HomeMy Public PortalAbout1982_02_24 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 .
302 PUBLIC HEARING (JOINT WITH PLANNING COMMISSION) ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE; PUBLIC HEARING ON BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
FOR MEMBERSHIP .
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the
Loudoun County School Board Meeting Room, 30. West North Street, Lees-
burg, Virginia on February 24 , 1982 at 7 : 30 p.m. The meeting was
called to order by Mayor Pro-Tem Charles A. Bos in the absence of
the Mayor, with the invocation by Mr. Tolbert, and followed with
the Salute to the Flag led by Mrs . Hill . Present were: Mayor Pro-
Tem Charles A. Bos, Councilmembers Glen P. Cole, Stanley D. Her-
rell, Jr. , Marylou Hill , John W. Tolbert, Jr . and Howard M. Willis,
Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Director of Planning and Zon-
ing Robert C. Forbes, Assistant to the Manager for Community De-
velopment Marc Weiss, Director of Finance Donald 0. Taylor and
Town Attorney George M. Martin. Absent from the meeting was Mayor
G. Dewey Hill, Jr.
PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Mayor Pro-Tem Bos opened a public hearing on the Town' s Compre-
hensive Plan, stating that the 1974 Plan had a number of inadequacies
that needed to be addressed. The Planning Commission has been work-
ing on this plan since last July and has recently forwarded it to
the Council for this hearing. This is an important plan and differs
from the 1974 plan in that it treats an area outside the town and
the planning implications involved, as well as a number of specific
zoning issues. He asked Mr. Niccolls for comments on the plan.
Mr. Niccolls said the first Comprehensive Plan for the Town of
Leesburg was adopted on June 25 , 1974 . Prior to that, Leesburg had
a Zoning Ordinance, a Subdivision Ordinance, an Off-street Parking
Plan and a Major Thorofare Plan. These detailed elements of a Com-
prehensive Plan were sufficient in those days to guide the slowly
changing town for several years, but a more policy-oriented plan
became necessary as changes increased. The 1974 plan contained
background information and current circumstances of the town. It
contained goals and a strategy for future physical development of
Leesburg, including land use policies and provision for urban ser-
vices,
economic consideration and other ways of implementing the
plan - all fairly classical standard elements of a comprehensive
plan. Five years later after adoption of the 1974 plan, the Town
Planning Commission reviewed its plan and determined that it needed
up-dating. Later provision was made in the budget for the past fis-
cal year to secure the services of a consultant to produce an up-
dated plan. After undergoing the standard procedure for selection
of a consultant, the firm of Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates was
selected to produce a document that is now before the Council after
its modification in the Planning Commission. The 1982 plan contains
updated information on population, housing, drainage, community fa-
cilities, water and sewer systems, existing zonings, land use, em-
ployment data, etc . It highlights the many accomplishments made in
implementing the 1974 plan and points out several omissions. Ex-
tensive background information on the town ' s historic resources is
also detailed. Based on a population projection of 10, 500 by 1985
and 12 , 700 in 1990 , the plan assesses demands which will be made in
the town ' s existing resources . Household increases in 10 years are
projected to be as many as 1600 units and about 1900 jobs could be
created in the Leesburg area . Fire and rescue services will demand
increased attention and about 10 more police officers with attend-
ant patrol vehicles will be needed. Additional space may be re-
quired in the library. Land should be reserved to provide for new
elementary schools, additional middle schools and perhaps another
high school in the area. The plan forecasts that 27 acres of park
land will be required during the time frame of this plan - approxi-
mately 10 years . Goals and objectives listed in the plan reflect
some of the desires expressed by the Town Council in special ses-
sions it conducted a year and a half ago - the goals are more speci-
fic with a higher degree of attainability than in the 1974 plan.
The plan elements reflect the projected demands and proposed recom-
mendations for implementing these goals . Perhaps the most significant
feature of 'the new plan is that it is oriented to the area presently
outside Leesburg and Leesburg ' s role in the County-wide planning
context. Mr. Bruce Drenning, of the firm that produced the original
draft, is here to make a very brief presentation about the plan itself.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING. 303
Mr. Drenning felt the history of the plan has been covered
and highlighted what he feels are its major goals - these have
been their touchstones and some of the guiding influences for the
Planning Commission. The following are the seven major points
confronting the town for the 1980 ' s :
(1) Maintaining the small town character of Leesburg;
(2) Prevent Leesburg, particularly the areas around the
town, from looking like a typical suburban develop-
ment kind of area;
(3) Maintaining a balance in dwelling units - in the 1974
Plan, the idea was adopted that Leesburg did not want
to become an apartment community with a ratio of 80
to 20 percent. During the 1970 ' s, this ratio changed
to 65 to 35 percent by rezoning and development action.
If the town wants to maintain a balance, it is in a
critical situation insofar as any additional zoning for
multi-family units are concerned;
(4) Provision of adequate open space and recreation areas -
there is not much more opportunity to acquire and de-
velop such areas, so it is important that this be a
goal for the 1980 ' s;
(5) One of the major goals is the economic picture - main-
taining Leesburg ' s role as an employment center;
(6) Continuation of the town ' s thorofare and road plan - it
is important to continue with this and complete the
missing links as the population in the town and sur-
rounding area grows;
(7) Establishment of some logical boundaries outside the
town and a staging program for extension of utilities -
' if this is not done, the town will wind up with scat-
tered and leap-frog development with a lot of conflict-
ing land use types and density mixes that won ' t make
sense.
This plan pays more attention to the area around the town - it•:.
is essentially running out of land to grow and increase its base,
so the plan stresses some policies the town can use to determine
how growth will occur, whether or not some of those areas are an-
nexed in the future.
Mayor Pro-Tem Bos asked those people who want to speak about
the proposed zoning along Memorial Drive to speak to this issue
first - this is a specific issue of the Comprehensive Plan. The
consultant has recommended office-type use for this property and
the Leesburg Planning Commission has since changed this, recom-
mending a residential density of 6 to 8 units per acre, with
which the consultant does not agree.
Mrs. Hill said the Planning Commission recommended that this
area stay R-2 - its present zoning - this was a unanimous decision.
