Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1982_04_14 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND PUBLIC 340 HEARING ON ZM-38 - WATERFORD INVESTMENTS, APRIL 14 , 1982 . A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on April 14 , 1982 at 7 : 30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, who led the Salute to the Flag. He asked that there be a moment of silent prayer for Mr. Lynnhurst Johnson, Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, whose wife passed away yesterday. The invocation was then given by Mr. Tolbert. Pres- ent were: Mayor G. Dewey Hill , Jr. , Councilmembers Charles A. Bos, Glen P. Cole, Stanley D. Herrell, Jr. , Marylou Hill , John W. Tolbert, Jr . and Howard M. Willis, Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Assistant Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Director of Engineering Andrew G. Shope, Director of Planning and Zoning Robert C. Forbes, Director of Finance Donald O. Taylor and Town Attorney George M. Martin. The minutes of the regular meeting of March 10, 1982 were approved as written. PROCLAMATIONS : • The following Proclamation concerning Medical Laboratory Week was read into the record : WHEREAS, the health of all Americans depends upon educated minds and trained hands; and WHEREAS , the practice of modern medicine at the life-conserv- ing standards we now enjoy would be impossible without the scientific tests performed daily in the medical laboratory; and WHEREAS, the quality of patient care and the maintenance of high standards and progress toward improvement in the quality of laboratory services depends on the dedicated efforts of professional practitioners of laboratory science; and WHEREAS, members of the profession engaged in medical lab- oratory science make vital contributions to health care in our community, NOW, THEREFORE, I , G. DEWEY HILL, JR. , Mayor of the Town of Leesburg, do hereby proclaim the week of April 11 through 17 , 1982 , as MEDICAL LABORATORY WEEK in the Town of Leesburg and urge all citizens to recognize. and support the dedication and contributions made to quality health care by medical laboratory professionals . Mayor Hill said he visited the hospital last week to sign this proclamation and they took him through the laboratory complex. He was very much impressed and it is amazing what they can do. A proclamation concerning Fair Housing Month was read into the record: WHEREAS, 1982 marks the 14th anniversary of the Federal Fair Housing Law; and WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg has expressed its commitment to equal housing opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Loudoun County Board of Realtors and the Com- munity Housing Resources Board have endeavored to coordi- nate and further fair housing objectives in the town; NOW, THEREFORE, I , G. DEWEY HILL, JR. , Mayor of the Town of Leesburg, do hereby proclaim April 1982 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH in Leesburg and urge all citizens to participate in this ob- servance by committing themselves to the goal of equal hous- ing opportunities for all residents. MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. 9 PUBLIC HEARING ON ZM-38 - WATERFORD INVESTMENTS : 3 41 Mayor Hill opened a public hearing on Rezoning Application #ZM-38 by Waterford Investments . Mr . Bruce Brownell, one of the principals in Waterford Investments, read into the record a prof- fer contingent upon the rezoning of the subject property to a B-1 zoning category under the applicable town Zoning Ordinance. The proffer said that "notwithstandingsuch rezoning, the uses to which the property may be put subsequent to the rezoning, shall include only the uses permitted under the Town of Leesburg Zoning cate- gory MC, plus the use of professional offices .as defined under the B-1 zone "in the event the property is not rezoned to the B-1 category, these proffers shall be of no binding effect upon the applicant in any subsequent proceedings. " The public notice was read into the record by the Clerk. Mayor Hill asked those speaking to try to limit their remarks to five min- utes . Mr. Brownell said }}aslives on Old Waterford Road, but not in the corporate limits. He%%passed this property at least a couple of times a day for a number of years and it is an eyesore and some may consider it a health hazard. He didn ' t believe this building would have any salvage value as a residential use and, as a builder, he is knowledgable of such things. Considering the surrounding prop- C) erty by zoning and especially use of existing buildings around it, if they are unable to obtain non-residential use, he did not know anyone who would consider this a prime area to live in. From a 7 non-residential perspective, there are some tax incentives and Q some other specifics that not only encourage but almost insure CX that the most economically feasible thing to do is to restore that structure. It is about 110 years old and, although they have not been able to find any specific historical significance, it is prob- ably very typical of much of the architecture