HomeMy Public PortalAbout1982_10_27 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, OCTOBER 27 , 1982 .
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in
the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia
on October 27 , 1982 at 7 : 30 p.m. The meeting was called to order
by the Mayor, with Mr. Tolbert giving the invocation, and followed
with the Salute to the Flag led by Mr. Taylor. Present were:
Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers Charles A. Bos, Edgar L.
Coffey, Jr. , Reginald K. Gheen, Marylou Hill, John W. Tolbert, Jr.
and Howard M. Willis , Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Assist-
ant Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Assistant to Manager for Commumity
Development Marc Weiss , Director of Engineering Andrew G. Shope,
Director of Finance Donald O. Taylor and Town Attorney George M.
Martin.
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION :
(1) A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to former
Mayor G. Dewey Hill, Jr. by Mayor Sevila for four years as Mayor
of the Town of Leesburg and nine years as a councilmember. Mayor
Sevila personally thanked Mr . Hill for the help he has given him
and for the fine service he has given the town. He hoped he will
continue to be available and contribute to the town as he has in
the past. Mr. Hill said the last four years he served were prob-
00 ably the most rewarding he has ever had - a lot has been accom-
, . plished and they have certainly set the wheels turning so that
council will be busy for the next four or five years. He felt he
O
now knows what McArthur meant when he said "Old soldiers never die -
OD they just fade away. " This applies to politicians as well .
r CO
Q (2) Mayor Sevila also presented a Certificate of Appreciation
to Stanley D. Herrell, Jr. in recognition of six years as a council-
member from 1976 to 1982 . Mr . Herrell thanked Council for this cer-
tificate and said he felt Mr. Hill had said it all.
(3) Another Certificate was presented to Kenneth B. Rollins,
who served capably for over 14 years as Mayor of this town and con-
tinues to serve the town and our community as our Delegate to State
Legislature. Mr. Rollins hoped this body will continue to do those
things council tried to do over so many years . He noted that Mr.
Echols is here concerning the Leesburg South development - these
things are very important to Leesburg for the betterment of the
community and for economic development of this area. He worked
very hard for such things when he was Mayor and he appreciates
this certificate very much. He congratulated Mr. Coffey on his
appointment to council and said "You couldn ' t find a better man. "
He will hang his certificate in his office and cherish it very
much.
PETITIONERS :
Mayor Sevila recognized Mr. Alton Echols, or someone on his
behalf, concerning his rezoning application with the County for the
Leesburg South proposed development. Mr. William Chapman, local
counsel for Washington Development Sites, the owner of the Leesburg
South project, said they have been in contact with several members
of Council today and yesterday because of some apparent confusion
that has arisen with regard to the town ' s position concerning their
rezoning application pending before the County Planning Commission,
and ultimately the Board of Supervisors . This parcel of land is
immediately south of the By-Pass between Route 15 and Simpson
Middle School. Earlier this week, as a result of discussions with
members of the County staff, they were led to believe that they
felt the town had some opposition to the proposed project. Council
adopted a resolution in March of 1982 concerning the Town ' s posi-
tion on this rezoning application. The scale of the application
remains the same as the one reviewed by the town at that time -
the precise uses are still being generated and defined or rede-
fined. They have been led to believe that Council is opposed to
the project because of its scale. Their contact,
together with his appearance tonight, is to share some thoughts
with them as to that perception and to get some indication from
council as to whether its view has changed as to its position or,
if council stands by its March 25, 1982 resolution, they would
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING .
78 appreciate it if they would reaffirm this resolution as being the
position of the town. He has talked with councilmembers individu-
ally and has shared some of his discussions with town staff mem-
bers . He gave to Mr. Niccolls this afternoon a resolution that
he would like council to seriously entertain concerning reaffirma-
tion of its previously stated resolution to clarify its position
on this particular zoning map amendment . He and representatives
of his client are available for questions and there is one techni-
cal person here that could answer questions concerning highway
matters at this point.
Mayor Sevila understood that the primary concern is the immi-
nent adoption by the County of the Leesburg Area Management Plan
and the fact that it may adversely affect their rezoning petition.
Mr. Chapman said this isp one of three primary concerns . Mayor
Sevila asked him to briefly outline how their plan conflicts with
the proposed LAMP Plan. ! Mr. Chapman said the proposed LAMP Plan
talks in terms of a neighborhood shopping center (defined anywhere
between 60 , 000 and l00 , 000 square feet) . Their Statement of Justi-
fication initially called for 100 , 000 square feet - in discussions
with staff , they have indicated and shown them a sketch of 187, 000
square feet. They are planning through 1995 , whereas LAMP was talk-
ing ten years from the date of creation. LAMP has "soft language"
talking about office areas compatible with theneighborhood shopping
center concept. He does not know what "compatible" means - the
County staff has taken an interpretative position of LAMP (if it is
adopted) to the effect that "compatible" means "equal to" the
100, 000 square feet. Some members of County staff have said this
includes both the commercial shopping center, plus the associated or
compatible office uses - their project is not in compliance with
LAMP in terms of scale of the office park. They know they have a
size problem they have to justify, but the imminency of adoption
of LAMP and annexation, which may impact on them one way or another,
makes it necessary to come back to Council to see if there is any
clarification indicated. With respect to the LAMP compliance ques-
tion, they also have a question about an inn that needs to be ad-
dressed. In terms of housing density, they seem to be in compli-
ance with minimum standards of housing density on the LAMP project.
Those were a result of amendments after discussion with staff mem-
bers .
Mr. Bos asked where they are in terms of the rezoning process?
Mr. Chapman said their application was delivered to the County in
August of 1981 and their check was accepted in December of 1981 .
They were to have a public hearing in November, but they were not
advertised for November 10 .
