HomeMy Public PortalAbout1982_12_08 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND PUBLIC
HEARING ON PIPESTEM LOTS (Cont 'd) , DECEMBER 8 , 1982 . 1 21
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in
the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia
on December 8 , 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,
I Jr . and Howard M. Willis, Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls,
Assistant Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Assistant to the Manager for
Community Development Marc Weiss, Director of Engineering Andrew
1 G. Shope and Town Attorney George M. Martin.
II On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the minutes
of the regular meeting of October 27 , 1982 were unanimously ap-
proved :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION AND LAND DE-
00 VELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING PIPESTEM LOTS
uct (Continued from November 24 , 1982 meeting) .
CD Sevila requested that all speakers attempt to limit their
comments to no more than five minutes; also, to attempt not to be
m repetitive.
Q
Mr. Bruce Brownell , developer, who lives on the Old Waterford
Road in Paeonian Springs , said he pays taxes in the Town of Leesburg.
Since the first informal meeting with the neighbors to Edwards Ferry
Mews in the spring of last year, he has listened to a wide range of
objections to pipestem lots , or what appeared to be so. He believed
they have been misled - the objections almost without exception, al-
though guised as concerns about nonconventional lots, are really op-
' position to development that may occur next door . Not a single is-
sue has yet been brought forward that cannot be or has not been
already adequately addressed. Pipestems serve to create building
i lots that minimize the amount of public street and support facili-
ties - they create more privacy than is available on conventional
development - they lessen the number of entrances onto a street
and they provide variety - something that is sorely missing in su-
burban sprawl . The opposition has said that these lots are bad de-
velopment. A few of the more serious arguments are as follows :
Mr. Roach has said that pipestem lots will cause lower cost homes
because the lots are, by definition, inferior. There are thousands
of pipestem lots in Fairfax County, where builders have customarily
charged premiums and buyers have paid premiums . The only lot sold
to this date to an individual in Brown ' s Meadow to build his own
house was, ironically, a pipestem. If for no other reason than the
privacy offered by no public street at the front door , pipestems
are most always superior rather than inferior . The greatest con-
tributor to inflated housing costs in the last decade has not been
land or materials or labor, it has been the cost to improve that
land to create finished lots. It has been mandated that every lot
must have so many feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving in order
to be a safe and healthy place to live - each house must be a cer-
tain distance from the property lines, the lots must be of a cer-
tain size, with certain minimum dimensions . From this mechanical
standardization, we have achieved such creative local communities
as Sterling Park . It ' s ironic that the obsession to improve high-
ways and make every street wider, supposedly to improve our en-
vironment, has had in many cases the reverse effect. The single
greatest source of non-point surface water pollution is not sewage
or siltation or fertilizer - it ' s run-off from asphalt and concrete
roads and parking lots . Maybe it' s time to attempt to build only
what is necessary . Mr. Campbell has said that developers believe
"bigger is better . " The building industry is a reflection of the
public and, in order to be successful , it must anticipate what the
public desires. "Bigger is better" was true in the 60 ' s and 70 ' s,
but it ' s simply not true now. The theme of the 80 ' s seems to be
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
122
"smaller is wiser. " The public is not willing to pay for ineffi-
ciency in design or the use of materials, one of which is land.
Mr . Cole has said that density creates problems and that pipestems
create density. He disagrees with this - zoning causes density.
Mr. Felix has expressed his dismay at the number of homes in
Brown ' s Meadow and that the density is too great. There are 18
lots and, if each lot was the size of Mr. Felix' s, there would
be 25. If each were minimum according to the Zoning Ordinance,
there would be 30 - if duplexes, there would be 50 . Brown ' s Mea-
dow uses pipestems , yet the numbers don ' t support an increase in
density. They certainly haven ' t downgraded the neighborhood or
depreceiated property values either . Were it not for the use of
pipestems on this project, the amount of street would most cer-
I tainly been greater and would have required a greater number of
lots in order to carry the additional cost. In this case, pipe-
stems actually reduced density. If the residents don ' t like the
density in the neighborhood, then they should change their zoning.
A voluntary downzoning would be a novel approach and he wondered if
neighbors would agree to forfeit their rights to subdivide their
property as readily as they seem to agree to obstruct the developer
from subdividing his. Mr. Patton thinks Leesburg is a unique com-
munity and must be kept that way by insuring that every new lot must
be the same. The old districts in town, whether historical or not,
1 have a mixture of sizes, shapes, configurations, street widths, set-
backs and house styles - there are over existing lots in town that
for one reason or another do not meet the standards as interpreted
by the opponents to pipestem lots. If Leesburg is to stay unique,
and to undergo the growth that is inevitable, both on an infill
basis and suburban properties, the engineers and developers need
tools to work with. The cluster ordinance was a tremendous step
in the right direction, and so are pipestems. Mr. Price has said
the proposed amendments encourage pipestems - this is not true.
The existing ordinance allows them, the proposed changes seek to
place some restrictions on their design. If there was going to be
a surge in their use,- it would have occurred already. It is said
it defeats the requirement of lot frontage - what requirement?
The only purpose lot frontage serves is to provide access from the
street. What benefit is there to a property owner whether he has
10 feet or 100 feet on a street? Mr . Price says that more than
one person using a driveway makes it, in his interpretation, a
street. There is no confusion between a private driveway and a
public street, and no attempt is being made to avoid public streets.
An attempt is being made to avoid unnecessary public streets. Mr.
