HomeMy Public PortalAbout1982_11_24 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC HEARING ON PIPESTEM LOTS , NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 . 109
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in
the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia
on November 24 , 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. Willis. 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 to the Manager for Community Development Marc Weiss and Town
Attorney George M. Martin.
A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to Mr. Glen P.
Cole for filling an unexpired term on the Council from January 1982
to June 1982 .
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION AND LAND DE-
VELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING PIPESTEM LOTS .
Mr. Niccolls said the Council , on September 8 , initiated pro-
posed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
to provide rules for approval of pipestem lots . This action came
1 OD following a one-year period of controversy and uncertainty about
the status of subdivisions which might be proposed with pipestem
0 lots . Brown ' s Meadow was approved routinely by the Planning Com-
m mission in 1981 with at least three or four pipestem lots. Pipe-
m stem lots are those lying behind street frontage lots and are con-
nected to the street with narrow driveway access. Brown ' s Meadow
Q created no particular difficulties in the approval process and no
questions were raised about such lots . Later another subdivision,
Edwards Ferry Mews, was presented, involving about an acre off of
Edwards Ferry Road. Originally the proposal called for the crea-
tion of numerous lots behind the street frontage lot, to be served
by a common driveway link over easements on these pipestems coming
out to Edwards Ferry Road. After deliberation, the Planning Com-
mission disapproved this subdivision and was sued. In the settle-
' ment of the lawsuit, it was approved with a total of four lots,
three of which were considered pipestem lots. The subdivider
agreed to use these lots for single-family dwellings, even though
it is an R-2 district, which does permit duplex dwellings. Another
suit was filed and is in litigation and being heard by a substitute
judge in Warrenton (the case may be moved to 'Leesburg) . During
this time, Council members and Planning Commission members expressed
interest in the development and study of regulations that might gov-
ern such lots more forthrightly. Both the Planning Commission and
staff prepared and worked on various pipestem regulation sections.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing in October, after
which the matter was carried forward to their next meeting (Octo-
ber 21) , when they recommended a group of regulations somewhat
different than that of the Council . You could characterize the
present regulations with a certain amount of uncertainty, though
Mr . Martin has stated and given advice in the settlement of these
lawsuits that the present regulations do not prohibit a subdivider
from proposing pipestem lots . The purpose now is not to deal with
these two subdivisions , which will stand as they are or however
they are settled in Court, but to deal with the problem for tracts
in the future to determine whether such lots are to be a develop-
ment technique used in Leesburg.
Mrs . Hill said the original proposal was for five pipestem
lots. The Planning Commission recommended that there be only
one. As the ordinance is written now, you have to have 10 feet
on either side of a driveway,with the pipestem part of the drive-
way being 30 feet wide and no longer than 250 feet, and that the
pipestem portion not be included in the computation. For clari-
fication of those in the audience, the ordinance proposed by the
Planning Commission to the Council was read b' the Clerk. Also
read were the ordinances as proposed by Council and staff.
Mayor Sevila said he has received calls from Mr. Howard and
Mr. Brownell this week and they discussed the possibility of carry-
ing this hearing over to the December 8 meeting because some peo-
ple cannot be present due to the holiday schedule. Council will
hear as much tonight as it can.
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING.
11U Mr . Ted Roach, of 172 Edwards Ferry Road, said his main ob-
jection to this type of development is the loss of the privacy
occurring in people ' s back yards - the center of a block provides
open space for air, sunlight and quiet, where one can work in his
garden, his yard, on a boat or auto or have a party or just loaf.
If pipestem lots are inserted adjacent to back yards, you may have
homes as close as 10 feet from your lot line - this eliminates any
privacy you may have had, the entire sense of tranquility in the
center of the block is destroyed, property values would be reduced
and there would be a decline in the quality of life and the charac-
ter of the neighborhood. He recommended that, if pipestem lots are
to be developed, they would only be allowed in new subdivisions;
pipestem lots be permitted only if they do not encroach on the pri-
vacy and tranquility of back yards of other homes; if modest-cost
housing is needed, set aside additional areas zoned for R-3 , R-4
or even mobile home parks; and let us hope that, as the town grows,
the town government will continue to be responsive to the citizens
of the town as they have in the past .
