Loading...
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