Price has raised questions about cars parked in the driveways and
blocking access . He is not aware of any provision to prevent people
from parking in their driveways . The proposed amendments do re-
strict the driveway length so that, if a driveway is blocked for any
reason, the fire department can service that lot adequately from
the street, without having to go on the driveway. In any event,
the town already requires adequate on-site parking on every new lot
created - pipestem or not. Question has been raised about drive-
way maintenance and some ambiguous ideas as to cost of maintaining
water and sewer lines . The driveway maintenance is completely
private and solely the responsibility of the lot owners, and is
so noted on the record plat. If the utility lines are main-sized
they are in easements, as has already been indicated, and are
maintained by the town. If the house connections are 20 feet or
100 feet long, they are still private. Mr. Price feels the re-
quirements are too easy to meet - why shouldn ' t they be? If the
town takes the position that cluster or pipestems are a useful
optional tool to the developer, subject to certain limitations,
why should they be allowed only in the fringe areas? Colonel
Grenata says pipestems will ruin the looks of Leesburg. Cornwall
Street has fought long and hard to preserve the residential charac
ter of some districts in town - this ordinance serves to accommo-
date residential use of infill property - yet the Colonel is op-
posing this too. Mr. Price suggests that Leesburg look at Fair-
fax County before enacting any change - this ordinance is essen-
tially modeled after it . Fairfax has had both cluster and pipe-
stems for years and, considering the amount of growth Fairfax has
had even though their planning efforts may not have been a roaring
success in all cases, the situation would certainly have been worse
if they had refused to be imaginative or flexible. Loudoun County
currently allows pipestems on large lot rural subdivisions and on
planned communities . There is a pending ordinance change to actu-
i
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING. 1 2 3
ally encourage pipestems on small lot rural subdivisions . The
County proposal goes so far as to require no road frontage at all ,
no limit on length of driveway and no limit on number of lots it
serves. According to the Times-Mirror, the purpose of this amend-
ment is to prevent another Edwards Ferry Mews. What exactly is it
that is to be prevented? Is it for single-family lots on the par-
cel that is zoned for eight duplexes, or perhaps the community
would be better served if the standard street was built instead?
According to what he was told last year by an individual acting
as a spokesman for that group, the project would have been opposed
just as strongly - pipestems or not, public street or not. This
ordinance, or any other, cannot make everybody happy. The amend-
ments are being opposed by neighbors of proposed or future lots
who resent being deprived of unobstructed open space on which
they pay no taxes. He believes the revisions to clarify pipe-
stems are both appropriate and well advised - he supports the
amendments as initiated by the Council . He does not support the
changes made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bos Rstced what he thinks is the legal limit on the number
of pipestems/sRould be on one driveway? Mr. Brownell said "five. "
OD Mr. Bos asked what his reason is for five - why not eight or ten,
or two or one? Mr. Brownell said that, at a certain point, the
traffic count becomes high enough that it begins to serve the func-
0 tion of a street if there are too many. _ Five is a reasonable num-
00 ber - Fairfax County sometimes allows more than that.
OD Mr. Beckham Dickerson, a resident of Edwards Ferry Road and an
Q educated and practicing planner , said he is here out of concern for
the Town of Leesburg and the direction it may be taking that he
1 feels is contrary to its health. He is familiar with Leesburg and
Loudoun County. From a planning discipline standpoint, pipestem
lots are an acceptable planning tool - they are used in both exist-
ing and new development. Their primary value is to allow the order-
ly development of irregular parcels , minimize the extension of pub-
' lic facilities and utilities, maximize the use of public facilities
and utilities and to allow creation of greater value of property
further from those services. As recently as about two years ago,
he recommended, as a consultant to the County of Albemarle, that
they institute pipestem lots in certain instances, which they in-
cluded in their ordinance. There are two values of such lots in
Leesburg - to allow imaginative design in new development and, more
I important, to allow for sympathetic land use in the older areas of
the town where there are a number of outlots existing. As a resi-
dent, Leesburg is characterized by Cornwall Street, King Street,
South Street, Edwards Ferry Road - it ' s not characterized in its
history by Brandon, Carrvale or Crestwood. If you want to save
the town and keep its unique character , you must not over-regulate
what goes on within the Town of Leesburg. To make all the lots in
the new part of town which has been annexed, as well as the old
part of the town, meet some very strict regulations would be counter
to what the town really is . As an example, the lot he is on will
not meet the present frontage requirements, it does not meet any
normal length-width ratio, his house is probably much too close to
the street and he shares a driveway that would not be legal at this
particular time . However, he and his neighbor find these facts
quite satisfactory. You would find that fifty percent to two-
thirds of those houses would not meet present regulations . There is
no curb and gutter, no sidewalk, not 36 feet of pavement and a lot
of the houses are very close to the road. He feels that the pipe-
stem lot, irrespective of the concern for the Edwards Ferry Mews
project, is a benefit to the town and will assist the town to go
in a direction that is sympathetic with what the town presently is.
