphasized that the Town should be telling the
County what it expects it will do and what it thinks it will do,
rather than the County telling the town what it can do. Mr.
378 MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
Niccolls thinks we are doing this - we recently contracted with
KDA to up-date our Comprehensive Plan - this work is going on in
parallel at approximately the same time and schedule as their
work. Mr. Drenning attends these meetings and his help will be
very valuable to Mr. Bos , Mr. Hill and Mr. Forbes. ' ::Their obser .
vation is that nothing has really come out of the County ' s work
yet - everything is in the very early formative stage. Mr. Hill
suggested letting this go for another meeting or two. Mrs . Hill
suggested we might try to get more Leesburg representation on the
committee. Mayor Rollins felt this will show us what type of
leadership we have to see whether or not they can persuade the
County bureaucracy to acquiesce in the best interest of Leesburg.
Mrs . Hill asked for clarification of the annual police report.
Mr. Niccolls did not understn ,it either. Mrs . Hill also asked
if there will eventually be t.7-tin light at Rt . 7 and Plaza Street?
Mr. Niccolls said there will ultimately be one - it isin the final
plans.
Mr. Tolbert asked if the light at South King and Catoctin Circle
would be changed to include a left turn signal? Mr. Niccolls said
when that light was designed it did not warrant left turn signals .
However, they will ask the traffic people in Culpeper to tell us
whether it should be changed - he felt sure the controllers were
designed to accommodate that separate signal .
Mayor Rollins said the light coming out of Fairfax Street onto
South King Street is really off time-wise - he has run this light
several times . Mr. Tolbert said he has run it too . Mr. Niccolls
said Mr. Tolbert has brought this up several times and they finally
have an answer. It will not turn green for traffic leaving Fair-
fax Street until it can be synchronized with traffic on Catoctin
Circle. These lights can only be modified through the Highway De-
partment . Mr. Niccolls said he would start on trying to get some-
thing done about this.
Mr. Willis said it was nice to have those Councilmembers who
could come at the fire house for dinner Saturday night. Also,
Roy Smith approached him the other day about the new wells on Ever-
green Mill Road - since these wells were drilled his well does not
produce enough water. Mayor Rollins was aware that he had to drill
another well but didn ' t know why. Mr. Niccolls said they did tests
on existing wells at the time the Evergreen Mill wells were put
into operation and there was no significant influence at that time.
As the winter goes on, the water table is being affected by the
drought. The ground water system is probably inter-related, but he
felt it would be hard to prove that we are affecting his well , but
it is possible. However, wells do fail and have to be rebuilt.
It is a serious matter - we dried up a spring that had been in use
on a farm below - at least, it started just days after we started
pumping. Mr. Tolbert asked if blasting might have something to do
with this? Mr. Niccolls did not know - he said he is not a well
expert. Mr. Hill saw in the paper that someone said the rivers
are lower than they have been for many years - we are in a drought
condition right now. He asked how the Town ' s wells are doing?
Mr. Niccolls said they are not failing, but the water level is de-
clining slowly. Some pumping patterns have been changed because
of turbidity and some of the pumping hours have been cut down . He
will prepare a well condition report for the committee meetings next
week. Mr. Chaves keeps this material up-to-date and has charts
that can be compared with previous years . We are definitely in a
drought and serious condition. We have enough wells fortunately
so that we don' t face the problems we have previously had. He
still feels we could pump twice our daily capacity. Mayor Rollins
said the County will be in a bad situation if we don ' t get much
rain or snow before spring .
Mr. Herrell said something has happened to the sign "No Turn
on Red" at Catoctin Circle and Route 7 . Perhaps it blew away.
MAYOR' S REPORT :
Mayor Rollins asked about the Permit Parking signs on the park-
ing lot - are they in effect just during the day? Mr. Mahan was
very much upset about receiving a ticket for parking there at night-
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
he was not parked in the police area. Mr. Niccolls did not
379
know why this was done, but it will not be prosecuted. Mayor
Rollins suggested he contact Mr. Mahan.
81-0-1 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE TOWN CODE.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following
ordinance was proposed.
WHEREAS , under Section 15. 1-472 of the Code of Virginia,
1950 as amended, this Council referred proposed amendments
to the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations by
Resolution No. 80-92 , and
WHEREAS, on September 18 , 1980, the Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS , the Leesburg Planning Commission on November 6 ,
1980, recommended adoption of 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 Subdivision and Land
Development Regulations, and
Q)
CO WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by this Council as re-
CU quired by Sec . 15 . 1-431 of the Code of Virginia on Decem-
ber 10, 1980 , at which time interested persons were invited
W to appear and present their views on the proposed amendments;
Q and
Q
WHEREAS, the Finance and Administration Committee on January
6 , 1981 reported the amendments, except amendments to Sections
13-64 and 13-89 , for favorable Council action;
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
' SECTION 1 . Sections 13-54 , 13-56 , 13-61, 13-66 , 13-68,
13-70 , 13-71, 13-75 , 13-80 , 13-93 and 13-97 of the Town
Code are amended to read as follows :
Sec . 13-54 . Fees .
Fees and charges to be paid to the town for the review
of plats and plans for the inspection of facilities required
to be installed by this Article and for variances shall be
as follows :
(a) For preliminary plats and preliminary development
plans, the fee shall be $50 . 00 per acre, computed for each
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre or fraction thereof contained
in the area to be subdivided or developed but not less than
$50 . 00 .
(b) For final plats and final development plans, the
fee shall be 0 . 75 of one percentum of the costs of all pub-
lic improvements required to be installed under the terms
of contracts and performance bonds executed and posted by
the subdivider or developer. Changes of less than ten per-
centum in the cost of improvement after approval of original
contracts shall be disregarded in the calculation of fees.