Mr. Echols said they made settlement in February and had it
surveyed and engineered by April . They went to the county and were
told that certain items were not acceptable and recommended that
they get into the LAMP process, so this delayed their application.
When they came out of LAMP , they had them in a position that was
consistent - it showed 15 to 20 acres of shopping center - a total
of 75 acres plus -. they thought they were working on friendly terms
with the county. They filed in August and were told as recently as
four weeks ago that things were on target as far as their scale was
concerned. Now, even if they were scaling down, they would be un-
able to proceed - they would have to go back and seek an amendment
of LAMP . Their final plan under LAMP was 10 acres of shopping, 10
for employment and 12 to 1500 for residential . If this is what
the town and LAMP wants, it will not meet the requirements of their
client. They have been caught up in a cross fire between the
town, the county and LAMP, but they are innocent, so they are ask-
ing for a reaffirmation of council ' s March 1982 action. The
county asked them to go elsewhere with their proposed development -
to the Dulles area or perhaps to buy Leegate. It has to be as close
as they can get to the town and must have direct access because
their element will be coming in to Leesburg to the Visitors ' Center
and for the walking tour. It is either that it is what the town
wants and the county won ' t approve, or else it is all over. They
would have to change their plan and use it as an investment or take
their project to somewhere like Gettysburg or Lancaster.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
Leesburg has the best of history of anywhere in the United States 9
if you define history as Washington, D. C. , Harpers Ferry, etc.
The quality is on a 1 to 20 scale - within two hours of here, you
have more historical points than any other single location in the
eastern United States. The second one is the Fredericksburg area.
We have Dulles and National Airports . Leesburg has sewer, water
and a good tax base.
Mr. Chapman presented a resolution he would like council to
consider . He is concerned that there is at least someone saying
the town opposes the scale of their project, yet the town has gone
on record approving it. He asked if the town ' s position has changed?
Mayor Sevila asked if the scale of the project has changed since
the town went on record on March 24 , 1982? Mr . Chapman said No,
they are still with the original plan in terms of areas involved and
their original Statement of Justification - the actual use mixtures
have changed a little as a part of the process, but they are still
seeking 133 acres to be rezoned to what he calls the "tight" cate-
gories, which is what they talked about when this matter was before
council at that time.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONCERNING COUNTY ZONING MAP #314 , LEESBURG SOUTH.
T On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Tolbert, a resolution
stating that Resolution No. 82-35 , adopted by the Town Council on
CD March 24 , 1982 , remains the position of the Town concerning ZMAP
OD #314 , Leesburg South was proposed. Mr. Bos was concerned as to
(n whether this is the appropriate time for this to be brought up.
Q He personally favors the concept of Leesburg South and he suspects
this Council does, but the question is whether now when the town
is in an ongoing process of negotiation with the county, which con-
cerns the local comprehensive planning process, whether indeed we
are already on record as commenting on this project - he is con-
cerned as to whether it is highly inappropriate for this council to
make a comment on LAMP at this point. He feels the applicant is
caught in a real squeeze with the LAMP process and the seemingly
unending County planning process - it costs the applicant money.
We are already on record as having commented on this project and
have not been brought uptodate on any changes - he didn ' t feel we
should vote this up or down tonight. Mayor Sevila said this reso-
lution, as presented, simply indicates that we don ' t expect to make
any change in our position - it is, in effect, a reaffirmation of
the position that was taken. He asked Mr . Bos if he is saying he
is not in a position tonight to reconsider? Mr . Bos said his po-
sition is no different than it was six months ago but he is won-
dering whether the lack of speed on the county process has put this
applicant at a real disadvantage, and are we really the body to solve
this problem? Mr. Echols said they have been very careful to make
sure this resolution is specific only to what they have already gone
on record as approving. Mrs . Hill had no objection to reaffirming
the resolution adopted last March. Mr. Gheen could see no quarrel,
but he is concerned as to what the position of the town will be in
the event that annexation is approved with respect to this particu-
lar piece of land. Will the same zoning obtain until the town
changes it or is there a possibility it will have the same zoning
for four or five years, or what exactly might happen? From what
he has heard, it seems the County Planning Commission has had a lot
of time to debate this issue. He did not see that reaffirming the
resolution of March 24 would do any violence to anything - he didn ' t
see where it would affect us one way or the other . Mr. Willis said
unfortunately we can ' t get into answering Mr. Gheen ' s question but
they might be able to clarify it later this evening. He has no
problem with reaffirming the March action . Mr. Bos asked Mr. Nic-
colls, if after these comments were sent over to the County during •
the LAMP process, what answer or comments did we get in return or
discussion about the town ' s posture on it? Mr . Niccolls said we
have received no direct comments in response to that resolution.
Over the past several weeks, we have had numerous discussions with
the county ' s planning staff over the ultimate development of that
tract and all the others around Leesburg. Councilmembers reviewed
a map recently, which conflicted with this proposed rezoning. He
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
80 would be glad to give him a statement of pros and cons or some
commentary on the issue if he would like. Mr. Bos said he would
like this - he feels it is premature to jump into this, especially
with three new councilmembers that aren ' t fully aware of the back-
ground. Mayor Sevila felt this would be appropriate.
Mr. Niccolls said there is an obvious conflict between the
map councilmembers have been using with regard to annexation area
development plans and this rezoning. It is no secret that the
annexation area development plan references the LAMP and it pro-
vides that use of the Leesburg South land was to be primarily resi-
dential , with a community-size shopping center. This conflicts
with the March resolution. Mr. Chapman has been advised that coun-
cil
has not taken a position subsequent to the March resolution, so
he was advised earlier this week to deal with the council . All
these other discussions with the county staff have either been at
the negotiating team level or primarily the staff level on these
planning issues. There are soeme pros and cons to this specific
rezoning - he asked Marc Weiss to summarize these. This is not in-
tended to be a comprehensive staff report on this specific rezoning,
but only to introduce to them some of the arguments that they might
then consider.