of old town Leesburg. At the Planning Commission hearing, a number of people spoke, rais- ing some concerns about this application. One of the areas they addressed concerned parking - they felt any commercial use would lead to parking on Old Waterford Road. The size of the lot is ade- quate to provide enough parking spaces to meet even the most strin- gent of the town ' s current parking requirements . Probably of greater concern from most of the residents speaking concerned the encroachment onto the existing residential area, primarily Corn- wall Street. He did not believe this is supported by the facts. The property behind this is already zoned B-1 - the owner has in- dicated that she has no intention of changing that zoning to any- thing other than what it is . Even tho there are no plans to build on it or to sell it, it is probably safe to say that sooner or later something will be built on it and probably not residential . The property next door to the west is a lived-in existing R-2 house, and that owner spoke to the Planning Commission stating he was in favor of this proposed zoning - they have indicated that the only reason they did not join in this application or file a separate one was that the County tax office could not guarantee that a suc- cessful rezoning would not increase their property taxes. As long as they live there, they obviously do not want to do that. The property on the east is a cemetery and it does provide a permanent physical buffer to the existing residential area. The property across the street is the School Board Annex and that is zoned R-2 , but that is hardly an R-2 use. The Planning Commission recom- mended denial of this application for two reasons : (1) the ap- plication was not in conformance with the existingMasterPlan, which showed the property to be MC in the future - they specifi- cally did not ask for MC because they were not next to an exist- ing MC zone - they were next to a B-1 and they felt there was a good argument that this would be spot zoning. Also, he is not a doctor - he would like to put his office in that building. They have effectively proffered the property down to MC, with the ex- ception of allowing professional offices. The Commission also recommended denial because they had not proved or demonstrated a need for this rezoning - he has not found any Virginia case law where it has been a criteria to demonstrate a need. He has been unable to locate a piece of property west of Route 15 and north of Route 7 that is zoned for anything other than residential that is for sale. Where do you reach the point of "need"? He views this as an opportunity for improvement of a piece of prop- erty that has been long neglected. It provides one more piece of historic .property and adds to the tax rolls. MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING . 342 Mr . Bill Thomas said he is probably the closest resident to this property - his home is less than 100 feet from the prop- erty and is presently for sale. . He cannot see, from a land use or a residence point of view, that the people living on Cornwall or Liberty Streets would be hurt by this proposed use. It would not hurt in terms of real estate values nor affect the land around it in the view of Mr. Thomas. There was a home on North Wirt Street (just up from Jock ' s Exxon) that was in shambles years ago, but it sold for $125, 000 - it adjoins Jock ' s Exxon. The property proposed to be rezoned has long since been abandonedand is an eyesore. The applicant is trying to convert it to a use that is more compatible with the area in which it sits .. He hoped the people here would look at it in this sense . If this is turned down, what will happen on Memorial Drive? • Judge Carleton Penn, who lives around the corner from this property, felt Mr . Thomas spoke in favor of the rezoning because his property is for sale. If you rezone the Old Waterford Road property, you may have to rezone the Thomas property as well - where does it stop? Whether the Jackson Building isgood or bad, you don ' t have to enlarge a use that has glutted North and Liberty Streets when people are going ;to -andAcdming: rom work. It is not the zoning of the existing structure, but the zoning of the land under it - once it is rezoned, anything can be done within the ordinance. Whether the proffer is binding or not, .you do have the parking problem and, more importantly, you have the invasion of a • residential area. If this is granted, he and Mr. Cornwell could ask that a piece of property they own across from the old Hirst Lumber Co. be rezoned. You could ask for an encroachment on a residential area. The Planning Commission was bound to find the criteria which the members are aware of - that they must show a need. No need has been shown and he urged Council to follow the Commission ' s recommendation. Mr. Donald W. Devine, who lives near the property, notes that the owner tells us that he has a run-down property - he does not disagree with this . In effect, he is telling the Council the property will be worth more if it is rezoned and he will then fix it up so it will