(c) For inspections conducted as provided by Sections
13-77 (b) and 13-89 (b) of this Article there shall be no fee .
(d) For reinspections of improvements which upon origi-
nal inspection were found to be faulty or incomplete, the
fee paid by the subdivider or developer shall be a sum equal
to two times the inspectors ' regular compensation for the
time required for the reinspection, but not less than $5 .00 .
(e) For final inspections requested by subdividers and
developers for release of performance or maintenance bonds,
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
380
there shall be no fee unless the Director of Engineering
finds that the improvements are not prepared and ready
for final inspection; in which case, the fee shall be a
sum equal to two times the regular compensation for the
town employees ' time required for inspection above what
would have been required had the improvements been pre-
pared and ready for final inspection but not less than
$25 . 00 .
( f) For applications for variances filed under Sec.
13-91, the fee shall be $10 .00 .
Sec. 13-56 . Filing of preliminary subdivision plat.
Following the pre-application conference, the appli-
cant shall submit a preliminary plat and application for
approval of the proposed subdivision to the Director of
Engineering as set out below:
(a) Three copies of an application for preliminary
plat approval in a form approved by the Director of Engi-
neering shall be submitted at least 21 days prior to the
Commission meeting at which first consideration is desired.
(b) Fifteen copies each of the preliminary plat
shall be submitted with the application.
(c) The applicant shall pay the fee required for
filing preliminary plats when the application is sub-
mitted.
Sec. 13-61 . Required contents of subdivision plats.
(a) The preliminary plat shall provide all the facts
necessary to show conformance with this Article.
The Director of Engineering may authorize the
filing of combined preliminary plans and preliminary plats
if the plans for the proposed subdivision can be clearly
shown .
(b), :.Preliminary plat 'contents .
The preliminary plat shall be clearly and legibly
drawn at a scale of not less than 100 feet to the inch on
numbered sheets 24 by 36 inches in size and shall be clearly
marked "preliminary plat" and shall include either on the
plat or accompanying documents the following information
within the proposed subdivision or development and for a
distance of 100 feet thereof :
( 1) Proposed subdivision name.
( 2) Location of existing property lines and
easements .
( 3) The names of all abutting subdivisions and
the names of owners of record of abutting
property.
(4) Location, names and present width of exist-
ing and proposed streets , highways, ease-
ments , alleys, parks and other public open
space within and immediately adjacent to
subject subdivision.
(5) All parcels of land and easements proposed
to be dedicated for public use and the con-
ditions of each dedication, including tem-
porary dedications for cul-de-sacs .
(6) Date, true north point, scale and a key map
showing the general location of the proposed
subdivision in relation to surrounding develop-
ment .
(7) Deed description and map of survey of the boun-
dary made and certified by a state certified
land surveyor .
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
( 8) The zoning classification and proposed use 381
for the area being subdivided.
(9) The proposed lot and building lines with ap-
proximate dimensions and lot areas, and ten-
tative lot numbers .
(10) Areas shown in the comprehensive plan as pro-
posed sites for schools, parks, bike paths,
or other public uses, and flood zones, which
are located wholly or in part within the land
proposed to be subdivided.
(11) The names and addresses of the owner of record
and the subdivider.
(12) The name of the individual who prepared the
plat.
( 13) A blank space two by three inches in size on
the first sheet for use as a signature panel
for approval .
(14) In all instances an outline of deed covenants
proposed for recordation with the final plat.
(15) An indication of sections within the pro-
posed subdivision and the order of development
if the entire area within the preliminary plat
CD is not to be developed initially.
CO ( 16) If the proposed subdivision is outside the
N town, a statement by the Virginia Department
w of Highways and Transportation Resident Engi-
neer that the subdivider has consulted with
Q him as to the preliminary plans and any special
Q treatment which will be required for street
construction and drainage.
(17) A topographic map, indicating by whom and by
what means it was made, having a contour in-
terval of not greater than five feet related
to United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
sea level datum and delineating approximate
100 year flood zone limits for the area within
the proposed development and for a distance of
100 feet thereof .
(c) Final plat contents.
The final plat shall be drawn to the scale of not
less than 100 feet to the inch on sheets 18 by 24 inches in
size and shall meet the following specifications or have
the following inclusions :
( 1) The final plat original drawing shall be
drawn with waterproof ink on new linen
tracing cloth, Mylar or similar durable
material, with the date, scale of the plat,
the north point of the sheet, and the num-
ber of the sheets clearly depicted on each
map sheet. When more than one sheet is in-
volved, the relation of each sheet to the re-
maining sheets shall be shown diagrammatically.
If the plat is reduced for recording purposes,
the type size after reduction shall be no less
than pica.
(2) Name of subdivision, town, county, state, owner
and subdivider and the names of any holders of .
easements or liens affecting the property;
north point; the scale and date of drawing;
number of sheets; and the name of the licensed
professional surveyor or engineer who prepared
the plat.
(3) Location of proposed subdivision by an insert
map at a scale of not less than six inches
equal one mile indicating thereon adjoining
roads and their names and numbers, town, sub-
division and other landmarks .
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
382
(4) Boundary survey, with an error or closure
within the limit of one in ten thousand,
related to the true meridian. The survey
may be related to the U. S .C. , and G.S .
state grid north if the coordinates of two
adjacent corners of the subdivision are
shown.
( 5) Certificate signed by a state certified land
surveyor setting forth the source of title of
the owner of the land subdivided and the
place of record of the last instrument in the
chain of title.
(6) When the subdivision consists of land acquired
from more than one source of title, the outline
of the various tracts shall be indicated by
dash lines, and identifications of the respective
tracts shall be placed on the plat .