Mr. Henry Campbell, of 170 Edwards Ferry Road, said he doesn ' t
have much to gain or lose because his fate will be decided in Court
as far as Edwards Ferry Mews is concerned. However, Leesburg has a
great deal to lose . The first day they started talking about Ed-
wards Ferry Mews, people started saying this will set a precedent
that will have grave consequences for Leesburg and everybody said
this is not their responsibility. This proposed ordinance incor-
porates some of the worst features of Edwards Ferry Mews, so let ' s
stop dodging the issue and talk about it. News items in the last
few years have stressed the fact that small towns are the best
place to live, so the result is that many people have rushed to
the small towns . This has, in many cases, destroyed the very rea-
1 son people come to the small towns - nobody thought it worthwhile
to take the responsibility to plan carefully to preserve the charac-
ter of the small towns. We are overwhelmed with the American idea
that "bigger is better" , so who can be against progress? The town
often surrenders its responsibility for careful planning to the
planners and buzz words such as "better land utilization", "proper
density" , "backfill" , "expanded tax base" , etc . become code words
for unlimited and uncontrolled development. Why shouldn ' t town
staffs go along with this? It ' s bigger and better ! The citizens
have nothing to say about this. On the other side, nobody bothered
to tell the towns that only the most careful planning and the great-
est foresight and responsibility would make it possible to avoid
the inevitable results of thisreater density,y, etc . and that these
things will bring on all the problems these people just tried to es-
cape. Nobody is against progress or growth, but the decision making
progress should not be surrendered to developers . The town has a
responsibility to its fellow citizens . Pipestems may be fine in a
brand new area where they do not encroach on existing buildings,
but not in an established neighborhood. Leesburg deserves better
and he appealed to Council to exercise its responsibility on behalf
of its citizens.
Mr. Francis Patton, of 148 Edwards Ferry Road, said Leesburg is
unique - it is not just an ordinary town, it is superior to most.
Leesburg, through the offices of councilmember, its predecessors,
the town manager and many others in charge have brought Leesburg
up so that the streets are now beautifully paved and it is really
a show place for all of Northern Virginia. Looking at the annexa-
tion map, the proposed new addition is larger than the present town.
This means it will have the qualifications of a city, whether or not
it is named as such. There will be more land than ever before, and
he will be just as opposed to pipestems in the new part as in the
old . There will be pressure to develop it so that there will be
more houses - one of the new ideas is cluster development - this
type of development usually has a lot of open space. But, when you
get into pipestems , people ' s front yards look into the back yards
of the next person. What do you do about mail delivery? Is the
road 14 feet wide all the way back or is it a minimum of 14 feet
from front to back? Where do people turn around - backing into
driveways or is there a cul-de-sac? How do you turn around an am-
bulance or a fire engine? He would like to know so that he might
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING.
be better prepared for the December 8th meeting. Mayor Sevila 11 1
felt this is a fair question, but it is unfair at this time since
we do not have a particular plan. Mr . Patton also said the gar-
bage truck would have trouble turning around too. You don' t need
these pipestems in the present town, especially when there will be
a lot of undeveloped land in the annexed area. On Edwards Ferry
Mews, in order to make the mean average of 75 foot frontage on Ed-
wards Ferry Road, they took five feet on Edwards Ferry Road and
went back at at an angle of 145 feet long, plus five feet, makes
150 feet, divided by two, makes the 75 foot frontage - this is an
absolute evasion of the original law requiring 75 feet on any street.
He asked that Council keep the frontage on the street, even if they
have to go down to 50 feet, but no less . Otherwise, it would be de-
stroying the very thing that those for the last 40 years have been
trying to make a,_joy for its residents to live in.
Mr. Charles Felix, a resident of 139 East North Street, prop-
erty which borders Brown ' s Meadow, said they moved here five years
ago from New Jersey. They lived in a high density area in New Jer-
sey and wanted their son to have a place where he could breathe
and enjoy an environment that was not crowded all the time. For
almost three years , they have enjoyed the view of Brown ' s Meadow
OD and they welcomed its development because they felt there would
be other children for their son to enjoy. They did not envision
there would be that many families crowded into this area. These
0 are lovely homes and he would think those moving in there would
OD want some privacy with this kind of home. If Council wants to
OD keep Leesburg the kind of place where people enjoy an environment
Q that is not crowded, then do not allow such lots - fully investi-
gate the problems a crowded neighborhood brings into a town like
Leesburg. Mr. Bos asked if he is opposed to any pipestem lots?
Mr. Felix said he thinks it would be harmful to the quality of
the town.
Colonel Michael C. Grenata, of 33 West Cornwall Street, said
said this ordinance will mean greater density - intrusion into the
existing areas - it is trespassing and it should not be permitted.