Marc Weiss identified some of the pros and cons concerning the
Leesburg South project. As to the pros - (1) the increased tax base
a development of that nature would provide to the town if that area
were to be annexed into the town; (2) increased employment oppor-
tunities that might result from a development of that scale; (3) the
location of that tract in proximity to the major north-south Route
15 and east-west Route 7 corridors; (4) the attraction of tourism
and tourists if the project is developed as proposed (a rezoning
does not commit a property owner or an applicant to build a specific
type of project - rather, it is permissible that any project or use
that is allowable in a zoning category can be constructed) , so there
is no guarantee of what ultimately will be built there (this can be
seen as a bit of a con). (l)There is a concern that there is a large
amount of land zoned for non-residential uses, both within the cur-
rent
town limits and just outside the town - for example, approxi-
mately 200 acres of the Carr tract east of the town limits, the
Route 7 corridor from the existing town boundaries out to Goose
Creek and even beyond is zoned heavily for office, commercial and
industrial uses. The potential problems with this kind of zoning
are maybe two-fold - (1) a lot of the land is rezoned and never de-
veloped - it may lie vacant and unproductive, which could be of some
concern to the town in terms of getting additional users for the
utility system. (2) overzoning land for non-residential uses can
have a negative impact on the housing market - it can have the ef-
fect of increasing the price of residential land and ultimately of
housing (this needs to be considered when looking at comprehensive
planning for the entire area) ; ( 2) The applicant is proposing in
excess of 1, 000, 000 square feet of office space as part of this
project. This could have a negative effect on downtown; (3) the
Route 7 corridor has generally been designated and zoned for em-
ployment uses and specifically for regional office uses . An argu-
ment could be made that we shouldn ' t protect the Route 7 corridor -
you have to go further and look at it and ask if it is really suit-
able for any other land use? - the answer is clearly No, you would
not want to locate residential land uses here. Looking at the
Leesburg South property, could it be used for an alternative land
use? - the answer is clearly Yes, it could be - it is in close
proximity to Country Club.
He spoke this afternoon with the consultants who prepared the
proposed Town Plan, recognizing that it has not been adopted yet,
to getclarification as to what is proposed for that tract. He
did propose commercial and office uses on that tract, but he didn' t
in the plan actually specify the extent of those uses. He said /the
extent that was proposed in the town plan is about 100 , 000 to 200, 000
square feet of commercial area, specifically neighborhood commercial .
The town and the council should be concerned no matter what it does
one way or the other - we should be sure there is adequate provision
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
for neighborhood shopping facilities in the area - it is clear that81
no matter how the Leesburg South property develops, surrounding prop-
erties, either approved applications or potential future applications,
will result in considerable residential development in the area.
The extent of the office would be about another 100, 000 to 200, 000
square feet, but it was his feeling that the council could be flexible
on that. He felt, from a market point of view, 1, 000, 000 square feet
of office space was just not marketable. In terms of a specialty or
tourist attraction, the town should consider this. Obviously the
town is an important tourist attraction and a specific proposal should
be looked at perhaps favorably if the council feels it contributes to
the tourist base of the town.
Mayor Sevila said this resolution adopted in March was obviously
the result of or at least had the benefit of some staff comment. He
asked Mr. Weiss if he participated in the evaluation or is there a
staff report that led to the adoption by the council of the resolu-
tion that went to the Board? Mr. Weiss said Yes, it was his opinion
that the question of extent of the use was not addressed by Council
one way or the other. It was not really in the context of LAMP, but
in the context of staff referral from the county. Those items were
addressed, but not specifically the intensity of the use.
OD
Nt Mr. Bos felt it is inappropriate to comment on something of this
o magnitude in a matter of two hours in one day - it doesn ' t make sense.
OD Mayor Sevila said council has had its opportunity to appear be-
n fore the county in the last month and express its wishes and desires
Q as they relate to the LAMP plan that was being adopted at the time.
He was not a member of council on March 24 , 1982 when this resolution
was adopted - he was not conversant with Leesburg South nor with the
discrepancies between Leesburg South and the LAMP plan proposed.
He had the opportunity to appear before the Board of Supervisors and
make certain presentations relating to it. He pointed out that the
Board and the LAMP committee favorably considered most of the things
that we discussed with them. Had we had the opportunity to give this
resolution the mature consideration he feels it requires, we would
have been able to make a presentation in time to have it considered
by the Board of Supervisors and, hopefully, it may have been reflected
in the LAMP plan that is ultimately adopted, which he understands is
presently scheduled for next Monday. He is concerned also that there
is a strong possibility that the land we are discussing tonight may
find itself in the Town of Leesburg in the very near future - he
doesn ' t want to tie the hands of this council with respect to any
application, whether it be rezoning or development plan relating to
this property, by a vote tonight with little less than two hours con-
sideration (we were all contacted today by the developer and his
representatives and discussed this) . In that brief period of time
we have not had the opportunity to give it the consideration it abso-
lutely requires . His fear would be that premature reaffirmation to-
night of a land use plan could somehow tie our hands in the future
when we have to sit here in a rezoning proceeding and we would be
possibly embarrassed and perhaps even defeated in a court suit should
we vote against a rezoning plan at a subsequent date. For that rea-
son, he would urge councilmembers to consider that we have spoken on
this rezoning and it ' s not necessary every six months to reaffirm our
position. We are not tonight entertaining a motion to rescind the
past decision that this applicant should get all the mileage he can
get out of this March 24 , 1982 resolution and he did not think it
would be appropriate to reaffirm it tonight.