(7) The accurate location and dimensions by bearings
and distances with all curve data of all lot and
street lines and center lines of streets;
boundaries, purposes, and widths of all ease-
ments, boundaries of parks, school sites or
other public areas; the number and area of all
lots; all existing and platted streets, their
names, numbers and widths .
(8) All dimensions shown in feet and decimals of
a foot to the closest one-hundredth of a foot;
all bearings in degrees, minutes and the near-
est ten seconds .
(9) The data for all curves along street frontage
shall be shown in detail at the curve or at
a curve data table showing the following :
Delta, radius, arc, tangent, chord and chord
bearing.
(10) All survey monuments and benchmarks, together
with their description.
(11) The accurate outline, dimensions and purposes
of all property which is offered for dedica-
tion or is to be reserved for acquisition for
public use, or is to be reserved by deed cove-
nant for the common use of the property owners
in the subdivision .
(12) Accurate location of Town Corporate Line, if
within the subdivision or within 100 feet
thereof and accurate locations of all exist-
ing and recorded sheets intersecting the
boundaries of the tract shall be shown.
(13) Total area within the final plat shall be
indicated to the nearest one-thousandth
(1/1000th) of an acre .
( 14) All covenants and restrictions which will
run with the land by recitation or reference .
(15) Adjoining recorded subdivision plats and ad-
joining unplatted land with owner ' s name .
( 16) Street names which shall not duplicate exist-
ing or platted street names unless the new
street is a continuation of existing or
platted street.
(17) Signature panel in a form approved by the
Director of Engineering to show all required
approvals .
(18) A statement in the covenants as follows :
"Easements shall be kept free of obstructions
such as structures, trees, shrubbery and
fences. Removal of obstructions in ease-
ments by the town or a utility company does
not make the town or utility company respon-
sible for restoring the obstruction to its
original form or for damages. "
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
(19) Temporary cul-de-sacs where needed. When 383
one or more temporary turn-arounds are
shown, the following shall be included
on the plat: The area on this plat desig-
nated as a temporary turn-around will be
constructed and used as other streets in
the subdivision until (street name) is/are
extended to ('street name)' at which time the
land in the temporary turn-around area will
be abandoned for street purposes and will
revert to adjoining lot owners in accordance
with specific provisions in their respective
deeds .
(20) The certificate of the Zoning Administrator
that the proposed lots comply with the zon-
ing regulations .
(d) Every final plat, or the deed of dedication to
which such plat is attached, shall contain in addition to
the engineer 's or surveyor ' s certificate a statement as
follows : "The platting or dedication of the following
described land (here insert correct description of the land
CO subdivided) is with the free consent and in accordance with
CO - the desire of the undersigned owners , proprietors and trus-
teesty ( if any) , " The statement shall be signed by such per-
sons and duly acknowledged before some officer authorized
W to take acknowledgments of deeds .
Q
a Sec. 13-66 . Filing of preliminary development plan.
Following the pre-application conference, the appli-
cant shall submit a preliminary development plan, and the
application for approval of the proposed development to the
Director of Engineering as set out below:
(a) Three copies of an application for preliminary
approval in a form as approved by the Director of Engineer-
ing shall be submitted at least 21 days prior to the Com-
mission meeting at which first consideration is desired.
(b) Nine copies each of the proposed final plan shall
be submitted with the application.
(c) The applicant shall pay the fee required for fil-
ing final plans when the application is submitted.
(d) Before consideration of final plan approval by
the Commission, the applicant shall execute an agreement
in a form approved by the Town Attorney for compliance
with this Article and installation of required improve-
ments within two years after final plan approval unless
such period is extended by Council and shall :
(1) Have installed all improvements required
by this Article in accordance with con-
struction plans approved by the Director
of Engineering in accordance with Sec .
13-69 and certify to the Council that con-
struction costs have been paid to the per-
son constructing such improvements ; or
( 2) Furnish a certified check payable to the
Town of Leesburg in the amount of the esti-
mated cost of construction, as determined
by the Director of Engineering, which sum
shall be returned by the town only upon
completion, approval and acceptance of the
improvements in strict conformity with the
approved plans; or
( 3) Furnish a bond by a surety company or other
guarantee satisfactory to the Council in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated
costs of construction as determined by the
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
384
Director of Engineering and conditioned
upon the construction of the required im-
provements in strict conformity with the
plans .
Sec. 13-70 . Required contents of preliminary development
plans.
(a) Generally.
The preliminary plan shall provide all the facts
necessary to show conformance with this Article. The Direc-
tor of Engineering may authorize the filing of combined pre-
liminary and final development plans .
(b) Preliminary plan contents .
The preliminary plan shall be clearly and legibly
drawn at a scale of not less than 100 feet to the inch on
numbered sheets 24 by 36 inches in size and shall be clearly
marked "Preliminary plan" and shall include the following
information for the proposed development :
(1) Proposed development name, which shall not
duplicate or approximate other development
names in Loudoun County.
( 2) Location of property lines, existing ease-
ments, building, water courses, existing
utilities, culverts and drainage outlets .
(3) The location and type of all existing trees
eight inch diameter or greater; if the prop-
erty is densely wooded in whole or in part,
the limits of such densely wooded areas may
be shown on the plan in lieu of locating in-
dividual trees within these areas .
(4) An indication of those trees which are to
be removed and those that are to be retained.
( 5) Location, name and present width of existing
streets or other public ways .
(6) A topographic map, indicating by whom and by
what means it was made, having a contour in-
terval of not greater than five feet related
to United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
sea level datum and delineating approximate
100 year flood zone limits for the area within
the proposed development and for a distance of
100 feet thereof.
( 7) Name and address of record owner, and designer
of preliminary layout.