Mayor Sevila asked in what instances Mr . Dickerson recommended
pipestems in Albemarle County? Mr . Dickerson said they had a simi-
lar problem to Loudoun County' s in the agricultural area - there
was strip development along the County secondary roads that was
doing a great deal to destroy the countryside. They suggested that
they allow pipestemming to increase the density, based on some stand-
ards, in certain areas of the county roads where it was less destruc-
tive to the countyscape and be a little more harsh on the use of
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
124
property fronting on that road, particularly where the road did not
have vegetation. Where there was vegetation that hid development,
they used them to put the houses in that area and keep them out of
the open area. Mayor Sevila assumed that these standards would
not then apply to the urban-style situation we are dealing with in
Leesburg. Mr. Dickerson said it would not apply in the old part
of Leesburg, but it may apply in the newer sections or in the an-
nexed area. Mayor Sevila asked if his recommendation would be for
Council to adopt the pipestem ordinance as proposed, or the one
recommended by the Planning Commission? Mr . Dickerson felt the
staff ' s recommendation is the logical approach. He felt that,
in new development, there probably should be some type of limita-
tion (4 , 5 or 6) , but he was not sure that such a limit would be
as valid in the old part of town where there are outlots of vary-
ing sizes . He felt they are really trying to stop the develop-
ment of 36-foot wide pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk on
both sides because it is not characteristic to existing development.
If you intersected a new road section into Cornwall Street, it would
be disastrous. This is true of a lot of areas in Leesburg - the new
standards are not sympathetic with what went on before the new engi-
neering standards were developed. Mayor Sevila said:.Mr . Brownell
commented on statements made by speakers at the last meeting con-
cerning width of pipestem, traffic problems, access by emergency
vehicles, etc . - he asked if he, as a planner, makes any attempt to
accommodate these concerns or does he experience them? Mr. Dicker-
son felt there is a width that allows two cars to pass on an access
road, but one of the problems they have is that k
� a engineering
standards were developed in the 30 ' s and postwar are almost confisca-
tory and very flagrantly used resources that are unnecessary and
there is a lot of it around Leesburg . There is no questioning of
do we really need this for fire protection, for access, for trash
collection, etc . - it is what we have done for the last 10 years so
we ' ll keep on doing this - it seems that we haven ' t thought about
these standards to determine what is adequate vs. what is tradition.
Mayor Sevila asked if any of the jurisdictions he consults for ex-
press problems that are occasioned by the use or over-use of the
pipestem? Mr. Dickerson said there are no problems he knows of
that are characteristically related to pipestems, but obviously
there are problems anywhere you have people. There are problems
that occasionaly come up with the use of pipestems, as it is with
any land use tool .
Ms. Nancy Rogers, of 118 Edwards_ Ferry Road said pipestems are too
narrow for many things - it is dangerous for a pedestrian and a car
at the same time; there is too little room for two fire engines,
plus the Rescue Squad, to turn around; there is too little room for
the trash truck and a car at the same time (if the trash truck does
not go in, all the trash will have to be piled on Edwards Ferry Road) ;
there is not enough room for the snow plow and, if the residents
remove the snow themselves, the snow plow would plow the pipestem
shut; the town ' s brush truck would be too large to get in. It looks
as though pipestems would occupy just about every square inch of
vacant land in town - we don 't need this - we need some open space
in Leesburg. She wished it to be known that they did not sell the
north exposure of their land to Mr. Brownell .
Colonel Michael C. Grenata said Mr. Brownell has said that
pipestems do not increase density. When you put pipestem lots in
an area that has established streets and lot sizes, it certainly
does increase density. This, however, would not apply to the an-
nexed or new area . He has reviewed the area along Edwards Ferry
Road, the Cornwall Street area and has talked with Mr . Forbes -
allowing pipestems in Leesburg would increase density, it would be
an intrusion into the existing areas, a trespass and would deprive
those already living in the area of certain rights . What Mr. Dick-
erson has said would be appropriate in another county may not be
appropriate for Leesburg and Loudoun County. He feels the essen-
tial feature is which came first - the Town of Leesburg or pipe-
stems? Obviously, Leesburg came first . Let ' s make provision for
pipestem lots in the newly annexed area.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING .
Mr. Brad Crockett, representing the Northern Virginia Build12 5
ers Association, a group of 800 plus members who are experienced in
building, development, financing, engineering and selling of new
and used real estate in the Northern Virginia area, said a greater
number of their members are becoming involved in the Town of Lees-
burg and surrounding areas . They are making a concerted effort to
become more involved in the participation and formulation of the
process and policies that affect their industry. They believe that
pipestem lots serve a useful and productive purpose in land use
planning and development. They have been utilized throughout this
country in resolving problems associated with irregularly shaped
lots and are frequently used to retain as much natural topography
of a site as is possible . This goes along with Mr. Brownell ' s
11 . statement that, by using pipestem lots, you do not encourage greater
use of public streets whereby more land will have to be developed,
paved, etc . With regard to"the maximum number of lots abutting
pipestem lots shall be five and any group of five abutting pipe-
' stem lots shall be separated from any other pipestem lot by at
least 100 linear feet"and"the minimum width of the pipestem por-
tion of a pipestem lot separated from any other pipestem lot shall
be fourteen feet " , these are the original amendments initi-
ated by Council and staff and they recommend these for adoption.
The Planning Commission changes and recommendations are too re-
CO strictive and would result in the possible waste of valuable land
and economic utilization.
CD
m Mr. Mike Thomas, Vice-President of R.J.L. Associates, Inc. of
OD Vienna, read into the record a letter from Mr . Lewis , President
of the Company. The letter stated that Ms. Sally Packard, who had
Q at the last meeting indicated that their company had created an un-
desirable situation with pipestem lots in their area, is a subcon-
tractor of their company who is employed to clean homes for delivery
and model homes and, in this capacity, has no intimate knowledge of
the design or engineering practices used by their company. The pipe-
stem configuration is a very desirable feature of the developing
process and, over the years, they have received no more than one
or two reports of conflicts within their subdivisions where pipe-
' stems were used. The rules have been corrected at the County level
and there have been no more problems. He wholeheartedly endorses
pipestem lots in Leesburg. He cautioned that certain rules de-
veloped over the years do need to be applied, such as setbacks to
allow for parking within the property and any more than three lots
together must be developed with extreme care. Where parking or ac-
cess would be difficult, a turnaround or cul-de-sac should be pro-
vided, with the width of the roadway being 18 feet wide where three
or more units are served. Leesburg would be losing a valuable tool
for good planning if pipestem lots are not allowed.