There are many other areas in town that would be subject to pipe-
stem development. Others have argued tonight that it would destroy
the privacy of the people already there and would not be helpful
to the town. It would be a serious error to permit any pipestem
development in the town as it now exists . Mayor Sevila asked him
if he is opposed to pipestem lots altogether? Colonel Grenata said
he is in the existing town, but he would not say anything about the
new part. He asked if there is a street plan to be used or are we
going to rely on pipestem development at the end of adjacent streets?
The town should seriously consider this.
Admiral James Dudley, of 164 Edwards Ferry Road, commended the
Council and the governing bodies of Leesburg in their effort to
make a more effective use of idle square feet in our town. How-
ever, he questioned if this is the best method of achieving this
result? He recommended much further exhaustive study of a means
of effectively using idle square feet in the town limits to the
best advantage.
Attorney Stephen Price, representing Mr. and Mrs. Frederick
Howard, Mr . and Mrs. Fred Lininger, Mrs . Sally Packard, Mr . David
Arnold, Major and Mrs. William Campbell , Mr . and Mrs. Francis Pat-
ton, Mr . and Mrs. Marvin Belles and Mr. and Mrs . Theodore Roach,
all living in the vicinity of the pending Edwards Ferry Mews Sub-
division, said these people are all interested in the whole process
of pipestem subsidivions . They do have a concern as to that par-
ticular subdivision and what happens to Council action in the
adoption of a pipestem ordinance because it would always be pos-
sible for Brownell, Inc . ' s application to be withdrawn and he
would reapply under the new ordinance. The citizens of Edwards
Ferry Road are not restricted in their interests and concerns to
their own back yards , but all of them have concerns as citizens
of the town and are interested in other areas of Leesburg . He
suggested that Council do some thinking as to exactly..what the
role is for pipestem subdivisions in the Town of Leesburg - is it
something that we dislike, something that is good, or is it some-
11 2 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING.
1 thing that perhaps can be used in the exceptional case to relieve
a landowner from exceptional circumstances in much the same way a
variance is allowed by the Board of Zoning Appeals? Mayor Sevila
has asked whether or not they are against all pipestems or
would they perhaps favor a situation that allowed one as proposed
by the Planning Commission? It was his feeling, and he believed
a number of his clients, that a pipestem easement orsubdivision
is appropriate in certain circumstances - more in the area where
variances are granted where there are some extraordinary circum-
stances that make any kind of reasonable use of property impracti-
cal without the allowance of a pipestem ordinance. The Council
should decide what its attitude is toward pipestems . The origi-
nal draft of the ordinance opens the door for developers, rather
than confining them. The standards for approval would be very
easy for a developer to meet.
Pipestem easements obviously undercut the frontage requirements.
They also undercut minimum standards for roads, or a driveway. In
the case of Edwards Ferry Mews , you would have a thorofare serving
five houses. Many of the objections voiced in this hearing, such
as "turning space", "access of delivery and emergency vehicles," etc . -
these are the reasons for minimum street requirements . The pipe-
stem requirements allow for undercutting these. Multiple pipe-
stems allow grossly irregularly shaped lots to be formed. It al-
lows a road to be placed right next to somebody else ' s side yard.
In the case of Edwards Ferry Mews, the adjacent neighborhood is
well established (some of the homes are 50 years old) , so you can
see why these residents are upset. They will have five houses over-
looking their back yards, as well as a roadway parallelling them
serving those houses . This is defeating some reasonably held ex-
pectations when a pipestem subdivision of this nature is allowed in
an established neighborhood. There is also the question of access
for emergency vehicles , as well as garbage trucks (there would be
multiple cans stacked along the roadway) . What kind of plans will
be made for this private roadway and who will pay for maintenance
of utilities - this is quite extensive footage? Will it be the
town or the individual?
Mr. Price had several questions concerning Section 13-75 (d)
of the proposed amendments . What is meant by "natural features?"
How much of a showing do you have to make in order to show some
sort of entitlement to approval of a pipestem subdivision? Does
this mean you won ' t have to cut through a 3-foot bank? Or, it
"will reduce vehicular access points to non-local streets" - any
time you have a pipestem subdivision where several lots will use
the same private roadway, the reduction is just inherent in a pipe-
stem subdivision. Also, "better utilization of irregularly shaped
tracts on an infill basis" - in Edwards Ferry Mews, you ended up
with grossly irregularly shaped lots - a lot of the schematics
bear this out - rather than helping, this exacerbates the problem.