not be an eyesore. He noted that Mr. Thomas owns a house very near this property - this was in approximately as bad a shape when he bought it - he spent a lot of money rebuilding it. All the houses south of the cemetery have all been rebuilt and are quite nice. Mr. Brownell ' s neighbor to the north and west ap- peared before the Planning Commission - he is in favor of this re- zoning so he can come in and ask for the same. Thisillustrates what happens when a use such as this is granted in a residential area. The property which backs up to this area is zoned B-1 - he didn ' t know why this was done, but Dr . Jackson had planned to build his office on that property and it was never done. He urged the Council not to extend the original mistake, but to follow the recommendation of its Planning Commission. Mr. Fred Williams, who lives within a block of this area, . takes -his children to the playground across the street and he knows the property. All of North Street, with the exception of the hospital , is residential - he could see no purpose in changing the zoning of this property. Everybody would agree that the present building is an eyesore, but how can .they use this land more attractively - he believed Mr. Brownell built the very nice duplex about a block away. That area can be done very suc- cessfully on a residential basis. He asked Council to listen to its Planning Commission and not rezone this property. Miss Nancy Bradfield, of 18 East Cornwall Street, said the others on that street could not be present tonight. However, they have all been fighting to keep Cornwall Street residential and are opposed to spot zoning. If one goes in, another can. She agreed the property in question is an eyesore, but urged Council to reject this spot zoning so others will not be encouraged to come in. Mr. Mike Blair, of 81 West Market Street, was here basically because the Memorial Drive issue is similar and it is practically in his front yard. This relates to a general principle in the Memorial Drive issue in that they do have encroachment into a residential area - the people living there want to keep it that • MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING . way. He, therefore, recommended that Council deny this 343 appli- cation. Mrs . Bill Thomas said, regardless of whether or not their house is for sale or whether or not they were moving, they would back Mr . Brownell in any sense of the word. What he does is of the highest quality, he will not damage their habitat and whatever he plans on doing will not damage Cornwall Street, Liberty Street or anything else. Mr. Eugene Barber said his recommendation would be to accept the Planning Commission ' s decision to deny it. Mr. Devine asked for a show of hands on this matter. There were 3 for and 13 to 15 against it. Mayor Hill declared the hearing closed and stated this matter will be referred back to the Finance and Administration Committee for a decision. MANAGER' S REPORT: Mr . Niccolls called attention to the written Activity Report O and reported as follows : (1) Notices setting in motion the proposed annexation have been delivered to the State Commission on -Local Government. Since a that time, the Executive Director of the Local Government Commission Q has contacted the town, and he presumes the county, and set 10 : 00 a.m. Saturday, April 24 for a meeting they would like to conduct between the town ' s negotiators and the county ' s negotiators in their offices in Richmond. The Mayor has been advised of this meeting and he is able to attend also. The purpose of the meeting is two-fold : (1) to let the Commission know whether or not in the town ' s view, and later he assumes in the county ' s view, an independent mediator should be appointed at this time; (2) to set formally the schedule for Local Government Commission actions and deadlines. They are ' tentatively proposing to allow the county until May 28 to submit rebuttal evidence. They have tentatively set the hearings for mid- July, so the Commission is moving along in fulfilling its responsi- bilities under the annexation statutes. (2) The proposed annual budget is presented tonight. A tax rate public hearing needs to be set at the next meeting. (3) A report has been received from the Department of Recrea- tion for the County on Leesburg taxes, etc . on Firemen ' s Field. This will be discussed later. (4) He called attention to the report on funding for the Lees- burg sewage treatment expansion project. This is essentially very good news and indicates that Leesburg will be eligible for STEP III or construction grants funding in fiscal year 1983. (5) There is a copy of report from Storer Communications on their first year of activity. (6) You have just been handed the annexation issue of the Lamplighter, which will be mailed tomorrow to all town residents and those in the area proposed for annexation. We hope it will answer questions about the annexation action. (7) We are planning to complete the design phase on the South Harrison Street public improvements by mid-summer, get that project actually bid and under way for substantial completion perhaps this fall . The housing rehabilitation program is now under way as part of this project. (8) In Councilmembers ' packets , there was a copy of a descrip- tion of public works activities for the current construction season. If you have any comments or questions or suggestions for what proj- ects you believe are highest priority, it will be helpful . We al- ways hope to finish that work in one summer season, but experience teaches otherwise. We should pay attention to priorities. 