Mr. Bos said he talked with Ms . Packard but he did not even as-
sociate this with the company - her comment was strictly a point con-
cerning the pipestem lots . He would like to visit some of his de-
velopments soon. Mr. Gheen, Mr. Tolbert and Mrs . Hill also received
calls but it did not influence their thinking. Mayor Sevila said
he did not even put down the name of the company, only that she had
some first-hand experience observing such lots . He did not feel she
made any adverse representations of the company.
Mr. David Arnold, a resident of Woodberry Road and a member of
the group currently in litigation against Edwards Ferry Mews, said
he speaks only for himself . He is against the proposed ordinance
amendment and certainly wouldn ' t think Leesburg would want to adopt
everything Fairfax County does - it is no example for Leesburg to
emulate. Fairfax has a lack of open space - large homes on small
lots and children with no place to play. Looking at the layout of
Edwards Ferry Mews, there is no adequate place for children to play
on any one of those lots. This leaves the surrounding back yards
immediately adjoining these lots , so these people will be forced to
fence their lots to keep these children out and protect their prop-
erty. If Council adopts this proposal prepared by the staff, you
have eliminated any protection to the existing residents - you have
given carte-blanche approval to any developer for any lot in Lees-
burg for any configuration he sees fit. The person next door has
absolutely no input into the process . He urged Council not to con-
sider adoption of this proposal . He appreciated the time spent by
the Planning Commission wrestling with this problem and asked that
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
126
Council consider its proposal - however, even this is an open door
for existing neighborhoods. He would like to see a change that
would provide maximum protection to existing residents without de-
nying the developer his right. Mr. Brownell is a landowner and
pays taxes in Leesburg, but he does not have to live with this.
He would like to see a hearing or some input from the local resi-
dents . In granting privilege to a developer, don ' t deny the rights
of someone else.
Mr. Mike Rich, a potential buyer of property in Leesburg, has
a real concern for the protection of the character of the neighbor-
hood and would take this into consideration when considering the
j purchase of property. When you apply the word "imaginative" to de-
velopment in certain neighborhoods , the application of pipestem de-
velopment on Cornwall Street might be better defined as a "night-
mare. " RJL' s representative said they had no conflicts on pipe-
stems where there were only one or two residences. If there are
five residences on one pipestem lot, you introduce a large number
of automobiles and have a problem, so perhaps we should look at
the one or two number . One of the advantages of pipestem lots is
that it eliminates street construction - his major concern is not
how many streets will have to be built, but on how many children we
have to educate. The cost of education far outstrips the cost of
the street.. He doesn ' t feel anyone is opposed to trying to utilize
our land in a good manner, but some of the'practical applications'
introduced in the last year are not good. The developers feel
pipestems produce a premium lot - he suggests that location produces
the premium lot - not the design. His definition of privacy is not
five homes on one street. We should not allow the character of
any neighborhood to be radically changed by the introduction of
pipestems or other changes - not only in the residential areas, but
also in the downtown area. He urged Council to pay attention to the
character of the neighborhood as it looks at the introduction of some
of the new planning techniques .
Mr. Jack Wallace, President of the Loudoun Business Alliance,
said this organization was formed about a year ago to represent the
developers' and businessmen ' s interests in relation to many land use
issues . They endorse the comments made by: Mr. Brownell, Mr. Dick-
erson a'nd.-the Northern Virginia Builder ' s,-Association, not with .-.
-
respect to any particular subdivision, but with respect to the mer-
its of pipestems . Seven or eight years ago he visited a friend of
his in Fairfax County for the first time who lived on a pipestem.
He liked it very much - he had some privacy and it was a nice sub-
division. He has been back there several times and he finds it very
appealing. Sometimes we are afraid of something new and perhaps we
should take a look at such a subdivision in place - look at Fairfax
County. He supports the ordinance as proposed by the staff and not
with the Planning Commission ' s changes. He suggested that Council
consider the merits of this matter and not be misled by smokescreens
and exaggerated arguments in opposition to this ordinance. This
has happened in the County in the case of the Sheraton and the Wind-
mill Shopping Center, where the real issue was that nobody wanted
development on Route 7 . We need to look at this ordinance in the
same light - are we receiving input on pipestems or are we protect-
ing a neighborhood? Mr. Tolbert asked how many houses are on the
pipestem now that Mr . Wallace referred to? Mr. Wallace said there
are still only three.
Mr . English Cole, of 139 South King Street, said he has not
heard anything that enures to the benefit of Leesburg. This is a
difficult job and a heavy burden on the council - there is less tha
one percent of the population of Leesburg here tonight - yet the
council has to protect the other 99 percent as well . He called
Winchester, Alexandria, Clarke County, Fauquier County, Fairfax
County, Montgomery County and Arlington County and discussed pipe-
stem easements with them. He received various comments and said
he would leave a list of these comments with council . Some liked
them, some thought they were tolerable and others didn ' t like them.