Mr . Bos asked if it might not be appropriate to withdraw the
motion and have no negative comments against this process that might
harm the developer . The makers, Mrs. Hill and Mr. Tolbert, withdrew
their motion.
Mr. Chapman asked that Council consider tabling this matter.
He apologized for springing this matter on them - they had to do
something in a hurry - it just surfaced yesterday afternoon and
that ' s why it was so late getting to them. They will be in touch
with the Mayor and councilmembers in the future concerning this .
p MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING .
82
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS :
Mr . Bos said it is a pleasure to have the three mayors and
councilmembers here tonight - he has certainly benefited from as-
sociation with all of them.
Mr. Gheen said he appreciates the effort and the service these
three have given the town over the years. Especially, he feels Mr.
Hill, his neighbor, has given his very best to the town and the
town is better for what he has done. The same goes for Mr. Rol-
lins and Mr. Herrell .
Mrs. Hill asked what we would need to do to study the traffic
lights at the corner of S . King and Catoctin Circle? There have
been so many accidents there. Mr. Niccolls said he will ask the
Highway Department to conduct a study. The basic signal controller
: these intersections is capable of accommodating left turns, lead
lefts, etc. At the time the highway improvements were made, they
were not warranted by the number of turning movements, but that
situation may have substantially changed - we will have a look at
it. It will probably take two months .
Mr. Willis echoed the comments made by Mr. Bos and Mr . Hill
concerning the former mayors and councilman. He also reported
there are several street lights out on West Market Street from •
Ayr Street to the Clem residence . Mr. Niccolls said he would
check on this.
Mr. Coffey thanked former Mayors Rollins and Hill for their
contribution to the town. He hoped he can do just a little of
what they have done a lot of. Also, the people on Madison Court
are very happy that corrective action will be taken concerning
parking problems out there. Mr . Gheen understood that action
will be taken.
Mr. Tolbert said Mr. Rollins was late tonight and so missed
the prayer he offered for him. He also asked Mr. Hill if he is
hiding fron him? He also advised that glass is still in the area
of King Street and Catoctin Circle from an accident several weeks
ago - he felt the people who remove wrecks should sweep up this
glass - they get the money and we get nothing from it. There is
also some glass at Second and King Streets .
MAYOR' S REPORT:
Mayor Sevila echoed the sentiments of all the councilmembers
who have thanked and expressed appreciation to the two past mayors
and Mr . Herrell. He felt their mark and their contribution is ob-
vious to all of them who serve on it on a day to day basis . Mr.
Rollins continues to serve his community on the State Legislature.
He hoped Mr. Hill will continue to serve also - his knowledge, ex-
perience and dedication to the community uniquely qualify him to
continue this same meaningful contribution. He was pleased to have
all of them here tonight.
He received this week a notice of the regional legislative
meetings of the Virginia Municipal League and VACO. The regional
one in our area will be held in Manassas on November 23rd. The
letter he received from the Executive Director of VML is to en-
courage all of them to attempt to attend. It is convenient and is
at 6 : 30 p.m. There will be some special legislation that is of
considerable concern to the town as it goes through this annexa-
tion
process. We are also asked to encourage our State senators
and our State delegate to attend those meetings on our behalf.
He extended this invitation to Mr. Rollins.
Mayor Sevila said the mayor receives a lot of mail from day to
day - much of it you try to respond to and you circulate those things
that need to be brought to the attention of the council. He re-
ceived one this week from Marjorie Hutt of 25 South Wirt Street.
He read this poem to the council and staff concerning broken side-
walks .
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
83
MANAGER' S REPORT:
(1) Mr. Niccolls said there is a written Activity Report.
He asked them to read this later and call him if there are any
questions .
(2) He asked Marc Weiss to give an overview of the Economic
Development Advisory Committee ' s work program and goals that were
submitted in a report in August.
REPORT ON ECONOMIC STRATEGY :
Mr. Weiss said the economic effort goes back to an objective
setting session the previous council held in the fall of 1980, at
which they identified as their first priority objective to en-
courage and promote economic development for Leesburg as a dominant
employment center in Loudoun County. They had in mind three things:
(1) increased and balanced employment; (2) tax base and (3) bal-
anced land use and development in the community. The direct re-
sult of the first objective was the creation of the South Harrison
Street Community Development project and the filing of an appli-
cation with HUD for the project. South Harrison Street obviously
00 emphasizes economic development activities and the revitalization
t of downtown and flows directly from the objective.
CD February 10 , 1982 , Council adopted five economic development
objectives : (1) the creation of an Economic . Development Advisory
m Committee; (2) promotion of Leesburg as a site for tourists, busi-
nesses and residences, including the preparation of a community data
profile and an ad campaign; ( 3) increased support for the County' s
tourism program; (4) preparation of a design plan for East Market
Street and (5) mandating of a study of the development review
process in the town . Following up on those objectives , at the
same meeting, Council adopted an ordinance creating the Economic
Development Advisory Committee and, on April 14 , 1982 , appointed
seven members to that committee . In addition to these seven citi-
zen members, there is the town manager or his representative and
a councilmanic member , making a total of nine members. The EDAC
held its initial meeting in May of 1982 and decided to go through
an ICMA economic development training course entitled "Economic
Development - Building a Strategy" . The purpose of the course
was two-fold : (1) we had a diverse group of people on the committee -
some had been involved in economic development issues for years and
others were new to this field. The feeling was that, if they all
went through this process together, they would all end up with a
common basis of understanding and a common foundation of knowledge
on the subject. (2) The other purpose was to develop an economic
devellpment strategy, which would be a road map for the committee ' s
activities in the next couple of years and would help the council
focus more clearly on the economic development of objectives and
what kind of things the town could do to promote economic develop-
ment.