3n MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. Y (9) The Plaza Street Park will be 99 percent completed by this weekend and a dedication ceremony has been set for 12 :30 Sunday at the site. Through the kindness of the Leesburg Kiwanis Club, some private funds have been raised and, through the dona- tion of Mr. Willis ' food service vehicle, we will have free hot dogs and cokes for those attending the dedication ceremony. Fliers have been passed out and posted at the Loudoun House fa- cility and information given elsewhere. We hope this is a real festival for the people in the area - they are looking forward to the park and they are already using the equipment. (10) The King Street rehabilitation project has a little way to go before it gets started - we haven ' t received the completed plans from the engineers yet, but property owners are being con- tacted. COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS : Mr . Bos said he has received a lot of favorable comment on the trash receptacles we have placed around town - they are nice appear- ing. Mr . Niccolls said these were purchased from a Litter Control Grant from the State. He went with Mayor Hill and Mr. Shope today to the Highway Department in Culpeper for their pre-allocation hearing on the Route 7 project. There was no money last year , so the project was post- poned. The three percent wholesale tax this year will allow that project to go ahead. He understands they will start laterin the summer and it should be finished in approximately a year. Mrs. Hill reported that the Museum is in the process of select- ing carpeting for the old building. MAYOR' S REPORT: Mayor Hill said he made this same trip last year and there was no money there - we knew it and didn ' t go in with our hand out. We did request traffic lights at Plaza Street to help control traf- fic at this troublesome intersection. We did get those lights, though they are temporary. This year, Commissioner King was very enthusiastic about this coming year as far as funds for the Highway Department are concerned. This new gasoline tax will generate a sizeable sum for them and a lot of these projects like ours and others throughout the State that have been in suspense will prob- ably get moving. Everybody was happy 'today. When this project is completed, he is sure everyone will be proud of it. 82-0-12 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE. On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded ' by Mr. Bos, the following ordinance was proposed : WHEREAS, on October 14 , 1981 , amendments to the Leesburg Zon- ing Ordinance regarding proffer conditions and fees were initiated; and WHEREAS, on February 4 , 1982 , the Planning Commission recom- mended these amendments to Council, and WHEREAS, on March 24 , 1982 , Council held a public hearing at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to express their views; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . Section 11-5 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows : 11-5 Public hearings shall be. advertised and held for all amendments to this ordinance as required by Article I, Chapter 11, Title 15 . 1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. 345 SECTION II . Section 11-8-4 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordi- nance is amended to read as follows : 11-8-4 Those proffer provisions provided for in Section 15. 1-491 . 6 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, are incorporated as part of this zoning ordinance as if set out fully herein. Proposed proffers shall be presented to the Council and Planning Commission at any time prior to the Planning Commission ' s recom- mendation on the proposed: map amendment to the Council. SECTION III . Sections 8-A-1-12 , 9-3 , 10-3-1, 10-3-2 and 11-2 II of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance are amended to read as fol- lows : 8-A-1-12 Permits, fees for permits. Except as provided here- in, no person shall erect, install, use, alter, re- locate, replace or reconstruct any sign regulated by this Article without first applying for and re- ceiving a Historic District Zoning Permit, if appli- cable; paying the fee provided herein to the Town and being issued an approved sign permit. OFor signs of six or less square feet of sign area, T the fee for a sign permit shall be $10 . 00 7 For signs of more than six square feet of sign area, Q the fee shall be $20 . 