( 8) Existing utilities .
(9) Preliminary layout plans of streets, sidewalks,
sanitary sewers, storm drains, water mains,
curbs and gutters, and sizes and types thereof;
and the location of manholes and basins and
underground conduits .
(10) Connections with existing sanitary sewers and
existing water supply.
( 11) Preliminary layout of provisions for collect-
ing and discharging surface drainage and pre-
liminary designs for any bridges or culverts
may be required; and provisions for facili-
ties for temporary storm drains terminating
at the edge of the development.
(12) If the proposed development is not to be
served with a public water supply and method
of sewage disposal, a statement by the Di-
rector of Health that requirements of the
Health Department have been or can be met.
(13) Preliminary plans for erosion and sedimenta-
tion control measures .
385
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
Sec . 13-71 . Required contents of final development plan.
(a) The final plan shall consist of construction draw-
ings , notes and specifications for public improvements re-
quired by this Article, substantially in accordance with
the approved preliminary plan and may include all or any
part of the area covered by the approved preliminary plan.
Final plans shall be submitted with:
(1) Water , sanitary sewer and storm drainage
calculations with a statement of the basis
of design and drainage area map showing in-
dividual and cumulative drainage areas tribu-
tary to each point of concentration.
( 2) A detailed cost estimate of all public im-
provements and erosion control measures in
a form approved by the Director of Engineer-
ing.
(b) Following approval of the final plan, the developer
shall submit additional copies of final plan drawings if re-
quired for inspection.
(c) Final plan contents , generally.
The final plan shall be clearly and legibly drawn on
numbered sheets 24 by 36 inches in size and shall include :
(1) Cover sheet showing vicinity map, subdivision
name, cost estimates and required signature
approval blocks in a form approved by the Di-
rector of Engineering .
( 2) Street and utility improvement plans to con-
sist of plan and profile drawn to the scale
of one inch to 50 feet horizontally and one
inch to five feet vertically. The plan por-
tion of the streets shall include in suffi-
cient detail the location of all streets ,
lots and storm drainage, sanitary sewerage,
and water distribution systems. The profiles
shall show the existing and proposed street
profiles and profiles of all sanitary sewer
and storm improvement . Details of standard
street sections and miscellaneous construc-
tion items, including street name signs,
shall appear on the sheets as well as any
construction notes pertaining to the pro-
posed improvements .
If outside the town, the plan shall be accom-
panied by certification from the Virginia De-
partment of Highways and Transportation, Loud-
oun County Resident Engineer, stating that the
streets and drainage plans meet requirements
of the department.
( 3) Grading and drainage plans drawn at a scale
of not less than 50 feet to the inch, and
showing the proposed street and lot layout
including dimensions. The existing topography
shall be shown at not less than at two foot
contour intervals; 25 and 100 year flood zone
limits shall be delineated.
Proposed grading shall be shown by either pro-
posed contour lines or sufficient spot eleva-
tions and drainage direction arrows. In addi-
tion, proposed elevations of the finish grade•
at the building and all lot corner elevations
shall be shown. Storm drainage pipes and
structures and their sizes and elevations
shall be indicated.
386 MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING .
(4) Erosion and sedimentation control plans,
separate or included with the grading and
drainage plans, which are to include the
necessary control measures and specifica-
tions so as to comply with the requirements
of the erosion and sedimentation control
regulations .
( 5) Street lighting plans showing the number,
location and type of street lights .
(6) A landscape plan showing location, number,
type and size of plant materials .
(7) Location, type and dimensions of vehicular
ingress and egress to the site.
(8) Location, type, size and height of all fenc-
ing, screening and retaining walls .
(9) All off-street parking and parking bays, load-
ing spaces, walk-ways and bike paths, indicat-
ing type of surfacing, size, angle of stalls,
width of aisles and a specific schedule show-
ing the number of parking spaces provided
and the number required according to the ap-
plicable zoning ordinance .
( 10) The number of floors, floor area, height, ex-
terior dimensions, location and proposed use
of each building . If the building contains
multi-family units, the number and size of
the dwelling units shall be shown.
(11) Proposed refuse storage container locations
and their access .
(12) A plan for symmetrical transition of pavement
at intersections with existing streets and
road edges .
Sec. 13-75 . Lots .
(a) Lot dimensions shall comply with the minimum re-
quirements
of zoning regulations for area and width unless
varied as authorized in Sec . 13-81 .
(b) Side lot lines shall be generally at right angles
or radial to street right-of-way lines unless a variation
from this rule will give a better street or lot layout.
Double frontage lots are permitted except that such lots
which abut a major or primary thoroughfare shall be pro-
vided with a separating buffer strip of land at least two
feet in width without the right of access across such strip.
Every residential lot shall front on an approved street.
Sec. 13-80 . Water supply.
(a) The subdivider or developer shall install a water
system for the subdivision or development . A complete water
main system shall be connected to a water supply which is ap-
proved by the Director of Engineering and as necessary by the
County Health Department. Water lines serving cul-de-sacs
shall be connected back into the water distribution system.
Fire hydrants with two, two and one-half inch outlets and
one, four inch pumping connection shall be provided by the
subdivider or developer in all subdivisions and developments.
The hydrants, control valves, and the location of the hydrant
shall be approved by the Director of Engineering . A two inch
blow-off valve assembly shall be installed at the end of all
dead-end streets where no permanent fire hydrant is installed
for the purpose of periodical flushing of the water mains or
where no loops into the water system are provided.
(b) The water system and all service lines and appurte-
nances except the water meter shall be completed in accord-
ance with the plans and profiles prepared for the subdivi-
sion or development by the Director of Engineering as meet-
ing the required specifications for water systems.