Colonel Michael C. Grenata of 33 West Cornwall Street, and a
resident of Leesburg since 1946 , spoke concerning the two strips
of land along Memorial Drive. The nature of this land and its
effect on the Historic District, northwest Leesburg and the town
should be considered. He exhibited a map on which he pointed out
the area west of King Street and a small area south of it. Practi-
cally all houses are single-family dwellings, with the exception
of four - this is R-2 zoning, but should be zoned R-1 . There should
be a commitment from the town to maintain this area residential and
give these people assurance that they can live there as residents
and not have encroachments that would ruin it. The two vacant
strips are within the Historic District, which he pointed out on
the map. The consultant says the character of the Historic Dis-
trict should be maintained. Leesburg dates back to the middle
304 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING .
and late 1700 ' s and 1800 ' s and is unique in its character. The
zoning of these two strips to B-1 or MC (which is really a vari-
ation of B-1 zoning) would be "spot" zoning. He feels the facts
given by KDA, the consultant, to justify his conclusions, are
invalid. Some of these facts are : The plan states that these
parcels are recommended for development from medium to low den-
sity office commercial . Existing and future traffic makes these
parcels unfavorable for residential development. The value of
the land, from its high accessibility and proximity to the hos-
pital and other office uses, would indicate that high density
housing would be needed for financial feasibility. Alternate
use of these properties might involve some type of institutional
use related to the hospital . Specific guidelines for develop-
ment of these tracts should be prepared to ensure generous off-
street parking with emphasis on ingress-egress design. There
should be effective landscape buffers to separate adjacent exist-
ing residences . Colonel Greanata said the volume of existing
traffic in this area is extremely low and could increase only if
the two vacant parcels are rezoned B-1 Commercial or MC. A local
realtor believes the vacant strips could be developed as R-2 Resi-
dential at a reasonable profit. The consultant says "The plan
does not recommend further extension of commercial uses south of
King Street beyond the location of the old J. T. Hirst Lumber
Yard. " Financial feasibility was the main reason given by the
developer. Of course, developers would prefer to have property
rezoned to a higher density to give them a super-profit. His-
toric Leesburg is a valuable asset as a tourist attraction to the
town and the county. The U. S. Department of Commerce has esti-
mated that tourism in Loudoun County in 1980 generated $22 , 556 , 000
and provided employment for 612 persons who earned $4 , 703, 000 .
Loudoun County received $248 , 000 from State sales tax. The num-
ber of tourists recorded by the Museum has grown from 5, 500 in
1975 to an estimated 22 , 000 in 1981. This is an impressive num-
ber and may be expected to increase further in the future. Ac-
cording to the plan, there is a critical need for park land in
Leesburg. To the extent possible, a joint project should be
undertaken by the town and the county. Research of town and hos-
pital
records shows that the town and county and hospital went
together and split the cost of construction of Memorial Drive.
The town and county should be approached re these two vacant
strips of land. It would be a cost to the town, however, the
town has spent huge sums of money to get water from the Potomac
River and a considerable sum for brick sidewalks in Leesburg.
The best use of the two vacant strips would be as a park - this
would be in the public interest of Leesburg - the town should not
hesitate to spend money to develop these two parcels of land for
recreation. The Planning Commission has recommended that the R-2
zoning of the strips be returned. In doing so, the people of the
adjacent areas are assured that their homes will be protected as
residential . In conclusion, the proposed zoning to B-1 Commercial
or MC would be incompatible, would eventually destroy the ad-
jacent historic residential area and would generate increased traf-
fic and parking problems which would cause a large decrease in the
tourist industry. The use of the two vacant strips as a passive
park would be compatible with the adjacent residential area, would
preserve the area as it now is, would be an asset to the hospital
and to the town and would continue to support the valuable tour-
ist industry. It is . recommended that the council approve the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and give consideration
in the near future to acquiring the two strips as outlined above
for use as a passive park.
Mr. Mike Blair of 81 West Market Street (immediately across
from Memorial Drive), asked for a show of hands of those people
here in relation to this particular part of the Master Plan?
There were some 30 people who raised their hands . Mr. Blair ex-
plained that the rezoning application was originally before the
Planning Commission for a B-1 zone (about 60 days ago) . That was
withdrawn after public hearing and is now returned in the form
of an MC zone. He noted that this section of the Master Plan
dealing with this section has been changed substantially. He com-
mented that he feels the Master Plan is a good document on the
whole, with this exception. There is still the potential of a
' commercial or hospital zone, both of which are something differ-
ent from an R-2 zone. The R-6-8 is very much a townhouse zone.
Concerning the commercial aspect, he exhibited a zoning map of
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING .
305
about 60 days ago, calling attention to the site being discussed,
and to surrounding zones of greater density and higher utilization
than R-2 (the present zone) and the Historic District. Somewhere
along the way Leesburg got its fair share of industrial and commer-
cial . Over half the town is already high density and probably close
to two-thirds in the Historic District. The question is whether
we need more commercial or MC? As to residential , the Plan recom-
mends continuation of two to four dwelling units per acre for the
western side of town - this is consistent with R-2 - not 6-8 .
There are 178 acres zoned for R-3 , with 61 developed and 118 yet to
be developed, so we have plenty of townhouse area in existence.
There seems to be the idea with people that don ' t live in the area
that this location is commercial or hospital or that it isn ' t resi-
dential - this is a residential neighborhood. He recommends that
it be kept that way.
Mrs. Patricia Devine of 53 West Cornwall Street, adjacent to the
property in question, urged Council to accept the recommendation of
the Planning Commission to keep this land zoned residential . She
presented a copy of estimated traffic flows and parking volume de-
rived from business or medical use of the two strips of Memorial
Drive.