00 . Q For identification signs of less than ten square feet and for all temporary and political signs, there shall be no fee. For repainting or cleaning of an advertising struc- ture or the changing of advertising copy or message thereon, unless a structural change is made, there 9-3 shall be no permit or fee required. FEES Fees and charges to be paid to the town for applica- tion for zoning permits shall be as follows: 9-3-1 For single- and multiple-family dwellings to be newly erected, altered, reconstructed, enlarged or relocated, the fee for filing the application for a zoning permit shall be $15. 00 per dwelling unit. 9-3-2 For newly erected, altered, reconstructed, enlarged or relocated non-residential uses, the fee for fil- ing the application for a zoning permit shall be $40 . 00 . 9-3-3 For newly erected, altered, reconstructed, enlarged or relocated accessory buildings, the fee for filing the application for a zoning permit shall be $5. 00. 10-3-1 An application to the Board for a variance, special exception or interpretation of the Zoning District Map, or any other case in which the Board has original jurisdiction under the provisions of this Ordinance may be made by any property owner, tenant, governmental officer, department, board or bureau. Such application shall be filed in triplicate with the Zoning Administrator, who shall transmit a copy thereof, together with all the plans, specifications and other papers pertaining to the application, to the Chairman of the Board. Each such application shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $50. 00 to defray the cost of processing said application, which amount shall be paid to the Director of Finance. MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. 346 10-3-2 An appeal to the Board .may be taken by any person aggrieved, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the Town of Leesburg affected by any decision of the Zoning Administrator relative to the administration of this Ordinance. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision complained of , by filing with the Zoning Administrator and with the Board a no- tice of appeal stating the grounds thereof. A no- tice of appeal in triplicate shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $30 . 00 to defray the cost of processing said appeal, which amount shall be paid to the Director of Finance. The Zoning Administra- tor shall forthwith transmit to the Board all papers constituting the record upon which the action apr. pealed from was taken. If the Board decides that there was an error in the order, requirement, decision or determination of the zoning enforcement officer as specified in the no- tice of appeal, the Director of Finance shall return the aforementioned fee to the appellant and no fee shall be charged for the appeal . If, however, the Board ' s decision is to uphold the order , requirement, decision or determination of the zoning enforcement officer, the Director of Finance shall retain the filing fee in the ".treasury. 11-2 INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS : Amendments of the Zoning Ordinance shall be initiated only in the following manner. a. Amendments to the text of the Ordinance and/or changes in the zoning boundaries or classifica- tion of properties shown on the Zoning Map may be initiated by the Council or the Planning Com- mission in accordance with the provisions of Sec . 15-1-493 , 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. b. Amendments to the zoning boundaries or classifi- cation of property shown on the Zoning Map may be initiated by property owners of the land pro- posed to be rezoned, by the filing with the Coun- cil of a Zoning Map amendment petition addressed to the Council, which petition shall be on a stand- ard form approved by the Planning Commission and provided by the Zoning Administrator, and accom- panied .by a fee of $150 . 00, and all other material and data required in said form. SECTION III . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its pas- sage. Mrs. Hill said the committee decided not to delete Section 11-5 en- tirely - instead they referred to the Code section relative to pub- lic hearings. Mr . Bos felt this ordinance will eliminate a big prob- lem they have had - it will allow them to make more flexible and bet- ter zoning decisions and cut down on the use of the proffer provision. This will help the town and will help applicants to go through the process without having to withdraw and re-apply or perhaps be turned down on a zoning matter that might have been more flexible by a zon- ing change. Mayor Hill asked if , under this ordinance, Mr. Brown- ell ' s proffer would have been in order tonight? Under 11-8-4 it says proposed proffers shall be presented to Council and Planning Commission at any time prior to the Planning Commission ' s recom- mendation. Mr. Niccolls thought the intent was to require the ap- plicant to make those proffers before the Planning Commission be- fore they make a decision. Mr . Bos understood this would allow a proffer to be presented to the Commission most of the way through their process as long as it is received before their final recom- mendation. Mrs. Hill thought that, if there was a change at the Council level, it would