387
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
Sec . 13-93 . Procedure for posting performance bond, par-
tial release of performance bond.
(a) The performance bond or other guarantee required
by Sec. 13-58 and Sec. 13-68 shall be submitted to the Di-
rector of Engineering at least 10 days prior to the Council
meeting at which first consideration is desired. The Di-
rector of Engineering shall refer the proposed bond to the
Town Attorney for approval of the form and shall report in
writing the acceptability of the bond to the Council at its
meeting.
(b) The Council may authorize the partial or complete
release of any bond or other guarantee within 30 days after
receipt of written notice by the subdivider or developer of
completion of part or all of improvements required by this
Article, provided, however :
(1) No release shall exceed ninety percentum of
the actual cost of the improvements until
such facilities have been completed and ac-
cepted by the Council ;
(2) No release shall be required if the Director
of Engineering notifies the subdivider or de-
veloper in writing of any specified defects
or deficiencies in the improvements prior to
the expiration of the 30 day period; and
( 3) A certificate of partial or final completion
of the improvements from a registered profes-
sional engineer and approval by the Director
of Engineering shall be required before a re-
lease is approved.
Sec: 13-97 . Required approvals of final plan and final plat.
The following approvals shall accompany or be shown on
a final plat and shall be necessary for its approval :
(a) Certification by a registered surveyor that the
final plat is correct .
(b) Certification by a registered engineer that the
final plan has been prepared in accordance with the require-
ments of this Article.
(c) Director of Engineering approval of the final plan
and final plat.
(d) Commission approval of the final plan and final plat.
(e) Town Attorney approval of the final plat.
( f) Agreement for public improvements authorized by
Council and one of the requirements of Sec . 13-58 (d) and
Sec . 13-68 (d) completed.
SECTION II . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause
of phrase of this ordinance is , for any reason, held by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
the ordinance.
SECTION III . This ordinance shall be in effect within the
Town after 12 :01 a.m. , January 14 , 1981 and shall be in
effect in the County of Loudoun within one mile from the
corporate limits after its approval by the Loudoun County
Board of Supervisors, as required by Sec. 15.1=467 of the
Code of Virginia, or if the County fails to notify this
Council of its disapproval , 90 days after its receipt by
the Board, whichever shall first occur.
388
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
SECTION IV. The manager shall send a copy of this ordi-
nance to the Loudoun County Planning Commission and the
Loudoun County Board of Supervisors and give notice of the
proposed amendments applicable beyond the town limits .
Mr. Herrell asked if Sections 13-64 and 13-89 have been deleted?
Mr. Niccolls said they have - the "whereas" clauses indicate that.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos , it was proposed to
reinsert Section 13-89 - this is a report from the Engineer to
the Planning Commission . He has been doing this on a casual
basis . Mr. Herrell said he would vote against it - if he wants
to do it on a casual basis, that ' s up to him. There followed
further dissension between Mrs . Hill and Mr. Herrell concerning
this matter. On motion of Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Herrell ,
Council voted unanimously to end debate on the proposed amendment :
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None .
A roll call vote on the proposed amendment was 5 to 2 , thus
defeating the amendment :
Aye : Councilmember M. Hill and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell, D. Hill, Tolbert and
Willis .
Mayor Rollins asked if this means the Planning Commission will have
no say over site plans for development under $3 , 500? Mr. Niccolls
said the Director of Engineering will continue to give a report
on actions he has taken on a regular basis - he is interested in
working with the Commission members. That amendment does not
change his authority or the Planning Commission ' s authority.
Mayor Rollins asked where the proposed 15 copies of preliminary
plats of subdivisions would go? Mr. Niccolls outlined to whom
these copies would be distributed and said it is important to ask
the developer to do this . In road construction it is important to:
have this information - on several occasions we have required the
builder to upgrade the base. Mayor Rollins could see no point in
the Soil Scientist having a copy of such plans - we have our own
requirements . Mr . Niccolls said we are only complying with tradi-
tion. Mayor Rollins felt this is a "bureaucratic nightmare . " Mr.
Hill said he would like to see +this going to the Soil Scientist
if it will keep us out of Court . Mayor Rollins ' question was
Do we really need all these copies? It places a burden on the
applicant. Mr. Herrell hoped we can try to make it as reasonable
as possible for people to fix up and redevelop their properties.
He could see no need for a small businessman to have to spend
$3„000 to $5, 000 before he even digs a hole in the ground. Mayor
Rollins cited a recent case where it took eight months for his
client to give one acre of ground to his child to build a house.
He hoped Leesburg could avert some of these problems. There was
further discussion concerning a recent application to sell fruits
and vegetables alongside the roadand whether or not a permit is
required for someone selling eggs on Route 7 within the corporate
limits . A roll call vote of 6 to 1 adopted the ordinance:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill , Tolbert
and Willis .
Nay: Mayor Rollins .
81-0-2 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 16-4 OF THE TOWN CODE.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
ordinance was proposed:
ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir-
ginia as follows:
SECTION I . Section 16-4 of the Town Code is amended to read
as follows:
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING. O n
Sec. 16-4 . Permit, inspection fee and guarantee fee for O J
work on , in or under right-of-way.
(a) No work of any nature which involves a disturbance
of the right-of-way or interferes with its free or unencum-
bered use shall be performed on, in or under the right-of-
way of any street within the municipality, until a permit
is first obtained from the municipal manager on forms which
show compliance with those specifications and requirements
set forth in the manual of permits duly adopted by the Coun-
cil and a performance bond is posted in the amount of the
estimated cost of construction, as determined by the Town
Manager.
(b) The inspection fee set forth in the permit manual
shall be $20 .00 on each permit except when the inspection
requires overtime wages . In such instances the permit
holder shall reimburse the town for the overtime wages
paid to the inspector.