He conceded that there are some situations , on a case-by-case basis,
where such lots might be appropriate - a single-lot pipestem would
be appropriate . Therefore, (d) (1) is a step in the right direction -
it would prohibit this type of subdivision on Edwards Ferry Road.
His suggestion would be that "no pipestem shall abut another pipe-
stem in the same subdivision. " Sketch 2 shows adjacent pipestem
lots that would make good planning sense - therefore, the restric-
tion on prohibiting them to be adjacent in the same subdivision
is not a good idea. This could have been solved by placing lots
3 and 4 on the bottom and 5 and 6 on the top. This example as a
good planner could be achieved within the confines of the sug-
gested. changes to the ordinance . The staff suggests an addition
to (d) (6) to meet the South King Street or Edwards Ferry Road situ-
ation, whereby'Not more than one pipstem lot may be created by the
subdivision of an existing lot of less than one acre on which a
dwelling is situated. " In Edwards Ferry Mews, there was no build-
ing on the lot, so this would not help them. Perhaps this would
provide relief to his clients if "on which a dwelling is situated"
was stricken.
Mr . Price felt this is a very dangerous and complicated area
that requires a lot of study because so many unfomseen circumstances
may arise. Every possible contingency needs to be considered. He
r
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING.
113
suggested that the town consider the experience of other juris-
dictions , such as Fairfax - they have wrestled with this problem
over the years and have adjusted their ordinances to meet the fact
situation. He asked that Council not draft and enact an ordinance
that would allow the type of process to take place which has taken
place in Edwards Ferry Mews. The individuals in this area are very
concerned with good reason and the valid interest of the developers
can be met without threatening the quality of life and the vested
interest the citizens have. He asked the indulgence of the Council
to come back to the next meeting and make a few remarks in case of
anything proffered by the proponents of the ordinance.
Mr. Fred Howard, of Edwards Ferry Road, said Mr. Niccolls '
remarks indicate that the people in the area of Brown ' s Meadow
approved of the pipestem lots . He asked how many of them realized
this type of development was there? The majority of these people
were not aware of this and, had they known, there would have been
more objection to that. In nearly any of the older areas of Lees-
burg, you will find people objecting to these developments. If
Council decides to go with such developments, he strongly urged
them not to go anything less than what the Planning Commission
recommends - a 30-foot width - this would solve some of the prob-
00 lems of access of fire equipment, parking,_ etc. He opposes them
NT altogether but, if Council finds them necessary, then certainly
O 30 feet would be the minimum.
00 .
Mr. Ben Letson, of 136 Edwards Ferry Road , said that a house
00 is being built at the rear of their property on a pipestem lot.
Q They don ' t know now what their experience will be with this . He
has a compost pile within 20 to 25 feet of the house being con-
structed and these people might sometime come to him to remove it.
He subscribed wholeheartedly to several of the items mentioned to-
night and suggested that pipestem subdivisions be relegated to new
areas, rather than to the already developed areas . He and his wife
have retired here and have been here off and on for 25 years. They
feel they are a part of Leesburg and are interested in its future.
U
There are a good many things that might be considered to improve
Leesburg - he has seen no parks and feels every town should have
some parks where there is nothing but beauty. The Council and the
Planning Commission would do well to consider buying some land to
set aside for a park.
Mrs. Sally Packard, of 159 Edwards Ferry Road, asked if there
are any regulations concerning the size of driveways, with particu-
lar attention to the fourth and fifth houses on a pipestem? Mayor
Sevila said he does not want to entertain a debate between the Coun-
cil and the speakers - they want to hear the comments and the ques-
tions , these to be used in the two-week period between now and the
December 8th hearing so that they might answer all questions . At
the conclusion of the hearing, it is the town ' s practice to move
the discussion to the Council level and each member will address
the proposed legislation and talk about questions that have been
raised by members of the public . He assured the public that they
will be addressed at the next hearing. Mrs . Packard felt that the
size of these driveways or parking areas is a problem. She also
learned recently that an area in Oakton where she works had a pipe-
stem with only about 10 feet between driveway and the next house.
She asked what happens if someone has a party. The superintendent
said they fight over this sort of thing all the time - they are
constantly in an uproar . She also felt it is a shame to have houses
II one on top of the other like the ones in Brown ' s Meadow which back
up to the large lots fronting on Edwards Ferry Road. She certainly
did not think this type of thing should be done all over Leesburg.