In Fauquier County, there was no maximum or minimum length and one
developer ran a pipestem all the way to the mountain. In Clarke
County, they seemed to think it would be fine for seashore lots.
Fairfax County has various standards , depending on how many houses
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
on the pipestem. The majority of these people said you should 127
be sure the owners on the pipestem are aware of their obligations
as to maintenance and snow removal of the pipestem on the record
plat. Some felt all neighbors in the surrounding area should be
warned. As far as he is concerned, this is spot planning, which
is usually done for one of two reasons - either you want to improve
the aesthetics of the neighborhood (this is good planning) or you
want to do somebody a favor . He doesn ' t feel Council has any right
to leave to those who follow them a lesser Leesburg than what they
inherited from those who preceded them.
Mr . Frank Reynolds , staff attorney for the Piedmont Environ-
mental Council , said this Council covers a nine-county area up and
down the eastern side of the Blue Ridge and they are generally con-
cerned with planning and planned orderly growth. PEC ' s thrust has
almost always been to support the local governments in their planned
land use programs, both urban and rural . Planned growth actually
1 increases land values overall, since it results in more attractive,
more desirable land and buildings. PEC has long espoused the prin-
ciple of infill in towns - properly regulated infill growth uses
existing roads , uses existing public utilities and facilities, and
strengthens existing businesses . It also reduces the pressure for
00 suburbanization and for development in one of our most vital re-
j. sources , our farmlands. Proper regulations for infill can promote
O affordable, attractive growth and prevent abuses of existing land
patterns. Pipestem lots are a planning tool that you should have
OD in your inventory. Development of such lots increases the tax
[n base of the county and the town; it can raise the value of adjoin-
Q ing properties and it is less expensive to service than in newly
developing areas. This ordinance does not change the minimum lot
sizes set in the town - it merely provides a mechanism for utiliz-
ing odd-shaped, nearly land-locked parcels, which are the non-
productive residue of prior development. However , you must be
sure that your ordinance accomplishes its goals - it does no good
to adopt an ordinance and then hamstring it with provisions that
prevent its effective use. Either adopt an ordinance to promote
IIproper infill, or prohibit it entirely . There are two main areas
of the ordinance as submitted by the Planning Commission which have
elements of unwarranted compromise: (1) "No pipestem lot may abut
another pipestem lot" - adjoining pipestems, properly designed, can
be beneficial and can even create an intimate urban community effect.
(2) "The minimum width of a stem portion shall be thirty feet" - the
original suggestion for stem width is much more in keeping with the
purpose of the ordinance and could produce a much better land use
pattern. A properly drawn ordinance allowing a reasonable number
of adjacent pipestems and a shared driveway will promote the charm
and character of Leesburg. PEC promotes concentrating the growth
in and around the existing towns and business centers , and supports
growth IN before AROUND. He suggests that Council consider the
ordinance as submitted by the Town staff , rather than that of the
Planning Commission. With regard to the number of lots on a pipe-
stem, it is difficult to find a magic number. He suggested trying
to draw proper standards for these types of lots that the developer
and the owner can understand and plan for.
Mayor Sevila said Mr. Reynolds ' comments have been directed
primarily to the infill aspect of the pipestem - what would he
propose for raw acreage? Mr. Reynolds said they foresee in that
a use for private access easements under proper controls - in fact,
they recommended extending the use of such easements to planned de-
I/ velopment housing. Again, they promote development in the town be-
fore around it so that they might use existing services . Mayor
Sevila asked if he feels the staff or Planning Commission ordinance
is adaptable to this sort of situation? Subdivision - not infill?
Mr. Reynolds said it appears that it is, with proper standards .
It is entirely possible that it could be used in the new areas, as
well as in the existing ones .
Mr . Adrian Edwards, of 31 West Cornwall Street, urged that
Council consider Mr. Reynolds ' comments - they have certainly been
the most common sense viewpoint put forth by either side. He is
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
128
a resident of an area where some feel pipestems are a negative.
He also just bought a lot in Brown ' s Meadow and will be building
a home on a pipestem. He has been a builder for four years on his
own and previously worked for one for four years. Why did he choose
a pipestem, when the majority of those in Brown ' s Meadow are not?
The setback from the street greatly enhances the lot so far as he
is concerned - he has a 21 year old child . This is an 18, 000 square
foot lot. Many of the lots on the other side off of North Street
are much smaller than that . His lot is twice as large as a pre-
vious speaker against such lots. If the developer could have gotten
only 12 lots there by Code provisions , the cost of developing that
land would have been high enough that he , personally, could not have
afforded it The same would certainly be true for others . He is mov-
ing from a 6, 000 foot lot to an 18 , 000 foot one, so he can see no
valid objection to Brown ' s Meadow. The objections he has heard
have been totally invalid as far as he is concerned. He hopes
his neighbors will view him with an open mind and that he will prove
to be a good neighbor, but he obviously supports the pipestem amend-
ment. Mayor Sevila asked if the lots adjacent to him are already de-
veloped? Mr. Edwards said they are not, but there are pipestems on
either side of him and there are two in front of him.
Mrs . Louise Patton, of 148 Edwards Ferry Road, said Mr. Edwards
has just said he is the only one on the pipestem where he is building
and that he has 18 , 000t @Pare feet. This is very different from Ed-
wards Ferry Mews , where/wiT1 be five small lots (approximately 8 , 000
square feet, including part of the driveway) - she can' t see how they
are going to get in and out . She is opposed to that type of pipestem.