SECTION II . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its
passage.
CD
CD Mrs . Hill explained that this raises the fee from $5 .00 to $20 . 00 -
N it has not been raised since 1963. The ordinance was unanimously
w adopted:
Q Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill , Tolbert,
Q Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None .
81-0-3 - ORDINANCE - REPEALING SECTION 16 . 2 OF THE TOWN CODE.
On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Willis, the following
ordinance was proposed:
I
-- ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I . Section 16 . 2 of the Town Code is repealed.
SECTION II . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its
passage.
Mrs . Hill said this section required street improvements when a
building was erected or the land use changed. According to our
attorney, there is no authority for this under State law. Mr. Bos
said this question arose when a change took place at 101 Davis
Avenue for the County - this was a change from residential to
business . Mr. Hill said this same thing occurred on Sycolin
Road - sidewalk, curb and gutter are not required if the property
developed is off of an existing road. Mayor Rollins said it can
be required as part of a rezoning, but not as a part of a subdivi-
sion. There was further discussion on whether or not these im-
provements could be required. Mr. Niccolls said there are very
few cases where this would apply - most cases of curb, gutter
and sidewalk are under land development regulations . This was
apparently adopted many years ago. The Town Attorney recommends
repeal. Theiordinance was adopted by a vote of 5 to 2 :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell , M. Hill, Tolbert and Willis .
Nay:. Councilmember D. Hill and Mayor Rollins .
81-2 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC
HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEESBURG
ZONING ORDINANCE .
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
390
A Notice of Public Hearing to consider proposed amendments
to Sections 2-7 , 3-2 , 4-2 , 8-2 , 8-2-11-7 , Article 8-B and
Article 15 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance shall be pub-
lished in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on January 22 , 1981
and January 29 , 1981, for Public Hearing on February 11,
1981, at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun
Street, Leesburg, Virginia .
Mrs . Hill explained that this releases several items from the
Zoning Ordinance . One has to do with off-street parking and
loading. The other is minimum performance requirements . Another
provides a definition of a family care home and a group home.
These are not controversial items and the Planning Commission was
satisfied to release them to Council . The resolution was unani-
mously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill , M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay: None.
81-3 - RESOLUTION - SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET NAMES AND
STREET NUMBERS .
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir-
ginia as follows :
The Council will conduct a hearing on street name and
numbering problems at 7 : 30 P.M. , Wednesday, January 28 ,
1981 , in the Council Chambers at 10 West Loudoun Street .
The Clerk shall publish a public hearing notice in the
Loudoun Times-Mirror on January 22 , 1981 to advise in-
terested residents that the Council is considering changes
to the street name and number plan and what effect such
changes may have.
Mr. Bos said the Public Works Committee discussed this at length
and there is a division of opinion, so it was felt the whole issue
should get out to the public before any ordinance is drawn. Mr.
Willis said there are definitely problems with the numbering sys-
tem in town and they don ' t agree as to how they should be resolved.
Therefore, this matter needs to be brought to the attention of the
public . Mr. Hill said_ he was more or less .for a stop-gap measure.
He was interested in a survey to see what house numbers are out of
line. The quadrants will hot be very important unless the whole
town changes . There would be a lot of ramifications if a complete
change is made - changing addresses is a lot of trouble as well as
being costly. He could not see going to a major change. He hoped
this will be given adequate publicity - everyone should be involved.
The resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of 5 to 2 :
Aye: Councilmembers Bos , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert and
Willis .
Nay : Councilmember Herrell and Mayor Rollins.
81-4 - RESOLUTION - RECEIVING AND REFERRING THE APPLICATION OF
JOHN A. STOWERS FOR REVISION OF ZONING DIS-
TRICT MAP TO THE PLANNING COPMIISSION FOR
PUBLIC HEARING UNDER CHAPTER 11 , TITLE 15. 1I/
OF CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED.
On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Hill, the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
The application of John A. Stowers for revision of the
Zoning District Map assigned No . ZM-31 , is received and
referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
391
and recommendation under Chapter 11, Title 15 . 1 of the
1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
Mr. Herrell and Mr. Hill both hoped the Planning Commission would
take a close look at this, with Mr. Hill saying he felt this de-
serves the full ramification of this body (the Council) . It in-
volves the whole Assembly of God church property on North Harri-
son Street. Mrs . Hill said it was not favorably reported from
the Finance & Administration Committee . The resolution was unani-
mously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
81-5 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH CORMAN CONSTRUCTION
INC. FOR WAVERLY HEIGHTS STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVE-
MENTS .
On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following
resolution was proposed :
CO RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
CO as follows :
SECTION I . The town manager is authorized and directed to
enter into a lump sum agreement with Corman Construction,
Q Inc. , P . 0. Box 10172 , Woodridge Station, Washington, D.C.
Q 20018 for Waverly Heights Storm Drainage Improvements in
accordance with contract documents, plans and specifica-
tions prepared October, 1980 by Bengtson, DeBell, Elkin &
Titus and the lump sum bid submitted December 11, 1980 by
Corman Construction, Inc. at a contract price of $102, 302.
SECTION II . An appropriation from the General Fund in the
amount of $107, 895 is made to Account Number 10110 . 857,
Waverly Heights Storm Drainage Improvements, for the fiscal
year ending June 30 , 1981 .
Mr. Bossaid the staff received some 12 to 15 bids and it came in
about $2 ,000 under the budget. Mr. Willis said it was also felt
this is the best contractor, from previous experience . The reso-
lution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None .
81-6 - RESOLUTION - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80-133 APPROVING WATER
AND SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS FOR LEEGATE INDUS-
TRIAL PARK .