Mr. English Cole said that, although he does not live in the
Edwards Ferry Road area, he is interested in the quality of life
in Leesburg . In his opinion, pipestems are to planning what spot
zoning is to zoning. This is the second hearing he has attended
concerning pipestems and not one proponent has spoken. He will
reserve any further remarks until such time as he hears someone
in favor of this type of zoning.
1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING .
11 Mr. Marvin Belles, of 124 Woodberry Road, was opposed to
multiple pipestems. He was concerned with both the width and
the length of pipestems. Basically, he agrees with the recom-
mendations of the Planning Commission.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council voted
unanimously to continue this hearing until December 8 , 1982 at 7 : 30
p.m. , at which time Mr. Price has asked to be heard further on this
subject.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila .
Nay : None.
Mayor Sevila declared a five-minute recess .
The meeting was reconvened at 9 : 15 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS :
Mr. Bos congratulated Mr. Cole for his service to the town
over the years.
Mr. Bos also commented on the Board of Architectural Review
appeal to the Council by Mr. Mowry Spencer. This matter was sent
back to that Board and the five members present 'unanimously ap-
proved the reapplication by Mr . Spencer for his property on East
Loudoun Street. The Board felt that the details shown, plus one
of the alternatives Mr . Spencer suggested, were acceptable for that
porch.
Mr. Forbes had a long meeting with the Board during the last
Council meeting and he went over a lot of procedural matters to
refresh the Board ' s memory on how the ordinance reads. He felt
the procedural process to be done by applicants will probably be
done in a more straight-forward fashion, which will be to the ad-
vantage of the Board and the applicants .
Mr. Bos asked Mr. Willis how they are getting along with re-
pairs to the Christmas lights? Mr . Willis said the VoTech electri-
cal class worked yesterday and today for two hours - they will be
back all day Monday and Monday night and they should be completed.
They will be put up on Wednesday. There will be no workshop this
week-end for councilmembers on this project . Mr. Bos said that
the resolution adopted by Council at last meeting supplied most of
the materials , with Mr. Coffey and someone else supplying some of
them.
Mr. Tolbert thanked Mr. Niccolls for taking care of some of the
street problems he had reported.
Mrs. Hill said there is a possibility that the Museum Board
will consider the expenditure of $5, 000 or more to make some inside
structural changes on the Odd Fellows building . It will have to
come to the Council for approval after the Museum Board discusses
it.
MAYOR' S REPORT:
Mayor Sevila reported that a delegation from the Council went
to the regional VML-VACO conference in Manassas . Those attending
were Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Coffey, Mr . Niccolls and Mayor Sevila. They
went for the purpose of addressing some State legislators who
were to be there concerning the proposed legislation that has grown
out of the annexation negotiations . They have seen no opposition
to date and have received a lot of encouragement from other juris-
dictions . The ones he spoke to were favorable. It was an enjoyable
occasion, filled with good will , etc .
ii
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING. 1
MANAGER' S REPORT: 11 5
Mr . Niccolls called attention to the written Activity Report
distributed tonight and reported the following :
(1) The annexation exhibit booklet which Council saw earlier
in 1982 and which was submitted to the Local Government Commission
at the original filing has been revised by staff members as neces-
sary to reflect the agreement between the County and the Town on
the smaller territory and other factors . Monday they will hand de-
liver the requisite number of copies of the exhibit book and the
agreement, etc . to the staff of the Local Government Commission,
as required by their earlier order, in preparation for the hear-
ingss on December 14 and 15. The Commissioners will be taken on a
II
tour of the annexation area on Monday morning, December 14 ; the
Town will present its case; there will be discussion of the agree-
ment and the County will present its case. An outline of our pro-
posed presentation has been sent to Pete Jolly and he has talked
with him with regard to this presentation. He feels that, since
there is an agreement, the presentation can be abbreviated and
the testimony of just a few townspeople, etc . will be necessary.
The night of December 15 is the public hearing by the Local Govern-
, CO ment Commission. It is not felt this will take two full days .
O
(2) He explained the Cornwall Street storm drainage project
for the benefit of the new members . This concerns installation of
ma small section of storm sewer so the paved parking lot will not
shed additional run-off down toward the .Exeter Square townhouses.
Q An agreement was made last year with the County to cost-share on
the off-site storm drainage - they are paying 63 percent and we
are paying the balance. It has been necessary to replace some
sections of sidewalk, curb and gutter . We will try to keep a lot
of these minor repairs going all winter long.