Specifically to the strategy, the first session was to identify
some of the pros and cons about economic development in general.
Some of the pros were increased tax base, healthy competition,
planned development, improved quality of life, increased diversity,
increased employment opportunities. The cons were things like the
possibility that there could be a greater cost for growth than there
would be benefit, unwanted growth, a negative impact on the existing
quality of life because of too much growth, an increased demand for
services and incompatible development. On the whole though, the
committee felt that the economic development effort would be well
worth it and that the pros really did outweigh the cons, although
the feeling was that the committee, the council and everybody had
to be aware of the possible negative effects and always on guard
to try to mitigate those as much as possible . The committee went
through an identification of some of the problems and opportunities
which really presented themselves to Leesburg. They .looked basi-
cally at three areas : (1) retail assets - the image of the town,
sufficient utilities, safety, location, the business mix or climate
and quality merchants . (2) liabilities - the growth restrictions
in the core area, parking, traffic, Route 7 East and an inadequate
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
84 business mix in the downtown area. (3) Industrial assets and lia-
bilities - some of the assets are the same, our proximity to govern-
ment at all levels, the availability of utilities, the low tax rate,
adequate labor force, the town' s attitude toward new development.
The liabilities - lack of land and building inventory, the fact that
there is no interstate highway or railroad in close proximity to
Leesburg; also how to finance new development. Some opportunities
were also identified - things like annexation or potential annexa-
tion, public private cooperation, planning for economic development
(being able to formulate a plan and to do what they want to do with
economic development) , defining their specific market.
After that, the committee ranked the major problems and oppor-
tunities and developed a list of its three highest priority prob-
lems : (1) the need to improve the appearance of the Route 7 east
corridor as a major entrance into Leesburg. The feeling of the com-
mittee was that the Route 7 entrance - East Market Street - does not
reflect truly the character of the town as a historic place and a
place with unique character. When you come into town, it looks
like you could be anywhere. The committee felt that improving
the appearance would strengthen Leesburg ' s particular assets that
other places don ' t have; and they felt it would be good for business
on the east end of town. (2) the need to promote the town as a
good place to visit, work and live in . ( 3) the need for a strong
and ongoing public-private cooperation - this is really the heart
of the whole economic development effort. It will take the effort
of not only the town council, but the efforts of people in the pri-
vate sector, to come together and help take advantage of our assets.
This will be necessary along the Route 7 corridor, East Market Street -
it will be necessary in providing the financing of cooperating and
making sites and buildings available to prospects. The committee
identified the resources available to the committee to achieve these
objectives - there are a wide range of resources available both from
the public sector and the private sector. We would have to make
maximum use of all of these if we are to be successful in our economic
development efforts .
The committee then took the three top priority issues and laid
out what they really want to see happen. They identified things
like making it more attractive, improving traffic flow, improving
the business climate, improving the zoning mix. Actions they identi-
fied were a design study of the corridor, involvement of businesses
and VDH&T in any plan. Some of the obstacles identified were the
potential opposition of the business owners down there (perhaps they
would misunderstand what the emphasis was) ; misinformation that could
get out about the project; a lack of money to implement it and poten-
tial problems with VDH&T. Outcomes sought by the committee are new
business attraction, tourism, new customers and new residents . Some
of the actions the committee set out for itself include the need to
identify our market, our product, to prepare information on our mar-
ket and product, to develop an advertising campaign, maintain a liai-
son with the State Division of Industrial Development, develop a
tourism brochure and create a tourism sub-committee. Finally, on
public-private cooperation, the committee identified steps like con-
tinuing the Economic Development Advisory Committee, which is a good
example of public-private cooperation. It is created by the Council,
there is a Council representative on the committee, but most of the
members are private businessmen, real estate, attorneys, land plan-
ners and small businessmen in the town. This is definitely a good
start. They suggested that we develop an effective communications
system to communicate what the council and the committee are doing
out to the business community and the citizens in general . Some
of the specific suggestions were a survey of existing businesses
to find out what their perceptions were of the town, the town
government and economic development, a mailing list of people who
might be interested in the activities of the committee, development
process brochures, an ombudsman who would work with businesses to
help them solve their problems, help locate new businesses in town
and several other things like that. Some of the obstacles that were
identified would be the potential lack of private sector support,
too much self-interest, misinformation and lack of long-range plan-
ning.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING .
The committee then laid out a timetable for each of these 85
three major issues - this is contained in the plan. At this point,
they are sticking very closely to the timetable. As an example,
the design study was one of the early recommendations for the Route
7 corridor - we have already invited three firms to submit propo-
sals - there was a review committee composed of three staff members
and two members of the EDAC and they have made a recommendation to
the council . On the promotion side, there is a sub-committee that
is currently working on the data profile. There is a tourism sub-
committee that is working on some suggestions as to what the town
can do to supplement and complement the county' s efforts in the
tourism effort. Under the public-private cooperation, we have not
done as much as we need to do because we have been focusing on some
of the other areas, but they plan to put out information in the
Lamplighter establishing on-going contact with media in the town.
7 It is the goal of the committee to get out to all the civic organiza-
tions in the community and let them know what this committee ' s ac-
t tivities are and what the economic development program is all about.
• The committee is very interested in strong support from the council
and a strong liaison with the council because the committee realizes
that, if the council doesn ' t support its efforts, those efforts won ' t
get very far. The committee feels, at this point, that the council
00 has supported its efforts, but would like to maintain that liaison
NT and the lines of communication that do exist. The committee is pre-
pared at any time, in a workshop setting or a committee meeting, to
come in and discuss the specifics of the economic development strat-
m egy with the council or any other concerns the council may have
CD about what the committee is doing or not doing and should be doing.