Mrs. Louise Huller, of 138 East North Street, said pipestems in
existing neighborhoods may violate the concepts accepted by the peo-
ple when they bought their property - the existing neighborhood should
be taken into account when you write your zoning laws so that you do
not infringe upon their rights.
Mr. Kevin Ruedisueli, who has been a resident of Leesburg for
two years , said he has been interested in housing for most of his
life (he has a degree in this, although he works as a carpenter and
designs houses as well) . Leesburg has the diversity others have
talked about, as did Boston and Cambridge, where there has been de-
velopment on infill lots - they were very nice. More than the den-
sity, the quality of what is built is what is important. The input
of local residents is very important - any builder should work with
the neighbors so that it will be nice for everybody. It would be
nice to have some framework in laying out streets in the newer areas -
like in the annexationwherethere will be entirely new ideas. Pipe-
stems can be a nice intimate neighborhood - some people feel safer
in that type of neighborhood. He is in favor of this type of de-
velopment, but with a wary eye as to what is going on. He does
feel 30 feet is too wide though for just a few houses .
Stephen Price, representing a group of neighbors in the area of
the Edwards Ferry Mews Subdivision, felt there are two distinctions
to be made when talking about pipestem subdivisions : (1) Distin-
guish between pipestem lots created on an infill basis in existing
areas in established neighborhoods from the development of real es-
tate in rural areas ; (2) Distinguish pipestem easements or lots on
driveways that serve multuple houses . These differences must be
considered by Council in drafting the ordinance. This point has
been made by many speakers. Tonight is the first opportunity his
clients and other residents of the Edwards Ferry Road area have had
the opportunity of hearing the proponents of pipestem lots . Sudden-
ly thrusting multiple housing units to the rear of existing struc-
tures invades the privacy of the adjoining and existing landowners -
this should be respected in adopting such an ordinance. There are
multiple problems if pipestem lots serve more than one residence.
He has been involved in litigation in rural areas where adjoining
property owners can ' t agree on the use of a common road because they
can ' t agree on the cost of construction and allocation of repairs to
be made. The Town wouldn ' t be responsible for such roads. This is
one of many problems, such as access by emergency vehicles, parking,
etc . Both Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Thomas raised some interesting questions.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
129
Most certainly, the ordinance as proposed is inadequate. Mr.
Reynolds suggested writing performance standards into such regu-
lations - this might be all right in a new subdivision where they
could be met. At the same time , you could also be meeting the prob-
lem of introducing them into infill areas . If pipestems must be
allowed, it should be so drafted so that a similar occurrence such
as Edwards Ferry Mews will not happen again on an infill basis.
The wishes of those already living there should be respected. Mr.
Dickerson said development should be sympathetic to what went on
before - certainly infill by pipestem, such as Edwards Ferry Mews,
is not sympathetic . He asked that Council consider the ordinance
as it has been presented. Obviously, there is disagreement as to
whether or not it encourages or discourages pipestems - it depends
on whose viewpoint you consider it. He feels it encourages pipe-
stems because somehow it seems to be better to divide a particular
tract of land using pipestems, as opposed to more conventional de-
i velopment. It has been suggested that perhaps our standards are
excessive, but let ' s not subvert the already established standards
to allow a back door method of getting around them. If they are
not valid, then let ' s look at the underlying assumptions and make
a change in the basic law. Don ' t just allow and encourage pipestems,
but address the problem head-on.
00
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Price under what sort of subdivision
O plan a piece of property such as Edwards Ferry Mews might be de-
veloped in a way that his clients would find compatible? Mr. Price
said there are some exceptions , but most of the houses in this area
cQ are fairly large ones on large lots . Some of his clients would
Q probably like to see only a single-family dwelling built on that
one-acre lot, which would be in harmony with the rest of the neigh-
borhood. Others might feel that two houses on that lot would be
acceptable, with one being serviced in the rear by a pipestem.
As originally proposed (five houses - now reduced to four) , this
is clearly excessive and introduces a density not in keeping with
the rest of the neighborhood. Most important to them is protecting
the privacy in their back and side yards. They also object to hav-
' ing four households using a private cul-de-sac . Mayor Sevila as-
sumed then that Mr . Price is not opposed to the pipestem as a method
of building on an infill lot? Mr. Price said he has not polled all
his clients concerning this and did not feel he could answer this
for them. Their main concern is excessive development on an infill
basis , using pipestem subdivision as a tool and the ill effects that
can come from a number of households using a private cul-de-sac .
Mr. Juergen Reinhardt, of 158 Edwards Ferry Road, said the two
developments under discussion do not affect him directly, but he is
between them and they do affect his neighbors dramatically. His
concern is safety in crowding . The Town needs to protect all the
people by setting realistic standards for developers so that it is
sensible and the kind we can all live with. If we would look at a
lot in its neighborhood before it is developed , there could be some
pretty quick conclusions as to whether single or multiple pipestems
are acceptable. It seems that some of this development is severely
infringing on the people living around it. He would probably go
along with one or two houses on the Edwards Ferry Mews property, but
he would hate to see the large deep lots along Edwards Ferry Road be
broken up. We should probably allow people to use their land as
they want to, but there should be very strict zoning to make it as
difficult as possible. He would oppose any kind of multiple pipe-
stem development in town or in any development outside of town.
Zoning is a whole series of barriers set up so that development takes
place in a sensible and rational fashion.
Mayor Sevila read into the record a letter from Mr. and Mrs.