OIf this land were zoned business, there would be a minimum
traffic flow of eight vehicles per minute . The maximum flow would
be 11 vehicles per minute. This traffic would have to compete with
7 rescue vehicles and all the traffic on Route 7 . The comparable
Q residential traffic flow is only one vehicle every 12 minutes . The
Q business traffic flow would be 50 to 100 times as large as the resi-
dential traffic flow. Neither the hospital nor the neighborhood
could stand this . The Plan stated two reasons for changing the
zoning. (1) Existing and future traffic volume make this parcel
unsuitable for residential use. This makes it unsuitable for any
use other than residential . (2) The Plan did not consider parking -
her most conse gX tive estimate shows at least 48 vehicles at any
one time would/5e able to park on that parcel of land and would,
therefore, have to require space in contiguous areas. Since Mar-
ket Street has no parking on the south side and since neither Mar-
ket nor Cornwall Streets has off-street parking for most of the
houses , the result would be that those residents would have no
place to park in front of their homes, nor would the clients or
patients of those in the buildings. (3) Financial feasibility
was another reason given in the Plan for high density and this
would be inappropriate with the surrounding development. If high
density is not appropriate nor consistent with surrounding develop-
ment, then business is less so. (4) Why should the Plan take into
consideration the financial feasibility? This is questioning the
wisdom and the risk of the developer ' s investment - these are not
proper criteria for planning. He does not consider if this zoning
is needed. It is stated elsewhere in the plan that such zoning is
not needed. (5) Also, not considered is whether this change would
promote the general welfare of the community. She felt it would
not. In the years this group has come to meetings and argued about
this parcel of land, she did not feel anyone on either side of the
argument has ever suggested that it would be beneficial to the en-
tire community, either economically or aesthetically. Ultimately,
the effect would be to erode the residential use of land in the
older part of town. Many citizens do see it as valuable to have
this residential area in that part of town - it does contribute
to the general character of the town. She urged Council to ac-
cept the amended plan.
Ms. Evelyn Johnson, representing the Preservation Society of
Loudoun County, was concerned about two things , as follows :
(1) As to the Memorial Drive question - if Council allows a
rezoning, it would intrude into this very lovely established neigh-
borhood.
(2) For some time, the Society has been concerned about the
houses on Edwards Ferry Road that the County has been considering
for use in an expanded jail facility. Your goal says you want to
preserve streetscapes. They are happy to see that the Plan does
suggest that these streetscapes be preserved - they think this is
very appropriate for the Edwards Ferry complex.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
306
Judge Carleton Penn, a resident of Cornwall Street, said
Winchester let its area around the hospital go to medical of-
fices and there arose such a controversy it necessitated bring-
ing in another judge. It is .now before the Supreme Court. This
resulted solely from the enormous parking problems in the area
of the hospital . Leesburg should learn from the mistakes made
in Winchester . We don ' t need this type of problem in Leesburg.
The Planning Commission has been dealing with this area for many
years and has heard the residents many times. He urged that
Council follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Mn Donald W. Devine said the house in which he lives on Corn-
wall Street is about 125 years old and he hopes it will be there
another 125 years. He speaks for the area because it is a lovely
spot. He said any traffic generated by that property ultimately
ends up on Route 7 (Cornwall Street is too narrow to handle it) .
This is a classic example of "spot zoning" . He sees no reason to
consider making this property commercial . The hospital has been
there since 1916 and has grown and will continue to grow. We will
see the day when it will be four or five stories high and the green
area surrounding it will necessarily be converted to parking for the
hospital . This is a public necessity - it was there before most of
them came and whatever must be done the residents will accept.
Rezoning of these two narrow strips would be compounding a problem
that already exists and one they can do nothing about. There is
plenty of business zoning in the town. Why it is recommended by
KDA is unfathomable. The financial feasibility argument is prob-
ably improper to begin with and is unsound. The average lot in
Leesburg today would, when applied to the property in dispute,
amply reward the owner if he developed under the present zoning .
He urged the Council to keep the Plan as it is presently and keep
this land residential for the longer view of preserving the town
as a very attractive place to live 100 years from now. Mr . Devine
submitted a list of 29 families (he is a member of this group)
who have retained counsel, but he was unable to be here tonight.
Some of these people are here tonight and some may speak.
Mr. Stanley Caulkins, a resident of the west end of Leesburg,
said there are numerous occasions when this sort of zoning has
come before the group (having been on the Council many years ago
and having been through the same routine) . He strongly recommended
that Council stay with residential zoning for Memorial Drive. He
also understands Council will soon have before it the property that
lies in the west triangle, wherein they attempt to bring high den-
sity housing that is beyond the capability of that piece of prop-
erty. These developments, as they progress , somewhere get out of
hand. The one-waying of Market and Loudoun Streets has always been
controversial . There has been development in the northwest quadrant
to the point that drainage is not taken care of now (his back yard
goes under water every time it rains , but it does run off) . There
should be proper planning prior to allowing housing or development
to come in, particularly those developments that require a parking
lot, blacktop and run-off water that has not been properly engi-
neered into the downstream status of the area. He hoped Council
will stay with the Planning Commission recommendation. There have
been times when Council overturned the Planning Commission ' s recom-
mendation and it makes you wonder why the Planning Commission was
ever used in the first place.
Mrs. Martha Lynch, of 54 N. King Street, said the northern
end of Leesburg already has a parking problem. There is no off-
street parking for her house and she is one of those who can take
her child to school and have no parking when she comes back.
North Street, during the day, is parked solid with cars - in the
evening there is usually not even one. It is worth it to her to
lose her parking space so she can live on the edge of the historic
district. She recommended that Council leave the zoning as it is.
Mr. William Chapman, attorney representing Randy DeHart, whose
property has created the controversy that is brewing here tonight,
said there is currently pending a rezoning application on the prop-
erty from R-2 to MC, a zone which was created after the 1974 Plan
was implemented. They really don ' t want to talk about the merits
of their rezoning application tonight, but do feel the current
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING .
Comprehensive Plan designating these parcels to be compatible
307
with hospital use .;is_ appropriate and that KDA is right. They
intend to pursue it.
Mr . Fred Williams, of 38 West Cornwall Street, thought every-
thing had been covered with the exception of the children in the
neighborhood. There has been some question about the character of
the neighborhood - it is very much a residential neighborhood.
It is also supported by the construction and renovation going on.
R-2 is the far more reasonable zoning for this property.
Mrs. Joan Williams, also representing Helen and Winslow Williams
who could not be present tonight, said this group has spoken so many
times to the Council and the Planning Commission concerning this
property and they still feel just as strongly as they did before.
They are glad the Planning Commission is supporting the people of
Leesburg. The consultants must not know anything about us that they
have brought in this weird idea that in the middle of a residential
area we should change. She said she had watched Market Street grow
from a rural slum 45 years ago to one of the nicest parts of Lees-
burg. It shocks her to think that, because of greed, they want to
spoil that delightful end of Leesburg for which they have all worked
to improve and maintain.
CD Mrs. Dorothy McDonald, 106 West Market Street, said she custo-
marily talks about democracy when appearing before the Council or
7 the Planning Commission because she believes in it wholeheartedly.