Q Mr . Bos said you can see how busy this committee has been - they
have put - - a lot of hours into it. Now you have a little better
idea as t9hwwhich direction the committee is going . Mr. Weiss also
hinted at risk of economic development - he would like the council
to look at this. There are some possible negative aspects - council
should look at these too - it is a calculated risk. The priorities
were difficult to establish - there are other things beside these
three. If anyone is disturbed about the way we are going, please
raise this question. The monthly meetings are at 7 : 30 a .m. on the
first Wednesday of the month.
Mr. Gheen felt this is a good report and he feels more uptodate
than he did before . Mrs . Hill agreed.
Mr. Bos said council postponed adopting the economic develop-
ment strategy at the last meeting - he suggested that this be for-
mally adopted at the next meeting. Mrs. Hill said they will take
this up at the Finance and Administration Committee meeting. Mr .
Niccolls said this was the reason this report was made tonight.
MANAGER' S REPORT (Continued) :
Mr. Niccolls presented to Council the staff ' s report entitled
"Development Review Processes Study" prepared by Marc Weiss, who
did most of the writing and worked with an ad hoc committee that
has been providing information to the staff in response to the
council ' s request last February. It was also referred to and re-
ceived the valuable counsel of the Economic Development Advisory
Committee . The committee endorsed the general concept of the re-
port, but did not endorse each specific recommendation. There are
significant recommendations as follows : (1) The report suggests
the preparation of a development process manual - this would be an
aid to persons interested in developing land in Leesburg both for
commercial , residential or institutional purposes. It would give
them an overview of the process for an approved project. (2) There
is a recommendation that we establish a staff review group to expe-
dite project review - something to improve coordination within our
office, including the assignment of a facilitator to each non-resi-
dential project. The facilitator would be the primary contact point
the developer would have with the town because there are several
town departments involved. (3) They also recognize. a need and
make a recommendation to increase staff support to the Planning
p MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
o6 Commission - not an increase in the number of staff, but to increase
the concentrated effort to help the Commission with its work. They
feel it important that the Planning Commission be better prepared.
This might also be extended to some of the other Boards and Commis-
sions that work in these areas. (4) Another recommendation is the
revision of some Zoning Ordinance provisions and then adoption of
both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as a single development
manual - a concept that is not particularly new, but it is relatively
unused in Virginia. He recommends this report to Council and feels
Marc has done an excellent job on it. He has made some recommenda-
tions that could provide substantial benefits to the town, without
giving up the show to just developer interests . Council ' s task is
to filter through these, see which are truly viable and then ask
the staff to prepare legislation or take necessary steps to imple-
ment it.
Mr. Bos suggested that councilmembers read this carefully and
think about it a lot.
Mayor Sevila declared a five-minute recess, after which Council
resumed session to consider proposed legislation .
82-138 - RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING DEED OF EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILI-
TIES FOR THE SOUTHGATE II DEVELOPMENT.
On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, council authorized extension of town water and sewer
facilities to the Southgate II development being constructed
by Richard O. Gore and Tedence, Inc . ; and
WHEREAS, the public facilities are being installed by the de-
veloper;
NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Lees-
burg in Virginia as follows :
SECTION I . The deed of easements made October 27 , 1982 be-
tween Richard O. Gore, Trustee and Tedence, Inc. and the
Town of Leesburg is accepted and the mayor is authorized
to acknowledge the same on behalf of the town.
SECTION II . The town ' s acceptance of this deed does not re-
lieve Richard O. Gore, Trustee and Tedence, Inc . of the re-
sponsibility under the Contract for Public Improvements for
initial installation of the public improvements and is not
formal acceptance for maintenance by the town.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila .
Nay: None .
82-139 - RESOLUTION - EXTENDING AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR
INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND TIME
FOR COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
BROWN ' S MEADOW SUBDIVISION.
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed :
WHEREAS , Council resolution 80-106 authorized an agreement for
installation of public improvements for Brown ' s Meadow sub-
division which required the improvements to be completed on
or before October 8 , 1982 , and
WHEREAS , the developer has requested a one-year extension of
the time for completion of public improvements;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia as follows :
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
The contract for public improvements and performance guaran-87
tee for installation of public improvements for Brown ' s Mead-
ow subdivision is extended to require completion on or before
October 8 , 1983 .
Mr . Tolbert asked if Mr. Brownell ran into some difficulty?
Mrs . Hill and Mr . Bos said things are slow. The resolution was
unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
I/ 82-140 - RESOLUTION - APPROVING WATERWORKS AND SEWER EXTENSION PER-
MIT FORMS .
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Coffey, Council voted
unanimously to dispense with the reading of the proposed ordinance.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
00
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
Oresolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
CO RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
(n as follows :
Q SECTION I . Waterworks extension permits shall be submitted
for approval in substantially the following form:
WATERWORKS EXTENSION PERMIT
The Developer, being the
(owner, lessee, tenant, etc. )
of the property described as
U
hereby requests a permit to extend the Town of Leesburg ' s
waterworks .
In consideration of the granting of this permit, the De-
veloper agrees to :
1 . Accept and abide by all applicable local, state and
federal regulations for extension of public water-
works .
2 . Enter into a contract for public improvements (Form
PC-2) with the town which provides for installation
of waterworks and other public facilities by the de-
veloper.
3 . Install all facilities in accordance with plans and
specifications prepared by a certified professional
engineer and approved by the town ' s Director of En-
gineering and maintain the waterworks until such
time the facilities are accepted by the town.
4 . Furnish the town with as-built construction draw-
ings .
5 . Convey, by appropriate instrument, all permanent
easements and fee simple title to required land
to the town. The Developer agrees that after accept-
' ance by the town the waterworks facilities installed
are the property of the town.