On motion of Mr. Bos , seconded by Mrs . Hill, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS , Resolution No. 80-133 was adopted on December 10 ,
1980 approving water and sewer extension permits for Lee-
gate Industrial Park under certain conditions ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is divided between Loud-
oun County and Leesburg Subdivision jurisdiction;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
Resolution No. 80-133 is amended to show approval of munici-
pal water and sewer extension permits for Leegate Industrial
Park under the following conditions :
A. The permit shall be void if the water and sewer works
for the subdivision are not completely installed and
ready for use by. December 10 , 1983 ; and
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
392 B. All requirements of the Loudoun County Subdivision
Ordinance or the Leesburg Subdivision Ordinance shall
be met by the subdivider; and
C. Final approval of the subdivision plans by the Loudoun
County Planning Commission or the Leesburg Planning
Commission; and
D. Utility connection permit fees for water and sewer
service have been paid.
Mr. Niccolls explained that this is a formal correction of what
was done sometime ago. The previous resolution made reference
only to County ordinances and it has now been found that a por-
tion of this land is within the town. They are moving their
plans along. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill , Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay: None .
81-7 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE LEESBURG MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AREA
AS A FUTURE SITE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
On motion of Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS , the Leesburg Airport Commission by resolution recom-
mends the Leesburg Municipal Airport area be developed for
industrial parks and other economic development uses; and
WHEREAS, the Loudoun County Industrial Development Advisory
Committee by resolution has endorsed the concept of de-
veloping Leesburg Municipal Airport to its full economic
potential as a "major employment center and source of tax
revenue" ; and
WHEREAS, Loudoun County is currently engaged in the develop-
ment
of a comprehensive management plan for the Leesburg
area:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I . The Leesburg area management plan now in prepa-
ration should incorporate recommendations for appropriate
zoning, utilities, transportation and other planning ele-
ments to enhance development of Leesburg Municipal Airport
as a major Loudoun County economic and employment center.
Mr. Hill said this was brought up at the meeting on the Leesburg
area management plan last night . It was discussed briefly and he
feels this area will have to have some special consideration.
The resolution was unanimously adopted: \.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
81-8 - RESOLUTION - APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PLAZA STREET PARK
DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
On motion of Mr . Herrell , seconded by Mr. Willis , the fol-
lowing resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, final design has begun for a HUD Community. De-
velopment funded neighborhood park in the Plaza Street
area; and
WHEREAS , it is appropriate the prospective users and bene-
ficiaries of this public facility have a formalmeans to
review and offer advice on the design of the park:
393
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
in Virginia, as follows:
The Plaza Park Design Advisory Committee is hereby estab-
lished for the purposes stated above which shall consist
of the following...members :
1 . Frances Scott 4 . Bettie O 'Bannion
2 . Terri Turner 5 . William Owens
3 . Jean Corbin 6 . Sandi Kitts
7 . Keith J. Smith
Mrs. Hill said these are all residents of Loudoun House - they re-
sponded to a questionnaire . They were then picked from a list of
those interested by the Manager of Loudoun House . Mr. Niccolls
was not sure this is required by HUD rules, but it is advisable.
They will meet with the architect on one or two occasions . The
resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins
Nay: None.
81-9 - RESOLUTION - APPOINTING SPECIAL COUNSEL.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir-
ginia as follows :
The employment of the law firm of Boothe, Prichard and
' Dudley as special counsel to represent the Town in a con-
struction claims dispute on the Potomac River water filtra-
tion plant project is authorized.
Mr. Herrell hoped we would try to seek qualified people in Lees-
burg the next time we need someone. Mr. Martin said he would be
happy to work with anyone selected by Council . He did not feel
competent to handle this case - the town needs a lawyer who has
engineering experience and who has worked with such cases before.
This might move into arbitration. Mr. Niccolls said he talked
with Mr. Ney today about the fee - he promised that he would re-
view by Friday the papers in this case. By next week he will
•
have two estimates - one if tried in Circuit Court and another
if it is arbitrated. Mr. Hill asked if the prime contractor would
be responsible for the costs in such a suit? Mr. Niccolls did
not know and Mr. Martin had not looked at this aspect - he felt
it would be hard to believe he would. Mr. Niccolls said there
are five or six parties to this suit. Mr. Ney will be invited
to meet with Council in a few weeks and explain the case . Mr .
Hill felt the engineer would be involved in this too. Mr. Martin
felt they would bring in a third firm if necessary. Mayor Rollins
said he would be reluctant to vote on this resolution unless we
have some arrangement as to fee . Mr. Niccolls said Mr. Ney will
have two weeks to study the suit , be in consultation with us and
with our engineer and be prepared to make Motions within 21 days .
He did not feel we can wait two full weeks before allowing him
to proceed at all . We definitely need to let him at least make
the preliminary moves . By next week he will have an upper limit
on the cost of the suit . Mr. Herrell felt we have to go ahead
and get him "on board. " There was further discussion as to the
employment of this firm before the actual fee is set, with most
feeling this can be done . Mr. Niccolls also felt that our Engi-
neering Department has done a fine job on this . We would be in
the lawsuit regardless. He recalled the Hercules case, in_which.:
this law firm prevailed. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
394
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
81-10 - RESOLUTION - APPOINTING SPECIAL COUNSEL AND MAKING A SUP-
PLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION THEREFOR.
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the fol-
lowing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, in Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I . The employment of the law firm of Boothe, Prichard
and Dudley as special counsel to represent the town as unse-
cured creditor in United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern
District:'of Virginia, Alexandria Division, Case No. 80-01392
is authorized.