probably be referred back to the Planning Commission. MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. Mr. Francis Patton said he understood that a proffer can be347 made to the Planning Commission before it makes a decision. He asked, if there has already been a hearing by the Commission and a proffer is made after that hearing, will the Commission have to hold another hearing before it can make a decision? Mrs. Hill and Mr. Bos agreed that there would not be another Planning Commission hearing but anyone desiring to speak to that proffer would have an opportunity to do so at the Council public hearing. Mr . Patton felt this puts the public to a disadvantage to the developer. Mr. Bos said the whole purpose is to receive input from the public on a zoning matter and that has a drastic effect on the thinking of the Planning Commission and/or the developer. He could then come in with a proffer that would satisfy those needs - the Commission could then make a recommendation. You would then have another chance be- fore the Council at its public hearing to comment on the effect of the proffer - if it went back to the Commission for another hearing, the process would never stop. The Planning Commission ' s charge is to take the information available and make a reasonable recommendation. The Council is not bound by that recommendation. The ordinance was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . O Nay : None. CT On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council voted 7 unanimously to go into executive session, pursuant to Section 2 . 1-344 Q of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (a) , Exemption (6) for dis- Q cussion of a legal matter concerning Brownell vs. Town of Leesburg, etc. : Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . Nay : None. Mayor Hill invited the Planning Commission and the Town Attorney to ' join the executive session. On motion of Mr . Herrell , seconded by Mr. Bos, Council voted unanimously to reconvene at 10 : 13 p.m. : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Cole, Herrell , M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . Nay: None. Mayor Hill said Council has directed the Town Attorney to meet with the opposing attorney to see if any compromise to the suit can be made, after which a special meeting will be called for next Tues- day, April 20 at 7 : 30 p.m. to make a final decision. 82-0-13 - ORDINANCE - GRANTING A LEASE TO , ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AT THE LEESBURG MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA. On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mrs : Hill, the following ordinance was proposed and unanimously adopted : ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . The Town does hereby demise, lease and let unto for an initial period of thirty years with one option for a ten year renewal as provided in the lease dated , the fol- lowing described property at Leesburg Municipal Airport in Loudoun County, Virginia : (a) An area north of the 28 aircraft parking ramp as shown on Attachment A of the invitation to bid- ders containing 5 . 6 acres , more or less, along with a non-exclusive egress and ingress easement for construction of an access road, containing 1 . 2 acres , more or less . 3" MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. Y SECTION II . The Mayor shall execute and the Clerk of Council shall attest the lease dated on behalf of the Town. SECTION III . This ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage. Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Cole, Herrell, M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill. Nay: None. 82-39 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS TO LEASE, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE THE FIXED BASE OPERATOR SERVICE OF ENCLOSED AIRCRAFT STOR- AGE FACILITIES . On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow- ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . The annexed ordinance entitled "An ordinance granting a lease to , its successors and assigns, of certain property at the Lees- burg Municipal Airport, Loudoun County, Virginia" shall be advertised once a week for four successive weeks in the Loudoun Times-Mirror, a newspaper published in the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, and having a general circulation • in the Town of Leesburg; and that said advertisement shall invite bids for the lease proposed to be granted in the ordinance and proposals for the establishment and opera- tion of the fixed base operator service of enclosed air- craft Storage facilities at Leesburg Municipal Airport. SECTION II . The public notice to be published with said ordinance shall be as follows : "The Town of Leesburg in Virginia invites sealed bid pro- posals for a lease of a portion of Leesburg Airport con- taining approximately 5. 