Q She was afraid that the list of 29 names submitted by Mr. Devine
CZ does not include all of those here who are opposed. She asked
those here that are not part of the group supporting the legal fund
to come forward and state their names and addresses.
Mr. Thomas Cox said he is for retaining the present zoning for
this piece of property.
Others signing were Matthew Hamblet of Wirt Street, Frederick
Cox of Cornwall Street and Dr. and Mrs. David Groy, who rent on
Cornwall Street.
Mrs. Letty Mallery, who lives on South King Street, said they
feel some of the same pressures between the old railroad and the
Safeway development. Their concern is perhaps some of the smaller
houses that are now rental units near the gas station are under
similar pressures. They are pleased that the town seems to be hold-
ing the line in maintaining that residential area. Hopefully, they
might become a part of the historical district one of these days
and may be bringing a petition to that effect. They are sympathetic
with the continuing battle that this area has had in maintaining their
identity.
Others signing were Mr . and Mrs. Melville Converse, 37 West
Cornwall Street and Mrs. Teckla Cox of 10 East Cornwall Street,
who said her father-in-law, William J. Cox, also opposes this .
Mr . Stanley Bright, 138 West Market Street, said he and his
wife are opposed to this rezoning. However, this does not mean they
are critical of the Plan - they haven 't seen it . Mr. Bos suggested
they get a copy - he would like to hear comments on other matters
included in it.
Mayor Pro-Tem Bos said Council is very sensitive to that prop-
erty and the residents of the area - they will give it very careful
consideration.
Mr. John Dugan, a resident of 316 Marshall Drive and Director
of the County' s Planning Department, distributed comments on
the Plan from the County planning staff ' s perspective. The Board
of Supervisors will take a stand on Monday and has asked that the
town keep the record open for its resolution. The Board ' s hearing
on its plan for the area outside Leesburg ' s corporate limits comes
up next Wednesday night. The comments that follow are in the hope
they can work out something further on the differences before either
plan is adopted. The town plan, as proposed, doesn ' t differ radi-
cally from the county plan, but there are some major differences.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
308
(1) One of the major differences is intrinsic density pro-
posed in the area outside of town. The town plan seems to pro-
pose a higher density than the county, in general.
(2) The area of sewer service to be controlled by the town
is different - the function of the urban limit line is not clear.
(3) The rationale for the area proposed for annexation.
(4) In terms of specific areas east of Leesburg along Route 7,
the county plan strongly discourages strip commercial development
outside the current town limits along Route 7 . The town plan
does provide or allow for some commercial development along the
north side of Route 7 .
(5) There is a difference in density of residential develop-
ment proposed along California Road. The county plan does not rec-
ommend any higher density zoning or development there unless the
roads are greatly improved in that area.
(6) Along the Route 15 By-pass east of Leesburg, both plans
call for a major change in the large C-1 zoning that exists there
now. Both recommend a neighborhood commercial center - the major
difference is that the town plan calls for lower density develop-
ment around that neighborhood center , with the commercial along
the By-pass, so to speak. The county plan calls for a more con-
centrated commercial center away from the By-pass, with higher
density zoning and development around it.
(7) In the area to the north of Balls Bluff, the county recom-
mends that the area around it be residential but at a lower density
and that it be protected by historic district overlay. The town
plan doesn ' t address this historic character.
(8) The area north of Leesburg is basically limestone geology
which underlies a lot of the land there. The county plan recommends
basically an institutional use similar to what is happening around
Morven Park. The town plan recommends residential development
in this area. The county recommends not so much residential be-
cause of the problems with limestone there.
(9) In the Catoctin Ridge area, the town plan allows for fur-
ther extension of central sewer to the urban limit line up the ridge
and allows more development along the ridge. The county plan dis-
courages development along the ridge for environmental purposes .
(10) The general concept south of Leesburg is generally the
same for the two plans. This is the major growth area. The dif-
ferences are that the county ' s plan proposes the commercial area
for the neighborhood south of the tocaito be basically located off
of Route 15 , and be surrounded by medium density housing. The town
plan has the commercial area more along Route 15 - not internalized
from Route 15 .
(11) Generally south of the By-Pass, there is higher density
proposed by the town plan than recommended by the county' s plan.
(12) In the rural area outside the urban limit line, the
county plan is very specific in terms of defining an urban service
area and certain policies for preservation of agricultural uses -in
the rural properties outside of the sewer service area. The town
plan isn ' t very specific on that issue - this is a concern and they
would like to work out the differences.
(13) In terms of transportation, there are more improvements
recommended in the county ' s plan. The town ' s seems to be proposing
more development around the By-Pass - it seems this would require
further work on the town ' s part to look at the real traffic impli-
cations of the proposed higher density zoning and the PUD proposals
around the By-Pass .
(14) Concerning community facilities issues, the town plan
needs more analysis to explain the rationale for the new school
sites, the recreational areas, library facilities, etc. proposed
and how they relate to the population projections.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
309
(15) How far outside the current one-mile jurisdiction the
water and sewer service area should be.
(16) There are some technical and more detailed issues to
deal with inside the town boundaries in terms of the report itself.
The county would like to talk with the town ' s consultants concern-
ing population projection - it seems to the county that it is based
upon continuing of past trends for the last decade - a lot of that
growth was based on apartment units subsidized by the federal govern-
ment. One objective of the town ' s plan is to discourage that in the
future. The projections seem to include that growth continuing -
there might be less growth.
II (17) Another area of seeming contradiction is the holding ca-
pacity you can put inside the town now. It seems to them that the
numbers in the plan are based upon the existing zoning, not the pro-
posed zoning. He asked the consultants to look at this again.
It looks like the principal issue to be resolved is the munici-
pal boundary line as it relates to the sewer and water lines. This
is a fundamental issue and should be resolved between the town and
the county. The county staff is concerned that the planning area
for the Facilities Plan in 1980 is being used as a basis for future
O municipal boundary decisions, while the county believes that the
service area was limited to a one-mile radius surrounding the
pre-1981 annexation corporate limits . The town and the county
should resolve this boundary conflict before either Plan is adopted.
Q The "201 Facilities Planning Area" needs to be defined as to its
a purpose and meaning in the town ' s future annexation plans. Since
the county has not concurred with this sewer service area, there
appears to be a weak foundation on which to base future municipal
boundaries.