William J. McDonald , who object to the pipestem concept for resi-
dential and commercial development in the town. This type of de-
velopment is contrary to all good growth practices and poses a
threat to every owner of property in Leesburg, expecially those
whose property adjoins marginal land that lends itself to this man-
ner of development.
The public hearing was closed and a five-minute recess was de-
clared.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1983 MEETING.
130 Mr . Bos asked that Mr. Peter Dunning be allowed to speak to
Council at this time.
Mr. Dunning said the Board of Directors of the Bluemont Concert
Series , at its October meeting, asked that he find some appropriate
way to thank the Council and the staff for its support in working
together last summer on the Sunday Court House Concerts. In this
light, he presented three singers, "The Gentle Robbers" , who sang
three songs for the Council - this a Christmas gift from the Blue-
mont Concert Series.
Mr . Dunning said they hope to present a 1983 Court House Concert
Series with the town again this coming summer. He is requesting an
appropriation for the coming year, if this is Council ' s desire, and
stated they are willing to work with the town and the staff to pro-
vide this service again. Mr. Willis asked if there will be State
matching funds again this year? Mr. Dunning said the County is will-
ing to submit the grant for us, in fact, they are talking about per-
haps putting in some of their own resources. The State says the
funding is there - he would hope it will be funded at the same level .
They got a full 50 percent funding last year . They won' t know until
eight weeks after March 1st. Mr . Bos suggested that Mr . Dunning
come to the next Finance and Administration Committee meeting. This
would be January 5th.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS :
Mr. Bos said this morning was the kick-off meeting of the
Economic Development Advisory Committee with the representative from
EDAW, the consultant hired for the East Market Street study. They
toured the Route 7 area with the EDAC committee and the citizens ad-
visory committee . He feels they are perceptive to the attributes
of the existing town, as well as to the problem areas - they seem
to be sensitive to all sides of the story so far as their ultimate
recommendations may be. They particularly focused on what is good
about Leesburg and had a number of nice things to say about the
brick sidewalks, signage, etc . Mr. Weiss said they will meet again
next Friday and present what they call "opportunities" and some
conceptual plans and then try to get a consensus from the group
as to what plan is preferred. Based on that, they' ll start develop-
ing some specific design alternatives. Mr. Bos said any council
member is welcome to attend these meetings.
Mr. Bos also noted that a good many people are going the "wrong
way" in the parking lot lately - perhaps the markings have worn down.
Mr . Willis said the Christmas lights are up. He felt it would
be appropriate for the town to send a note to the Vo-Tech to thank
them for their cooperation. He felt they did a nice job and, with-
out their help, the town would have to have done it.
Mr . Coffey felt the resurrection of the Christmas lights was a
job well done - they look good.
Mr. Coffey said he and Mr. Tolbert went into Congressman Wolf ' s
office yesterday with Supervisor Raflo with regard to the Post Of-
fice relocation. His opening statement to the Post Office repre-
sentatives there was that we want it to stay where it is . He was
anxious for Leesburg ' s input and they all tried to contribute. Mr.
Dugan (from the real estate department for the Post Office) was not
aware there was any opposition. He was very attentive to our re-
marks . Representative Wolf asked him if he had ever been to Lees-
burg, which he had not, so Mr. Wolf offered to escort him out here
and let him see what an important part the existing downtown Post
Office plays in the concept of old Leesburg and its convenience for
downtown business .
Mr. Coffey said he attended the EDAC meeting this morning and
was very much impressed with the comments and the way this committee
is functioning and looking at the pros and cons and trying to express
realistic ideas .
Mr. Tolbert said he was amazed that Mr. Dugan of the Post Office
Department had never been to Leesburg. He pointed out that it doesn' t
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
make sense for them to move to a rented facility they would hav
131
to remodel when they already own this one. He also asked if they
were aware of the flooding problem down there. They are going to
reconsider .
MAYOR' S REPORT:
Mayor Sevila expressed his appreciation to the members who
went to Ibp-esentative Wolf ' s office - he has already received a
report and it looks very favorable. He believes it is in the best
interest to keep this post office in the downtown district. He
feels we have made some real progress in that direction.
Also, Mayor Sevila said the present Christmas lights had been
condemned and were going to be trashed . It is through volunteer
contribution and work that they have been recommissioned with new
electrical fixtures and put back up. The Downtown Business Asso-
ciation, members of Council and staff should be commended for this
effort.
MANAGER' S REPORT:
00 Mr. Niccolls said the written Activity Report stands for most
CT items.
C0
Mr. Shope has completed the November Capital Projects Summary,
which brings Council up-to-date on some of the major efforts .
GO
Q Mr. Minor has been working on our first effort at producing a
public information broadcast over cable - a documentary describing
the Potomac River Water Supply facility, its history, current stat-
us of operations and a tour of the plant itself, with the operators
describing the various components . We are looking forward to a
real interesting program. Mr. Minor said he would like to have the
Mayor come down to Storer ' s studio Friday morning between 9 and 12 .
They have only two more interviews to do - his and Mr . Rollins.
He thought this program might be aired Thursday or Friday of next
week. Mr . Niccolls said both Mr . Rollins and Mr . Hill were inter-
viewed for historical perspective on water supply problems and what
has gone on since they were in office - he thinks this kind of video
oral history will have some significance in the future.