6 acres for the construction, oper- ation and management of aircraft storage facilities. The publicnotice, invitation for proposals and proposal form constitute the invitation to bidders for the lease and are available in the office of the Town Manager, P. O. Box 88 , Leesburg, Virginia, 22075, during regular office hours . The bids are to be delivered to the Mayor of the town in an open session of the Council to be held in the Council Chambers of the town at 10 West Loudoun Street, on May 26 , 1982 at 7 : 30 p.m. The successful bidder shall pay the cost of required legal advertisements. The town reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive any informalities and to award the lease in the best interest of the town. " Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Cole, Herrell , M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill:. :: Nay : None. 82-40 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE LEESBURG AIRPORT COMMISSION. On motion of Mr . Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Herrell, the follow- ing resolution was proposed WHEREAS, the Leesburg Airport Commission has unanimously en- dorsed the following appointment; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The following appointment is made to the Leesburg Airport MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1982 MEETING. 349 Commission, beginning July 1, 1982 and for the term indi- cated herein : Stanley F . Caulkins for a term expiring June 30, 1986 . Mr. Cole felt he will make a good member - he is interested in the airport and has a plane out there. The resolution was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill. Nay : None. 82-41 - RESOLUTION - APPROVING THE SOUTH HARRISON STREET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOP- MENT AND REVITALIZATION PLAN. On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mrs. Hill , the following resolution was proposed : WHEREAS , the Town Council authorized the firms of Dewberry. and Davis and Praful Shah and Associates to prepare a com- N prehensive plan for the implementation of the town ' s South O Harrison Street Community Development Program; and Ct WHEREAS, the Town Council reviewed the draft conceptual 7 transportation and land use plans and recommended certain Q alternatives and revisions; and Q WHEREAS, the suggested alternatives and revisions have been incorporated in the South Harrison Street Community Develop- ment Project Comprehensive Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The South Harrison Street Community Development Project Com- prehensive Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan is approved and the town manager is directed to implement the project as set forth in the plan. Mr. Bos and other members felt this is a good plan. This plan is being entered in the Preservation Society awards program. The reso- lution was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . Nay: None. 82-42 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO CERTIFY JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION IN THE SOUTH HARRISON STREET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow- ing resolution was proposed : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The South Harrison Street Community Development Project Com- prehensive Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan. is approved and the town manager is directed to implement the project as set forth in the plan. Mr. Niccolls said this will come back to Council for a purchase reso- lution when and if they come to terms based on this. The resolution was unanimously adopted : Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Cole , Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . Nay : None. MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. 350 82-43 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING ALLOCATION OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR MAR- KET STREET RECONSTRUCTION FROM CATOCTIN CIRCLE TO THE EAST CORPORATE LIMITS . On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Willis, the following resolution was proposed : WHEREAS, the critically needed reconstruction of East Market Street from Catoctin Circle to the east corporate limits (Project 0007-253-102) has been deferred for over two years by revenue shortfalls; and WHEREAS , the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion has previously allocated $685, 000 toward the $1, 385, 000 project; and WHEREAS, the proposed fiscal year 1983 Urban System Construc- tion Program calls for an additional $300 , 000 allocation for the project: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The tentative allocation of $300, 000 toward the reconstruction of East Market Street within the Town of Leesburg between Ca- toctin Circle and the east corporate limits is endorsed and recommended for adoption by the Virginia Department of High- ways and Transportation. Mr. Bos said Mayor Hill made a request that the Department approve a lot of secondary roads - they smiled. The resolution was unani- mously adopted : Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . Nay : None. 82-44 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOP- MENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE . On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow- ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . The following persons are appointed to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for terms expiring July 1 , 1985, in accordance with Chapter 5 . 