Other issues that should be resolved are more planning and de-
sign oriented. The area encompasses over 20 square miles with no
real definition of purpose or land use responsibility outside the
' urban limit line, so more land use information is needed. More
detail for development within the urban limit line should be in-
cluded. Strip commercial development should be discouraged with
its resulting traffic and aesthetic problems. Specific zoning
districts should be attached to land areas to show types of de-
velopment anticipated in the planning district.
Transportation improvements in the town should be clarified
with the county staff . One major road is proposed to extend through
the county ' s Pennington lot which may make a portion of that tract
undevelopable for county uses .
Also, an important aspect of any planning program is the fiscal
impact of the proposed plan. Residential and non-residential de-
velopment should try to balance each other to promote fiscal re-
sponsibility. More detailed information about the basis for the
projections and growth and the locations would be useful in terms
of coming up with the fiscal implications of the plan. They have
some staff reports for the county ' s plan that indicates $7 , 000, 000
to $15 , 000 , 000 for the public facilities that would be required
just at the lower densities and population as proposed in the county
plan.
Finally, they recommend that, before the town adopts its plan,
I/ the town and county staffs should meet to resolve as many of these
conflicts between the two plans as possible.
Mrs . Hill said the Planning Commission recommended that the
plan for the Pennington tract be deleted.
Mr. Bos said he thinks everyone agrees that the Leesburg
utility service area has to be agreed upon - he thinks everyone
recognizes that area except the county. Council will do every-
thing it can to work with them.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
310
Mr. Frederick Stieff, President of International Pavilion Com-
pany, which owns some land in the northeast section of Leesburg,
said that, in reviewing the proposed Master Plan, he noticed that
the proposed land use of the 63 acres that was rezoned in their
rezoning application ZM-32 approved by the Council in August, is
not accurately reflected in the proposed land use map on Page 89 .
He asked that, when the final draft is prepared, it be accurately
reflected. Mr. Bos said this has been pointed out by several
people, including the Planning Commission - the updated map will
include all the latest rezoned properties .
Edgar Hatrick, a resident of Dulles District south of Leesburg,
said he has not really studied either plan, but he has one concern
after hearing words such as "annexation" , "dispute over boundaries"
and "dispute over who will control which sewer service area" , which
all lead him to believe that, unless some careful working out is done
between the Town Council and staff and the Board of Supervisors and
its staff prior to adoption of one or both of these plans, this
would become a full employment act for attorneys, who would be paid
from the tax money generated by both the town and the county. He
urged that as many of the disputed areas between the two plans as
possible be worked out prior to their adoption while the staff we
are already paying can do this with approval of the Council and the
Board of Supervisors, rather than having to litigate those differ-
ences after the adoption of the plans. He realized that some of
these areas have to do with territorial turf and with what may be
long-standing conflicts pver who should control what aspects of
the development growth/Wnexation and are, therefore, sensitive
issues politically and every other way. He hoped both bodies will
take every opportunity to resolve the differences that do exist
between the two plans insofar as possible. There is an opportunity
to try to bring these two plans into better agreement than they are
now.
Mrs. Gladys Lewis , President of the League of Women Voters,
said she had served on the Leesburg Area Management Plan committee.
They spent seven months on this project and learned a lot, as well
as coming up with a pretty good plan, as far as she was concerned.
The League is in support of the Resource Management Plan, a plan
adopted after a great deal of citizen input by the Board of Super-
visors, including the Leesburg supervisor . The proposed Area ' Manage-
ment Plan would become an integral part of the Resource Man-
agement Plan. Although she was not speaking on the merits of either
plan, she pointed out that the Leesburg Area Management Plan, presently
before the County Planning Commission, is a compromise in which the
Leesburg town officials had a voice. She feels further compromises
can be made. The League urges the Town Council to defer until a
later date a decision on any future town lines and to work with the
county and come to an agreement with them. There is a difficult
time ahead for funding of programs vital to the community - she
felt there would not be a citizen in either the town or the county
who is interested in spending tax dollars in court if a confronta-
tion between the county and the town over boundaries arises. The
citizens of Leesburg would support both sides with their tax dol-
lars. She hoped Council would work to prevent this. For herself,
she felt those who worked on the citizens committee learned a lot
about planning and our community. She was sorry that more of the
town ' s citizens have not read the plan. Though there were a lot
here tonight on one specific item, she felt sure there are other
things in the plan that other citizens will be interested in after
the plan is adopted and will come storming in to protest it. If
there is any way the town can try to induce people to read the plan
and comment before final adoption, it would make things much easier
in the future. They would then understand how compromises are made
and why decisions are as they are.
Mr. David Rust said his wife owns a piece of property adjoining
Gino' s on the south side of Route 7 . The Comprehensive Plan has a
70-foot road running through that property. The Planning Commis-
sion has recommended that this road be taken out of this property
and moved to Fort Evans Drive. He hopes the Council will take
the Planning Commission ' s recommendation.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING . 311
AINX
Mrs. Hill said Plaza runs directly into Gino ' s . There were
two recommendations - one was to go straight through Gino ' s or
into Mrs. Rust' s property, which would make a jog. The Commission
felt this was dangerous so they recommended that it go straight
down Fort Evans Road and cut into Sycolin Road.
Mr. Bos said there are a number of traffic suggestions that
had to be carefully considered since there have been .so many changes
in the use of so much of the property since the traffic master plan
was set up.
Mr. Bos expressed appreciation for the interest shown and said
the town will not be acting on this quickly - there are a lot of im-
plications and a lot of new ideas to be considered. He declared the
hearing closed.
PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RE REQUIREMENTS
FOR BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MEMBERS :
Mayor Pro-Tern Bos said this hearing essentially addresses residency
requirements for the members of the Board of Archietectural Review,
as well as make-up of the Board.
N
Q Mrs. Hill explained that primarily all members of the Board were
C. residents of Leesburg, however, two members have moved outside the
corporate limits. If this is adopted, it will not affect those mem-
bers presently on the Board for their specific terms, but they will
Q not be eligible for reappointment. New members for appointment must
Q be residents of the town.
There was no-one to speak for this amendment.