(3) The paving of South Harrison Street between Loudoun and the
W. & 0. D. right-of-way is scheduled for next week. The contractor
is running a little behind but, with some luck, we can get the base
course and topping done. The contractor was obligated to finish the
work in two sections - the ones closer to downtown were to be paved
sooner than the section between the W. & O.D. and Catoctin Circle -
that is not required to be finished until April . There is a black
base down now.
(4) We are in discussions with the Loudoun County School offi-
cials over the concise configuration of the Catoctin Circle West
road improvements across the north end of the high school . There
are some difficulties, but they are optimistic that these can be
worked out.
Mrs. Hill asked what they will be using when they replace the
Cornwall Street sidewalk? Mr. Niccolls said they will be brick -
we established a brick zone sometime ago and this is in it.
Mr . Willis asked when the section of South Harrison Street be-
tween the W. & O. D. and Catoctin Circle will be opened? Mr. Nic-
colls said they may choose to leave it closed all winter, but he
would like to see it opened. Mr. Weiss said the question is who
will assume the liability for it with just the base coat down and
he doesn ' t think they will put the top coat on it before winter.
Mrs. Hill said she has seen a couple of cars on it already. Mr.
I/ Willis said he has seen some commercial vehicles using it. Mr.
Niccolls said we will have to block it off .
Mr. Bos asked if there is anything else on the problem at the
Water Treatment Plant? Mr. Niccolls said they are trying to encour-
age the contractor to proceed before any more drastic draconian
measures are taken.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-175 OF THE TOWN CODE.
On motion of Mr. Willis , seconded by Mr. Coffey, Council voted
unanimously to refer the proposed ordinance dealing with free park-
ing on Saturdays back to the Finance and Administration Committee
for further consideration :
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING .
116 Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
82-156 - RESOLUTION - RELEASING A PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPTING WATER
AND SEWER FACILITIES AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE
BOND FOR CARDINAL INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed :
WHEREAS, the public improvements in Cardinal Industrial Park
Subdivision have been completed in accordance with town and
Virginia Department of Highway ' s standards and specifications
and these have been inspected and the as-built drawings have
been submitted and approved; and
WHEREAS , the subdivision road is not in the town;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia as follows :
SECTION I . The water and sewer facilities for Cardinal In-
dustrial Park Subdivision are accepted by the town for public
use.
SECTION II . A maintenance bond for the public improvements in
Cardinal Industrial Park Subdivision in the amount of $12, 600
is approved , the terms of which will be for a minimum of one
year from the date of this resolution and until the Virginia
Department of Highways accepts the road into the secondary
system.
SECTION III . A copy of this resolution is to be forwarded to
the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors and the Virginia De-
partment of Highways and Transportation with correspondence
recommending that Cardinal Park Drive be added to the secon-
dary
system of Loudoun County in accordance with Section
33 . 1-229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
SECTION IV. This resolution will be in effect upon review
and approval by the town attorney of the $12, 600 maintenance
bond.
Mr. Bos asked if the work on the entrances to Lowe ' s and Perry' s
has been finished? Mr. Niccolls said this was underway last week
and is under a separate bond. Mr. Willis said it is complete.
Mayor Sevila said this was before Council last summer following the
auction. He asked if their problem was ironed out with the respec-
tive buyer? Mr . Niccolls said Yes, it was handled privately. This
was with regard to providing utilities to the lots. The resolution
was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
82-157 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AN AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT
MAP AND REFERRING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER CHAPTER 11 , TITLE 15. 1
OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED.
On motion of Mr. Willis , seconded by Mrs . Hill, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
WHEREAS, land uses in the South Harrison Street neighborhood
are often incompatible with one another and inconsistent with
the underlying zoning district and comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS , the town is investing 1 . 35 million dollars to up-
grade the neighborhood;
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING. 1 7
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg 11
in Virginia as follows :
An amendment for the revision of the zoning district map in
the South Harrison Street neighborhood as shown on the at-
tached drawings from M-1 to B-2 and R-2 is initiated and re-
ferred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and rec-
ommendation under Chapter 11 , Title 15 . 1 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
82-178 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE SPONSORED
NEGOTIATION OF C&P GOVERNMENT USE TELEPHONE
RATES .
On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr . Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed :
WHEREAS, rates for government service telephone use in Virginia
00 are not regulated by the State Corporation Commission; and
T WHEREAS, the Virginia Municipal League currently negotiates
CD government service electric distribution rates on behalf of
m .its member localities; and
Q WHEREAS , it is in the public interest that rates charged lo-
calities for telephone service be fair and equitable and re-
flect C&P ' s use of municipally owned property and the flow
of benefits which extend from local governments to public
utilities ;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia as follows :
SECTION I . The Town of Leesburg endorses and advocates the
Virginia Municipal League proposal for joint local action to
investigate and negotiate contracts with telephone companies
for rates which are fair and reasonable and in the public in-
terest.