2 , Article I of the Town Code : Joby Reynolds Bruce Roberts Joe Trocino Tom Nalls Teckla Cox James Pumphrey Charlie Hope SECTION II . The following councilmember is appointed to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for a term equal to his tenure in office in accordance with Chapter 5 . 2 , Article I of the Town Code: Charles A. Bos Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . NaY: None. 82-45 - RESOLUTION - AGREEING TO AN $800 CONTRIBUTION FOR RENT OF FIREMAN"S FIELD FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS . On motion of 14r. Bos , seconded by Mr. Herrell, the following resolution was proposed : MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING. 351 RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The town agrees to contribute up to $800 to Loudoun County during fiscal year 1983 for payment of rent for Fireman' s Field under the following terms: (a) Loudoun County continues to operate Fireman ' s Field as in prior years for outdoor recreation programs; and (b) An accounting of county and other funds available for Fireman ' s Field rent and operations is given this council. Mayor Hill read a letter from Mr . James 0. Stup, Director of County Parks and Recreation, requesting the town to contribute 1982 town taxes on this property as a tangible demonstration of support. The 1981 taxes were $813 . 11 but, until this year ' s tax rate is set, the exact amount of 1982 taxes is unknown. Mayor Hill told Mr. Stup that this wouldn ' t be budgeted until next year ' s budget. There is a fund drive under way to makeup about $1800 . This assures the use of the ball field for this year. Also, this is an example that the town and the county can get along together. The resolu- O tion was adopted by a vote of 6 to 1 disqualification: Cr Aye: Councilmembers Bos , Cole, Herrell , Tolbert, Willis and 7 Mayor Hill . Q Nay: None. Q Disqualification: Mrs . Hill . 82-46 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE AIRPORT FUND FOR A TRACTOR-MOWER. On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Herrell, the following 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 John Deere Model 950 Tractor (27 horsepower) complete with rollguard canopy, turf tires and 72-inch cut, undermounted mower from Carlyle and Anderson in the amount of $8 , 459 . 70 for. use at Leesburg Municipal Airport by Janelle Aviation. Future maintenance and repair of the tractor and mower will be the responsibility of Janelle Avia- tion and the equipment will become a part of the inventory of the lease between the town and Janelle Aviation at the time Janelle Aviation transmits payment in the amount of $4 , 000 to the Town of Leesburg, for which such payment must be re- ceived by October 1, 1982 . Janelle Aviation shall have as its option the right, in lieu thereof, to submit a check for the full price of the equipment which shall convey ownership of the equipment from the Town of Leesburg to 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 $8 , 500 for the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1982 . Mayor Hill said this is a buy - purchase back by the leaseholder at I/ the airport, so we will eventually get our money back. The resolu- tion was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Cole, Herrell, M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Hill . Nay: None. 82-47 - RESOLUTION - MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 , 1982 . On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Herrell , the follow- ing resolution was proposed: MINUTES OF APRIL 14 , 1982 MEETING . 352 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 1102 . 300 Contractual Services $ 300. 00 4102 . 540 Materials and Supplies 6 , 000 . 00 4102 . 102 Overtime 1, 000 . 00 4400. 523 Telephone 150. 00 4500 . 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 : 5300 . 520 Heat . $ 900 . 00 5300. 523 Telephone 350. 00 SECTION III . Supplemental appropriations are made from the Capital Project Fund to the following accounts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982 : 7000 . 246 Legal , Financial Administrative $10 , 000. 00 7000 . 250 Construction Engineering 60 , 000. 00 Mr. Willis asked about the $150 . 00 telephone expense? Mr. Taylor said it was telephone expense in the Equipment Maintenance division. The resolution was unanimously adopted : Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Tolbert, IIWillis and Mayor Hill. Nay: None. Mr. Bos said it is time for the Council to meet with the Plan- ning Commission to talk about common goals the town has and ways to implement them. Mayor Hill and Mrs. Hill felt this is a good idea. Mr. Bos said Council should expect certain things from the Planning Commission and the staff. Mrs . Hill felt discussion of the Compre- hensive Plan would be a good example. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 30 p.m. /h2 $y Mayor/// Clerk ofe Council