SECTION II . An appropriation is made from the Airport Fund
to the account shown below for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1981 :
Account No. Name Appropriation
30000 . 251 Legal Service $ 1, 500 . 00
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : None .
81-11 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR LEESBURG AIRPORT
IMPROVEMENTS (ADAP #5-51-0027-02) .
On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mr . Tolbert, the fol-
lowing resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows:
An appropriation is made from the Airport Fund to Account
No . 30000 . 801a, Safety and Maintenance Improvements , in
the amount of $93 , 193 for the fiscal year ending June 30 ,
1981 .
Mayor Rollins asked where this comes from? Mr . Niccolls explained-
it is 80 percent Federal, 10 percent State and 10% local . The
claim has gone in and it usually takes three to four weeks - it
has been approved by the Federal and State governments . The reso-
lution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay: None .
81-12 - RESOLUTION - RECEIVING AND REFERRING THE APPLICATION OF
INTERNATIONAL PAVILION COMPANY FOR REVISION
OF ZONING DISTRRCT MAP TO THE PLANNING COM-
MISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER CHAPTER 11,
TITLE 15. 1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
The application of International Pavilion Company for re-
vision of the zoning district map, assigned No. ZM-32, is
received and referred to the Planning Commission for public
hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11 , Title 15. 1 of
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell , D. Hill , M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 . 9 n
PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONCERNING COMMISSION PERMITS . 3 9
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mrs . Hill , the follow-
ing resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors filed a
law suit against the Leesburg Planning Commission and this
Council contesting denial of a commission permit required
by the State Code for a youth shelter at 40 West Loudoun
Street despite the fact the Board has begun a search for
a more suitable and acceptable site; and
WHEREAS, the suit seeks to determine the issue on narrow
procedural issues rather than the substance of the county ' s
application, attempts to discredit procedures used by the
Planning Commission and questions whether the Board must
secure a commission permit at all; and
WHEREAS , while the county chose the courts as the forum
for deciding the commission permit this Council is confi-
dent the issue will ultimately be decided in the town ' s
favor; and
COWHEREAS , now the Board on December 15, 1980 invited the
CO Council to establish a "working task force" for the pur-
pose of establishing a mutually satisfactory "modus vivendi"
W for issuance of future permits.
Q
a THEREFORE; RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
This council finds the Board ' s offer to work together inappro-
priate at this time and more accurately described as "pax
in bello" . This Council will not negotiate as a hostage
to a pending law suit. In the spirit of cooperation, how-
ever, this Council proposes that the unwise use of tax funds
by both jurisdictions resulting from the Board ' s suit could
be stopped immediately by withdrawal of the suit by the County
after which this Council will direct the manager to work with
the county staff to develop proposed commission permit pro-
cedures for consideration by the Board and Council.
Mr. Martin did not think the Council nor the Board of Supervisors
could reach any such agreement as proposed - if it did, it would
be subject to attack by any citizen. It would be futile to even
try to work out something with the County. You get into a "cham-
ber of horrors" as found in the statutes on zoning in 'the State
of Virginia. There is another provision under the charter section
of the statutes that clearly indicates that, when one political sub-
division goes into another political subdivision, any propertyy is
subject to the zoning in that political subdivision. That is
special legislation, which overrides general legislation such as
• the legal status of a plan . Even if an agreement is worked out,
he believed that some of the County legal staff would have in mind
that leasing of property such as this youth shelter is not contem-
plated by the statute . The statute uses the words "public struc-
ture or building" - what is meant by this? He felt there are two
courses that might be followed: (1) Both parties might go to the
legislature and ask for clarification of this section - does it
include leased properties or not? and clarify what is meant by
property of another political subdivision located in another po-
litical subdivision? (2) In the final analysis, a binding opin-
ion from the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of Appeals on
what types of activities require a commission permit. He does not
feel the two bodies can act on this. He, therefore , feels the
last paragraph invites something that can ' t be accomplished.
Mr. Niccolls asked if it would be possible that there are some
purely procedural matters that they could talk about and then each
act respectively in their own bodies? He does not know what the
County wants. Mr. Martin thought they want to say there are cer-
tain types of public projects that would not be subject to commis-
sion permits. Perhaps Council should say there are some formal
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 , 1981 MEETING.
396
procedures to be followed in commission permit application. Mayor
Rollins agreed with Mr. Martin - this question is determined by law
and we can ' t deviate from the law. Both Mr. Herrell and Mrs. Hill
felt that perhaps after this lawsuit is concluded they might ne
gotiate with them. Mr. Martin said his recommendation is that
the Council advise the Board that such an attempt to remedy the
law is not possible. Mr. Hill felt, in view of Mr. Bos' and his
position on the committee on land management, that Council should
not close the door as far as trying to cooperate in areas where
they can but, in this particular instance, maybe they can ' t cooperate.
On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Herrell, an amendment
was proposed and unanimously adopted to add at the end of the
proposed resolution the following:
"provided a binding agreement can be reached as to pro-
cedural and other aspects of the problem in the opinion
of the Town Attorney. "
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tol-
bert, Willis and Mayor Rollins .
Nay: None.
Mr. Bos felt this is inappropriate - a simple response saying that
it is not appropriate to talk about it while the lawsuit is going
on . Mr. Hill agreed with this - he felt he should resign from
his place on the committee for land management_ if they were not
going to accomplish something . Mayor Rollins said he would like
to see the Council respond in unanimity.
On motion of Mayor Rollins , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council
voted 6 to 1 to table this resolution until its next session :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , D. Hill, 11. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : Councilmember Herrell .
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, Council
I
voted unanimously to adjourn at 10 : 35 P .M.
//// o /14-2-1
/,,/�/f /� Mayor
Clerk of to Council
1