SECTION II . The manager is directed to return a form question-
naire to the Virginia Municipal League reflecting these senti-
ments .
Mr. Bos asked if we are charged standard rates now? Mr . Niccolls said
Yes, we pay the commercial tariff . Mr. Gheen asked if this is a free
service by the Municipal League? Mr . Niccolls said this is a fee in
addition to our membership - we have paid this in the past on the
VEPCO rate negotiations . Mr. Coffey asked how this benefits the
public? Mr . Niccolls said the theory behind independent negotia-
tion of utility rates by the municipalities in Virginia is founded
on two principles : (1) the statutory or constitutional principle -
the State Corporation Commission does not have legal jurisdiction
over rates charged to municipal users - counties, cities, towns and
school districts; and (2) the utility companies use municipal prop-
erty and get the benefit of publicly-owned lands in their operations,
and thereby there is a chain of benefits and cost reductions which
flow to the utility provider (VEPCO) for which they pay nothing or
very little . Therefore, the charges to the municipality, which is
providing these benefits of the streets, the snow plowing and every-
thing else we do that allows them to make their operations efficient,
should flow back to the municipality, at least to a limited extent.
We are joint providers of their service, in a sense, and we are a
major "landlord" of VEPCO. Mr. Coffey did not understand how this
benefits the citizen though - he still has to pay the tariff one way
or the other - either through his utility rate or through the tax
rate. Mr. Niccolls felt it is also an equitable distribution of
rates and charges . It may be that, in allocating charges among its
users, there should be discounts to municipalities and, if those
discounts have to be made up by all other rate payers, this is also
i MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING.
1 18 equitable, rather than have the taxpayers pay higher than neces-
sary rates within a jurisdiction. Mr . Coffey felt this is "a
wash, " - he couldn ' t see that we would have gained anything ex-
cept going through negotiations , which will cost money. Mr.
Niccolls felt perhaps the negotiators on behalf of the munici-
palities are better at this because of the extra leverage we im-
part and we do a better job than the SCC. Mr. Coffey asked if
the counties figure in this also? Mr. Niccolls understood that
no municipalities or counties are governed by the SCC, so we are
in the position of letting the company charge us whatever they
set, or else we can negotiate with them. We have to do one or the
other. We could allow ourselves to be subject to the commercial
rates, particularly in the case of VEPCO. Mayor Sevila wondered,
if the State authorizes profit or return of the investment, does
this include the service to the municipalities? If they get a
bargain rate, that would result in a loss . He asked if munici-
palities, counties , cities and towns are exempt from the rate
structure that is submitted to the SCC every time there is a rate
request? Mr. Niccolls felt it is - we are all one island dealing
with one utility. If we assume this is "a wash" , if other munici-
palities in the State successfully negotiate a lower rate and we
don' t hang with them, we ' ll be there paying the higher rate and get-
ting it both ways . Mr. Coffey asked if it is anticipated that every-
body will get the same rate? Mr. Niccolls said Yes, if our exper-
ience with VEPCO follows, they are happy to negotiate a master con-
tract with a large group of municipalities because it saves them
tremendous staff time - it also leads to uniformity and equity
among all these rate payers again. He believed the C&P people would
see the wisdom of this - if they are forced to deal with the locali-
ties on this matter, they would certainly rather deal with profes-
sionals hired on a blanket basis and have a single contract. He
felt the net result would be that our trunk line costs for base
service costs will be lower . Mayor Sevila agreed that, if we don ' t
join in this VML effort, we might wind up with higher taxes and
higher rates so, if a movement is underway, we should join with them.
The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
82-159 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN OFFER TO RAYMOND R. RODRICK FOR
PURCHASE OF RIGHT OF WAY AND AN EASEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHOR-
IZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE EVENT
THE OFFER IS REFUSED.
On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Bos, the following reso-
lution was proposed :
WHEREAS, Council has authorized design and construction of
West Catoctin Circle between Dry Mill Road and West Market
Street to improve traffic circulation; and
WHEREAS, this road extension is contained in the town ' s Com-
prehensive Plan and a public necessity exists requiring the
acquisition of rights of way and easements which will allow
construction of the road; and
WHEREAS , it is necessary to acquire right of way and an
easement for the West Catoctin Circle extension from and
on the land of Raymond R. Rodrick as described in a plat
prepared by Bengtson, DeBell , Elkin & Titus; and
WHEREAS , an appraisal has been received indicating the value
of the land is $5 , 976 and cost of work required to repair
damages to the remainder is $3, 500 , totaling $9 , 500.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING.
