Loading...
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