Mr. Phillip Brownrigg said he has been on the Board for 17 to
18 years and Chairman most of that time. Looking back on Leesburg
20 years ago, there were approximately 20 percent of the shops va-
cant and many of the facades were deteriorating. He felt the Board
has done a good job in nearly every respect. He didn' t see much
point in this residency requirement - he didn ' t think that makes
a person do a better job of such a technical spot as this Board ' s
is than can be done by someone who lives outside town. As an ex-
ample, Brown Morton, probably the finest architectural historian
in the country, lives outside of Leesburg. He has been contacted
about serving on the Board and he said he would, although he ' s too
busy internationally right now to do so but, if he were available,
Council would be doing an injustice to the present Mayor, his suc-
cessor or any future mayor, in preventing that person from ap-
pointing- this man who knows more about architecture than any-
one else we are apt to see. Other changes proposed have emascu-
lated this article to a very considerable extent.particularly by
ruling out a classic and key sentence as follows : "One member
should be a person with knowledge of local real estate conditions;
one member should be appointed primarily on the basis of a knowledge
and demonstrated interest in the historical heritage of Leesburg. "
He could see no rationale for ruling this out. By this, you are
saying that the only requirement for being a member of this Board
is that it be a resident of Leesburg. This is an inadequate basis
for appointment. He didn ' t feel he has worked any less hard because
he now lives a mile outside the town. The part lined out is the
most important requirement as far as he is concerned - it should
be retained. He would like to see the new section deleted, but he
didn ' t think it is as important as the requirement that a person ap-
pointed to the Board be interested in the architecture of Leesburg
and, incidentally, be faithful in attendance at meetings . The Mayor
has the interest of Leesburg at heart and should search around for
people that would do a good job on this Board. Why should he be
limited to a resident of the town? You are talking about annexation -
would someone who has just been annexed make him any better candi-
date or less worthy? He didn ' t think so.
Mr. Bos said he (Mr. Brownrigg) is essentially saying that some-
one who would share the community ' s interest with Leesburg, whether
or not he is a resident, is more of a point than the natural resi-
dency requirement.
312
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING .
Mrs. Teckla Cox said she agrees with Mr. Brownrigg.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Mayor Pro-Tem Bos declared a 10-minute recess.
Council reconvened at 9 : 35 p.m.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Willis, the minutes
of the regular meeting of January 27 , 1982 were approved as written.
MANAGER' S REPORT:
Mr. Niccolls called attention to the written Activity Report
and the cash report presented tonight.
(1) He reported that he spoke with Delegate Rollins today con-
cerning the Wastewater Treatment Plant funding and learned that the
STEP III, or construction phase, funding is very firm for their fis-
cal year 1983, beginning October 1 this year. This means we will
finish our STEP II work in about 12 months and will be ready at the
same time they are with the funds. He feels this funding is very
firm, as these things go, and it is at the 75 percent level.
(2) Marc is aiding by reviewing the Municipal League ' s legis-
lative bulletins that come in the office - he is highlighting any
of those things that are of interest and importance to Leesburg, or •
municipalities generally. As examples, there was a bill that •. 1. .
would have required referendums in the case of proposed annexations -
defeated; there was a bill on property tax relief to exclude $5, 000
worth of disability income - probably not going anywhere; the measure
that may pass concerning taxes on motor fuels to provide additional
funds for VDH&T has a permissive increase in the local license fee,
which has been $15 . 00 , up to $19 . 00 ; a bill that proposes a con-
stitutional amendment ( a House joint resolution) to permit home-
stead exemptions . There are various ways of relieving the so-called
property tax burden. One of those is property tax relief for the
elderly, deferral of land use exemptions and the homestead exemption,
whereby a certain fixed dollar amount of your own primary residence
is exempt from property taxes. This means that tax rates on the bal-
ance will probably have to be increased. These bulletins are in the
office if anyone would like to look through them. He predicts there
will be very little legislation of importance to municipalities dealt
with in this General Assembly session - there are too many State-wide
issues. Apparently all the annexation bills are dead. A bill that
would have drastically reshaped Title 15. 1 of the State Code (deal-
ing with municipal government) is dead again this year . There is
no particularly bad news from Richmond this year.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES :
Mrs . Hill said there was no Planning Commission last time and
there ' s nothing new to report from the Museum. There is a public
hearing next week on the DeHart and Brownell matters .
Mr. Niccolls reminded councilmembers of the cable training ses-
sion here tomorrow. While the Council Chambers may be available,
he is really recommending that we have one more session here and be
back in Chambers for the March 24th meeting.
Mr. Bos asked that Mr. Niccolls prepare a list of the bills on
annexation that were defeated.
82-19 - RESOLUTION - COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSED LEESBURG AREA MANAGE
MENT PLAN.
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Herrell, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, the proposed Leesburg Area Management Plan prepared
by the Loudoun County Planning Department (the subject of a
public hearing to be conducted on March 3 , 1982 by the Loud-
oun County Planning Commission) proposes to establish goals
and objectives for the Leesburg area and raises policy issues
which will affect the pattern of future development; and
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING. yg313
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Town Council has a responsibility XflXX
for development which occurs in the Leesburg area because
of the town ' s commitment for the provision of utility ser-
vice, the town ' s public facilities in the area and the
ultimate annexation of significant parts of the Leesburg
planning area:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
SECTION I . The proposed Leesburg Area Management Plan
I/ should not be approved in its present form because:
(a) The plan fails to assess adequately the impact
of its proposals on Leesburg ' s financial and physical needs,
the provision of utilities., airport development and ex-
pansion of the corporate limits .
(b) The plan does not acknowledge that Leesburg is
logically the only practical provider of central water
and sewer service in the Leesburg area and defers desig-
nation of a utility provider within the urban limit line.
N
0 (c) The plan does not recognize that Leesburg ' s mu-
C. nicipal boundaries will be expanded eventually to. include
areas beyond those expected to develop at urban densities
Q to protect the urban area from inappropriate development
along its perimeter and to protect essential public fa-
CX cilities owned and operated by the town.
(d) The plan fails to recognize the importance of
the Leesburg Municipal Airport in development of the area
and places an arbitrary limit on airport expansion.
(e) The plan fails to make the town an equal partner
in formulating goals, objectives and implementation strate-
gies for areas that will be annexed.
SECTION II . The Loudoun County Planning Commission is re-
quested to re-evaluate the proposed Leesburg Area Manage-
ment Plan and consult with the town before recommending
approval of the plan to the Loudoun County Board of Super-
visors.