The Local Government Commission on Leesburg annexation and its
agreement with Loudoun County hearing will be Tuesday and Wednesday
of next week. There will be a tour of the annexation area for the
three Commissioners - Loudoun County will provide a bus . They are
planning on a fairly simple presentation, with the town ' s efforts
beginning about 1 : 00 p.m. Tuesday and ending that afternoon. Loud-
oun County will begin its presentation Wednesday morning and a joint
presentation on the agreement, similar to what was done for the pub-
lic information meeting, will be given. The formal public hearing
will be conducted by the LCG on Wednesday evening at 7 : 00 p.m. , with
a court reporter present so we will have a verbatim transcript of
that hearing. All of these presentations will be at the County
Board meeting room.
82-0-38 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 10-175 OF THE TOWN CODE.
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
SECTION I . Section 10-175 of the Town Code, When meters in
in operation, is amended to read as follows :
Sec . 10-175 . When meters in operation.
Parking meters installed under the provisions of this
division shall be operated at all times between the hours
of 9 : 00 A.M. and 6 : 00 P .M. on all days except Saturdays,
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
132
Sundays and all legal holidays as established by Section
2 . 1-21 of the State Code .
SECTION II . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its pas-
sage.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
82-0-39 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 2720 , OF THE TOWN CODE,
TIME AND PLACE OF REGULAR MEETINGS .
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Bos , the following
ordinance was proposed :
ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
SECTION I . Section 2-20 of the Town Code is amended to read
as follows :
Sec. 2-20 . Time and place of regular meetings.
Council shall meet regularly at 7 : 30 P .M. the second
and fourth Wednesday in each month in the council chambers
or at such time and place as Council has determined from
time to time.
SECTION II . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its pas-
sage.
Mayor Sevila said the existing Section 2-20 , which is in conformity
with the Town Charter, actually did not allow for Council to sus-
pend or to add an additional public hearing or special meeting dur-
ing a month ' s period of time. The Charter requires that we hold
at least one regularly scheduled meeting per month - 2-20 pro-
vides
that we shall hold at least two per month and the amendment
gives the Council that flexibility he earlier referred to. The
ordinance was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None .
82-162 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AND REFERRING A PROPOSED REVISION
OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDA-
TION UNDER CHAPTER 11 , TITLE 15 . 1 OF THE CODE
OF VIRGINIA AS AMENDED.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
WHEREAS, a recent study indicated that existing land uses
along the south side of a certain area of Edwards Ferry Road
were incompatible with the underlying zoning district; and
WHEREAS , the 1974 Comprehensive Plan proposed multi-family
development in this area; and
WHEREAS , there is a need for a comprehensive approach to re-
zoning in the area;
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
SECTION I . An amendment for the revision of the Zoning Dis-
trict Map as shown on the attached sketch from B-2 to R-4
is initiated and referred to the Planning Commission for
public hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11 , Title
15 . 1 of the Code of Virginia as amended.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
SECTION II . All of the following properties are included 133
in the proposed rezoning : Loudoun House Associates, Lees-
burg Village Associates, Plaza Street Neighborhood Park,
Heritage Square Subdivision Parcels A, B, C and D; and
Honicon Subdivision II .
SECTION III . Zoning Map Amendment number ZM-41A is deferred
pending action on this proposed rezoning.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila .
Nay : None.
COMMENT ON RELOCATION OF DOWNTOWN POSTAL SUBSTATION:
1 Mr . Niccolls said he talked with Bill Kramer, in the Phila-
delphia office of the Postal Service, today and he was quite con-
i cerned that there appears there may be a confrontational situa-
tion between the Post Office and the Town Council of Leesburg.
He indicated their desire to work with the town and to not arbi-
trarily relocate the post office contrary to the wishes of the
council . He asked him to transmit to the council their interest
CO to investigate alternatives to the relocation and to provide the
CT town with an opportunity to study and comment on any other alterna-
O tives they would like to consider. One they had considered briefly
m in the past was a lease-back of the building after sale to a private
party, that sale being subject to the lease-back arrangement. They
En now think there is a possibility of doing this . He passed out to
Q Council a note with some suggested language that is not quite so
strong and indicates what the Post Office Department wants to do.
It may improve our relationship with the real estate people in
Philadelphia. This indicates what they would like to do and, if
we want the same thing, perhaps we can get on the same wave length.
82-163 - RESOLUTION - CONCERNING RELOCATION OF THE DOWNTOWN POSTAL
SUBSTATION.
I/ On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, the U. S . Postal Service asked the Leesburg Town
Council to comment on the proposed relocation of the Down-
town Substation; and
WHEREAS , this Council finds the present location superior to
any other in the downtown area;
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
The U. S . Postal Service is requested to investigate alterna-
tives to relocation of the present downtown substation, in-
cluding sale of the property subject to a leaseback of space
for postal operations, and to provide an opportunity for town
review and for comment on the plans .
Mr. Gheen felt it will be incumbent upon the council to be somewhat
active in this and do whatever they can to see whether or not there
is a possibility of assisting the Post Office in selling this prop-
erty with a lease-back provision. He felt it is within the realm
of possibility that it can be done. The resolution was unanimously
adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay : None.
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr . Bos, Council voted
unanimously to go into executive session, pursuap (hp Section
2 . 1-344 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended discuss legal
matters pertaining to the Potomac River Water Treatment Plant, and
(a) (1) to discuss personnel matters :
134
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 , 1982 MEETING.
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Sevila .
Nay: None.
Council reconvened, with no action taken during executive
session .
On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr . Gheen, Council voted
unanimously to cancel the December 22 , 1982 council meeting :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
On motion of Mr. Gheen, seconded by Mr. Willis, the meeting
was adjourned.
/1j
Mayor
Clerk of he ouncil
1