119
SECTION I . The sum of $5 , 976 shall be offered Raymond R.
Rodrick for the right of way and requirement easement free
and clear of all title defects for liens or encumbrances .
SECTION II . The sum of $3 , 500 shall be offered Raymond R.
Rodrick for damages to the remainder of his property for
construction of a driveway and installation of landscaping.
SECTION III . If the offers outlined in Section I and II of
this resolution are not accepted in writing within 30 days
from the receipt thereof, the town attorney shall file a
petition for condemnation of the required right of way and
easement and right of entry on behalf of the Town of Lees-
burg.
There was some little discussion concerning the total of these two
figures and it was explained that this is rounded off and that any
amount left over will be refunded to the appropriate account. Mr.
Bos asked if the appraisal is in process for the other piece of
property needed? Mr . Niccolls said it is. The resolution was
unanimously adopted :
OD Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
NT and Mayor Sevila.
O Nay: None .
OD 82-160 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN EASEMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH
CO TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC .
Q
On motion of Mr. Bos , seconded by Mrs. Hill , the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
The manager is authorized and directed on behalf of the town
' to execute an Easement of Right-of-Way Agreement with Tri-
County Electric Cooperative, on property owned by the Town
of Leesburg at Leesburg Municipal Airport, in the same form
as that transmitted to the council on November 17 , 1982 .
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
82-161 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR DESIGN AND SURVEY
SERVICES FOR TUSCARORA CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVE-
MENTS .
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr . Bos, the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
SECTION I . The manager shall enter into a contract with
Bengtson, DeBell , Elkin and Titus , Inc . for engineering de-
sign and survey services for Tuscarora Creek Channel improve-
ments as outlined in their proposal No. 82-105 dated November
12 , 1982 , in an amount not to exceed $7 , 080 .
SECTION II . An appropriation is made from the general fund
to Account No. 3401 . 300 in the amount of $7 , 080 .
Mr. Gheen asked how far east on the Tuscarora watershed this goes?
Mr . Niccolls explained that it will start at the Harrison Street
bridge and extend down to the lower side of the property occupied
by the Rescue Squad - it is not a very long section, but it is
sufficient to make a measurable impact in reducing the flood haz-
ard there. Mayor Sevila asked if any work has been done on that
portion of the creek? Mr. Niccolls said that, aside from the clear-
ing that was done last fall , No. There was some rechannelization
proposed, but this has not been .done . We took the money back from
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24 , 1982 MEETING.
120 the developer who was proposing to do that - these design funds
are coming from that contribution. That was $21, 000, of which
they have spent three-quarters on the original studies, and now
this design. The next bite will be from tax funds . Mr . Bos said
the $21 , 000 was the amount the contractor would have spent for
the whole thing. Mayor Sevila understood that this $7 , 080 is for
just survey and design - hasn ' t some portion of this work been done?
Mr. Niccolls said Yes - a substantial amount and that is available.
This will be in addition to the work already done. The design has
been changed substantially, so this is new work. Mr. Gheen under-
stood some change was made from Catoctin Circle down to where
building is going on. Mr . Niccolls said he is referring to the
change in design proposed by the Gibson tract developers in 1977
or 1978 and the design we are now working with, which is a more
narrow type design that doesn ' t eliminate the entire bend, etc . -
the configuration of the stream both on the ground and plan view
and the cross-section is different than what was approved for con-
struction by the developer who contributed the $21 , 000 to the town.
Mr. Gheen said he was trying to see if there is a duplication of
effort. Mayor Sevila understood this will pick up where that ended.
Mr. Niccolls said this was only 1500 to 1800 feet and the work origi-
nally contemplated was even less than that. This off-site channeli-
zation of the creek was agreed to be done by the builder of that
corner tract as part of the approval by the town in 1977-78 . When
that work finally began last fall, it was found to be unsuitable as
designed, so we have relieved the developer of his responsibility
in exchange for the $21 , 000 contribution, so we are progressing with
the work for a better design. This appropriation is a part of that
$21 , 000 - we have already spent about $8 , 000 on the computer analy-
sis, etc . of the stream. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr . Gheen, the meeting
was adjourned at 10 : 00 p.m.
Lei i :..L
Ma or
Clerk of e Council