SECTION III . The mayor shall transmit this resolution to
the Loudoun County Planning Commission at its public hear-
ing on March 3 , 1982 .
Mr . Bos said the key issue seems to be the acknowledgment of
Leesburg being the provider of central water and sewer service.
He felt the citizens committee and the county planning staff
have been hampered by the fact that basically this is a politi-
cal decision that has not been agreed to by the Board yet.
This has inhibited the process all along. The county planning
staff has gone out of their way to include several views in the
present draft that they have now for the public hearing - change
sheets that showed previous views of the committee as a whole
and revised views after their comprehensive plan committee looked
at it. The plan is weakened by the fact that it hasn' t been de-
termined yet. The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay : None.
82-20 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR A STATE/LOCAL
PARTNERSHIP GRANT.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
xp�{ MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
}}ff1R� PPrr WHEREAS , the Council has identified improved recreational
and cultural opportunities within the town as a major com-
munity goal ; and
WHEREAS , the Council has endorsed and will financially sup-
port a Bluemont Concert Series in Leesburg during the summer
of 1982 ; and
WHEREAS, the Council has appropriated $2500 for the concert
series; and
WHEREAS, the Council encouraged the raising of sufficient
additional funds to sponsor the events; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Commission for the Arts provides match-
ing grant funds for such cultural activities :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia as follows :
The Bluemont Concert Series, Ltd. shall file an application for
a State/Local Partnership Grant with the Virginia Commission
for the Arts to match the money allocated by the town for a
Leesburg summer concert series .
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos.
Nay: None:
82-21 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH VPI EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION, INC . FOR INSTALLATION OF A SANITARY
SEWER FORCEMAIN.
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr . Herrell, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS , the Marion DuPont Scott Equine Medical Center which
is to be managed by VPI Educational Foundation, Inc . and con-
structed on a portion of Morven Park northwest of Leesburg
requires a sanitary sewer forcemain discharge into the town ' s
sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, certain procedures regarding installation and mainte-
nance of this forcemain with the town ' s right of way have been
outlined in an agreement prepared by the Educational Founda-
tion and the town.
NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Lees-
burg in Virginia as follows:
The mayor is authorized on behalf of the town to enter into
an agreement with VPI Educational Foundation, Inc . for in-
stallation and maintenance of a sanitary sewer forcemain in
town rights of way.
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay: None.
82-22 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A
COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH LOUDOUN COUNTY TO
ADMINISTER THE TOWN ' S HOUSING REHABILITATION
PROGRAM.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr . Herrell, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
WHEREAS, the town ' s $1. 35 million dollar Community Develop-
ment Block Grant includes $50, 000 for housing rehabilitation;
and
WHEREAS, Loudoun County has an on-going housing improvement
program; and
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
WHEREAS, the town can reduce the administrative costs of 315
its housing rehabilitation program by using the county ' s
existing staff :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
The town manager is authorized to enter into an agreement
with Loudoun County to administer the town 's housing rehabili-
tation program.
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay : None.
82-23 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE VIRGINIA FAIR HOUSING LAW.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg in Virginia supports the right
of all citizens to fair housing regardless of race, color,
N religion, national origin or sex; and
C) WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted a Fair
Ct Housing Law which provides for fair housing throughout the
7 Commonwealth; and
ct
a WHEREAS, the Virginia Fair Housing Law prohibits discrimina-
tory housing practices, real estate practices and lending
practices;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
SECTION I . The Town of Leesburg endorses the right of all
citizens to equal housing opportunity regardless of race,
color, religion, national origin or sex.
SECTION II . The Town of Leesburg in Virginia endorses Chap-
ter 5 , Title 36 , of the Code of Virginia, 1950 , as amended,
the Virginia Fair Housing Law, and fully supports its en-
forcement within the town.
Mr . Bos asked if this is essentially complying with the State law?
Mr. Niccolls said this is in our agreement with HUD - they are re-
quired by Congress to make certain that any grants it passes through
to municipalities are administered in a nondiscriminatory way. One
of the tests applied by HUD asks if the town is governed by a fair
housing law? We had a choice of adopting some kind of local fair
housing law, but felt the appropriate enforcement mechanisms and
the statutory background at the State level were a better approach.
We are simply advising HUD through this resolution that the Fair
Housing Act exists in Leesburg and that we are in compliance with
federal regulations. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos.
Nay: None.
82-24 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PRO-
POSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDI-
NANCE REGARDING PROFFER CONDITIONS AND FEES.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr . Herrell , the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
A Notice of Public Hearing to consider certain proposed amend-
ments to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance regarding proffer con-
ditions and fees shall be published in the Loudoun-Times Mirror
3i [, MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
1 V on March 4 and 11, 1982 for Public Hearing on March 24 , 1982
at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street,
Leesburg, Virginia.
Mrs. Hill said this came out of the Planning Commission with no
changes - it recommends that proffers be submitted to the Planning
Commission prior to submission to Council. It also allows the
Council or the Planning Commission to change a requested zoning.
If someone applies for a B-2 zoning, Council could recommend a
B-1 zoning or something else - this complies with the State Code.
The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos.
Nay: None .
82-25 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF A VACUUM STREET SWEEPER.
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr . Cole, the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
SECTION I . The manager shall purchase an Elgin Whirlwind II
vacuum type street sweeper equipped in accordance with the
specifications issued by the Director of Public Works and
the bid received February 11, 1982 from General Supply and
Equipment Co. , Inc. , 530 East 25th Street, Baltimore, Mary •
-
land 21218 at a cost not to exceed $79, 900 . 00 .
SECTION II . An appropriation of $79 , 900. 00 is made from
the General Fund to Account No. 4102 . 707 - Street Mainte-
nance, Equipment for fiscal year 1982 .
Mr. Niccolls said the Director of Public Works, the Street Depart-
ment Superintendent and the people involved in maintaining the
equipment have conducted a study of the two low bidders - the
Ecolotec and the Elgin sweepers - and reached the conclusion that,
for the $2 , 100 difference, the Elgin is the superior product.
This is based on a couple of factors, including the availability of
Elgin parts within the Continental United States - the Ecolotec is
fabricated in the United States from parts largely made overseas .
There is no major problem with that, but we have learned from
operators of this equipment that there can be excessive delays in
parts acquisition. If we had a large fleet of these, it might be
different but, with one unit, we need 99 percent reliability.