Developer
Date
By
Title
Approved by Council :
Address
Date Issued (Town Manager)
(Date)
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
{ 88. SECTION II . Sewer extension permits shall be submitted for
approval in substantially the following form:
SEWER EXTENSION PERMIT
The Developer, being the •
(owner, lessee, tenant, etc. )
of the property described as
hereby requests a permit to extend the Town of Leesburg ' s
sewer system.
In consideration of the granting of this permit, the De-
! veloper agrees to:
1 . Accept and abide by all applicable local, state and
federal regulations for extension of public sewer .
2 . Enter into a contract for public improvements (Form
PC-2) with the town which provides for installation
of sewer facilities and other public facilities by
the developer.
1 3 . Design and install all facilities to serve the entire
watershed in accordance with plans and specifications
prepared by a certified professional engineer and ap-
proved by the town ' s Director of Engineering and main-
tain the sewer facilities until such time the facili-
ties are accepted by the town.
4 . Furnish the town with as-built construction drawings.
5 . Convey, by appropriate instrument, all permanent ease-
ments and fee simple title to required land to the
town. The Developer agrees that after acceptance by
the town the sewer facilities installed are the prop-
erty of the town. I/Developer
By
Title
Date
Approved by Council : Address
Issued
(Town Manager)
Date (Date)
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila .
Nay: None.
82-141 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR SMOKE DETECTORS AND
DIALING EQUIPMENT FOR CERTAIN TOWN-OWNED
PROPERTIES .
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
The manager shall enter into a contract with J. B. Anderson,
134 Valley View Avenue, Leesburg, Virginia, for smoke detec-
tors and dialing equipment at 15 West Market Street, 10 West
Loudoun Street, 16 West Loudoun Street and 20 South Wirt
Street, at a price not to exceed $3 , 730 .
Mr. Willis found it interesting that Mr. Anderson was the only one
that complied with the town ' s request to break these down into the
four separate properties . Mr. Niccolls said the building at 6 and
8 West Loudoun Street is not under our ownership at this time, it' s
a total lease-out, to include insurance, to a private party. He
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
89
didn ' t see any benefit to the town. This is why the difference
in the price and the appropriation. Mr . Coffey asked if there is
any reference as to how long it will take to do this work? The
answer was No. Mayor Sevila asked if there is any effect on the
town ' s insurance cost as a result of this installation? Mr.
Niccolls said he will check and report to councilmembers . The
resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
82-142 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30 , 1983 .
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 :
An appropriation is made from the Utility Fund to Account No.
CO 5200 . 711 , Telephone Installation in the amount of $715. 00 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983 .
CD
It was explained that this is for the new water plant. The resolu-
m tion was unanimously adopted:
Q Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
82-143 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PRO-
POSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AND SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS REGARDING PIPESTEM LOTS .
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
A Notice of Public Hearing to consider certain proposed amend-
ments to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and
Land Development Regulations regarding pipestem lots shall
be published in the Loudoun Times Mirror on November 4 , 1982
and November 11, 1982 for public hearing on November 24 , 1982
at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street,
Leesburg, Virginia.
Mr. Gheen had a question concerning reference to two different sec-
tions in the Zoning Ordinance amendment and the Subdivision Ordi-
nance amendment. Mr. Niccolls said this will be clarified before
the hearing. The resolution was then unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
82-0-37 - ORDINANCE - AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE. OF AN $88 , 135 PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT BOND OF THE TOWN OF LEESBURG, VIR-
GINIA, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND
PAYMENT THEREOF .
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Willis, the following
ordinance was proposed :
WHEREAS , as a part of a public improvement program that in-
cludes road construction and the development of a public
park in the Town of Leesburg (the Town), the Town Council
has contracted to buy a tract of approximately 8 . 8 acres of
land (the Land) from Arl Curry and Katherine R. Curry (the
Sellers) ;
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING .
90 BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia :
1 . There is hereby authorized to be issued an $88 , 135
general obligation public improvement bond of the Town to
be delivered to the Sellers in partial payment for the
purchase price of the Land .
2 . The bond shall be dated on the date of its issuance
and shall be issued as a fully registered bond without cou-
pons in the denomination of $88 , 135. Principal of the bond
shall be payable annually on its anniversary date in install-
ments of $5, 000 in each of the years 1983 to 1987 , inclusive,
$10, 000 in each of the years 1988 to 1992 , inclusive, and
$13 , 135 in 1993 , without option of prepayment. Interest on
the unpaid principal is payable annually on the anniversary
date of the note at the rate of 9% per year. Both principal
and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United
States of America by check or draft mailed to the registered
owners at their address as on file with the Director of Fi-
nance, except that the final installment of principal and
interest shall be payable upon surrender of the bond at the
office of the Director of Finance .
3 . The bond shall be signed by the manual signature of the
Mayor, shall be countersigned by the manual signature of the
Clerk of the Council, and the Town ' s seal shall be affixed
thereto.
4 . The bond shall be in substantially the following form:
TRANSFER RESTRICTED: Transfer of this bond is re-
stricted in accordance with the ordinance authoriz-
ing the issuance of this bond adopted by the Town
Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, on Oc-
tober
27 , 1982 .
$88 , 135
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
TOWN OF LEESBURG
The Town of Leesburg, Virginia, for value received,
hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to
Arl Curry and Katherine R. Curry the principal sum of
EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($88 , 135)
with interest on the unpaid principal from the date hereof
until payment at the rate of nine percent ( 9%) per year.
Principal is payable annually on November in installments
of $5, 000 in each of the years 1983 to 1987 , inclusive,
$10 , 000 in each of the years 1988 to 1992 , inclusive, and
$13 , 135 in the year 1993, without option of prepayment.
Interest on the unpaid principal is payable annually on No-
vember Both principal and interest shall be payable
in lawful money of the United States of America by check
or draft mailed to the registered owners at their address
as on file with the Director of Finance, except that the
final installment of principal and interest shall be pay-
able upon surrender of this bond at the office of the Di-
rector of Finance.
This bond is authorized by an ordinance adopted by
the Town Council on October 27 , 1982 , and is issued pur-
suant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, including the Town Charter and the Public
1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 .
Finance Act, as amended, in partial payment of the pur- 9 1
chase price of a certain parcel of land from Arl Curry
and Katherine R. Curry.
The full faith and credit of the Town are hereby
irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and
interest on this bond.
All acts , conditions and things required by the Con-
stitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia
to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the
1 i issuance of this bond have happened, exist and have been
performed, and this bond, together with all other indebted-
ness of the Town, is within every debt and other limit pre-
scribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, has
caused this bond to be signed by its Mayor, to be counter-
signed by the Clerk of its Council , its seal to be affixed
Ihereto, and this bond to be dated November 1982 .
00 COUNTERSIGNED:
O (SEAL)
OD
Clerk of the Council , Town of Mayor, Town of Leesburg,
m Leesburg, Virginia Virginia
Q 5. The full faith and credit of the Town are hereby ir-
revocably pledged for the payment of principal of and in-
terest on the bond. Unless other funds are lawfully avail-
' able and appropriated for timely payment of the bond, the
Town shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax over
and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law on
all locally taxable property in the Town sufficient to pay
the principal of and interest on the bond, as the same re-
spectively become due and payable .
6 . At the request of the Sellers the bond may be exchanged
for two bonds in denominations totaling $88 , 135 registered
in the names of the Sellers , or either of them, in sub-
stantially the same form as the single bond authorized
above. The bond or bonds shall be registered in the names
of persons other than the sellers only when there has been
furnished to the Director of Finance evidence satisfactory
to him that the transferee has been provided information
relating to the Town of the kind which would be required
under rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission if
the same were applicable to such bond in order to exempt
the bond from the registration requirement of the Securi-
ties Act of 1933 , as amended.
7 . All other actions of officers of the Town in conformity
with the purposes and intent of this ordinance and in fur-
therance of the issuance of the bond are hereby approved
and confirmed.
8 . Such officers of the Town as may be requested are here-
by authorized and directed to execute an appropriate cer-
tificate setting forth the expected use and investment of
the proceeds of the bond issued pursuant hereto in order
to show that such expected use and investment will not
violate the provisions of U 103 (c) of the Internal Reve-
nue Code of 1954 , as amended, and regulations issued pur-
suant thereto, applicable to "arbitrage bonds. " Such
certificate shall be in such form as may be requested by
bond counsel for the Town.
9 . The Clerk of the Council , in collaboration with the
Town Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to see
to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this ordi-
nance with the Circuit Court of Loudoun County and within
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
92 ten days thereafter to cause to be published once in a news-
paper of general circulation in the Town a notice setting
forth (1) in brief and general terms the purpose for which
the bond is to be issued and (2) the amount of such bond.
10. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict here-
with are hereby repealed.
11. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.
Mr. Bos asked about the exchange of, bonds mentioned in Section 6?
Mr. Niccolls explained that, in the event of any kind of separation or
death of the owners of the land, it may be part of an agreement
that they would separate the bonds . It doesn ' t change the obliga-
tion of the town - we would make payment to two people rather than
one. The payments would not be any more than the aggregate. Mr.
Gheen asked if the interest rate was negotiated when the option was
made? How long ago? Mr. Niccolls said it was negotiated at that
time - it will be 16 months December 15th. The ordinance was unani-
mously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
82-144 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO THE
AIRPORT FUND AND MAKING AN APPROPRIATION.
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, grant funds to pay for construction costs are forth-
coming and it is the town ' s interest to pay its contractors
promptly; and
WHEREAS , there is not sufficient airport fund operating cash
at this time to make the full payment to the contractor; I/THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
SECTION I . A loan is authorized to be made from the Utility
Fund to the Airport Fund in the amount of $25 , 000 at an in-
terest rate of nine percent simple.
SECTION II . An appropriation is made to the Airport Fund,
Account No. 6000. 901, interest in the amount of $300 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1983 .
Mrs. Hill asked what "nine percent simple" means? Mayor Sevila said
this would be noncompounded. Mr. Gheen said he does not relate
"interest in the amount of $300 . . . . " - what is this? Mr. Tay-
lor explained that this is interest to the Utility Fund for this
fiscal year. Mayor Sevila said this is just a brief loan for two
months to see that our contractors are paid promptly, rather than
letting the contractors wait until the funds arrive. He asked when
it is expected the grant funds will be received? Mr. Taylor said
in about five to six weeks . Mayor Sevila also asked if this money
will be sufficient to be invested - to accrue interest? Mr. Taylor
said idle funds are always invested. Mr. Bos asked what our rules
are concerning interest rates from one fund to another? Mr. Nic-
colls said we have stipulated interest rates before. We feel that
since the Airport Fund is really an enterprise-type fund operating
more like a business that it should pay interest to the Leesburg
utility users , who are, in fact, loaning this money to the air-
port operations . Mayor Sevila explained further that this money
that is being borrowed is presently earning interest, so the idea
is that the Utility Fund would not lose any funds . The resolution
was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, . Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING.
On motion of Mr. Willis , seconded by Mr . Bos, Council voted 93
unanimously to go into executive session, pursuant to Section
2 . 1-344 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (a) (6) to dis-
cuss legal matters pertaining to annexation, and (a) (1) to dis-
cuss personnel policies :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None .
Council reconvened, with no action taken.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, Council voted
unanimously to adjourn.
terarrisaa
Mayo
Clerk of he Council
CO
NT
O
m
m
Q