Elgin is a long-term manufacturer and it is a little heavier, a
little larger and would be more adequate in the long run. These
machines are expected to last at least seven years . Mr. Willis
said there was also a difference in availability. Mr. Niccolls
said the Elgin people say they can deliver this machine in 15
days - this would be great - our old machine is in bad shape.
The vacuum type sweepers are 100 percent more efficient than the
others - we think it will be an improvement . The resolution was
unanimously adopted: -
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay: None.
82-26 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE AIRPORT FUND
FOR A SNOWPLOW ATTACHMENT.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Herrell, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
SECTION I . The manager is authorized and directed to execute
a standard purchase order for one Air-Flo Model 10AFSP-7 Snow-
plow from the Capital Equipment Company in the amount of $1950
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING. 317
for use at Leesburg Airport by Janelle Aviation. Installa-
tion and delivery of the snowplow equipment shall be made
at the time Janelle Aviation transmits payment to the Town
of Leesburg for one-half the cost of the snowplow attach-
ment. Future maintenance and repair of the snowplow and
airport fire truck will be the responsibility of Janelle
Aviation and will become a part of the inventory of the
lease between the town and Janelle Aviation.
SECTION II . An appropriation is made from the Airport
Fund to Account No. 6000 . 730 , Safety and Maintenance
Equipment, in the amount of $975 . 00 for the fiscal year
ending June 30 , 1982 .
Mr. Bos asked what our lease agreement with Janelle says? Mr. Nic-
colls said our lease calls for the town to provide runway and taxi-
way snow removal at a price of $10 . 00 per hour for the machinery
and one operator . This covers our normal labor expenses and fuel,
but it does not capitalize the equipment. We feel this is a pub-
lic facility part of the town. We aren ' t obligated, however, to
remove snow from the parking lot or the aircraft parking aprons,
which are immense ( 3 to 4 acres of asphalt) . When the runways are
cleared, if the aircraft can ' t get out to the taxiway, they are
frustrated - they can' t pull those aircraft through 8 to 10 inches
of snow. We have an operator out there who has sold seven air-
craft in the last several months - we feel we finally have a good
one. Since the heating and insulation has been installed, they
have improved their maintenance service - it is going to be a
vastly improved operation. Mr. Tolbert said "At least they tell
you the truth. " The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay : None.
82-27 - RESOLUTION - MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
I/ FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1982 .
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
SECTION I . Supplemental appropriations are made from the
General Fund to the following accounts for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1982 :
Account No. Appropriation
4104 . 510 Electricity-Street Lights $ 6 , 000 . 00
3401 . 541 Materials 5, 000 . 00
1204 . 302 Legal Services 20 , 000 . 00
4301. 300 Contractual Services 300 . 00
SECTION II . Supplemental appropriations are made from the
Utility Fund to the following accounts for the fiscal year
ending June 30 , 1982 :
5100 . 102 Overtime $ 500. 00
5200 . 300 Contractual Services 4 , 000 . 00
SECTION III . Supplemental appropriations are made from the
Airport Fund to the following accounts for the fiscal year
ending June 30 , 1982 :
6000 . 300 Contractual Services $ 1 , 000. 00
6000 . 540 Materials and Supplies 1 , 000 . 00
318
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 .
Mrs. Hill asked what the $300 for Contractual Services was? Mr.
Taylor said this was for building and maintenance - the monthly
service by Orkin. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay: None.
82-28 - RESOLUTION - RECEIVING AND REFERRING THE APPLICATION OF
RICHARD O. GORE FOR REVISION OF ZONING DIS-
TRICT 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 consideration tonight, on motion of
Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr . Tolbert, the following resolution was
proposed and unanimously adopted :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
The application of Richard O. Gore for revision of the zoning
district map, assigned No. ZM-40 , is received and referred
to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommenda-
tion under Chapter 11 , Title 15 . 1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay: None.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Herrell, Council voted
unanimously to go into executive session, pursuant to Section 2 . 1-344
of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (a) , Exemption (6) , for
discussion or consideration of a legal matter :
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos.
Nay: None.
On motion of Mr . Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council re-
convened at 10 : 05 P .M.
82-29 - RESOLUTION - CONCERNING PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH
LOUDOUN COUNTY OVER ANNEXATION ISSUES AND ES-
TABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR SUCH NEGOTIATIONS .
On motion of Mr . Herrell , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors indicated
an interest in negotiations with the assistance of the
Virginia Commission on Local Government over issues re-
lated to extension of the town ' s corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, Leesburg welcomes an early opportunity to dis-
cuss annexation with the county directly or under the
auspices of the Commission subsequent to the town ' s
scheduled action on annexation; and
WHEREAS, clear assignment of responsibility and estab-
lishment of procedures for the conduct of negotiations
will assure the Council that its policies are carried
out effectively:
THEZPFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Lees-
bura in Virginia as follows :
(1) The Town of Leesburg will participate in negotia-
tions with the County of Loudoun directly or under the
auspices of the Virginia Commission on Local Government
over issues related to extension of the corporate limits
subsequent to the town ' s scheduled action on annexation.
319
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1982 MEETING.
(2) The Council shall designate one of its members as
Annexation Negotiation Representative who shall be re-
sponsible to the Council for :
(a) Advising the manager of Council policies to
be followed in carrying out the negotiations;
(b) Consulting with the manager over annexation
negotiations;
(c) Keeping the Council informed as to the progress
' of negotiations and the manager ' s conduct of nego-
tiations; and
(d) Making appropriate announcements on behalf of
the town on negotiation progress and issues after
consultation with the Council.
(3) Negotiations shall be conducted by the town manager
who shall be responsible for carrying out Council policies
concerning annexation.
(4) The manager and Council Annexation Negotiation Repre-
. sentative shall involve the Town Attorney and Special An-
nexation Counsel in negotiations and review of proposals
as appropriate.
(5) Ex parte communication by town officials and employees
with county or Commission officials over the subject of on-
going annexations are prohibited .
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos .
Nay : None.
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mrs. Hill, Council voted
S
unanimously to go into executive session, pursuant to Section 2 . 1-344
of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (a) , Exemption (6) for
discussion of a legal matter :
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos.
Nay: None.
Couicil reconvened, with no action taken .
On motion, duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned.
Mayor Pro-Tem
. 6,- -=L / lg.,- /
Clerk of t�Counci