Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1983_01_26 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, JANUARY 26, 1983 . A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in 149 the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on January 26 , 1983 at 7 : 30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with the invocation given by Mr. Tolbert, and fol- lowed with the Salute to the Flag led by Mr . Coffey. 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, Assistant Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Assistant to Mana- ger for Community Development Marc Weiss, Director of Finance Donald 0. Taylor and Town Attorney George M. Martin. Mr. William B. Hanes, who is a resident of Leesburg, who votes here and pays taxes here and who is also Mr. Sevila ' s law partner) addressed Council concerning a proposed ordinance restricting park- ing on Cornwall Street from Slack Lane to King Street. They (five lawyers and six secretaries) occupy the building at the corner of King and Cornwall Street. Ten of the 11 are residents and taxpayers of the Town of Leesburg. In addition, there are three apartments upstairs, two of them occupied by elderly ladies and the other by one the firm' s young attorneys. In 1979 Council adopted an ordi- nance that initially allowed parking for two hours only unless a OD resident of those two blocks, and residents only could get permits. This was an effort to restrict vehicular parking on this street for O the protection of its residents . The occupants of their building were not aware of the passage of this ordinance at the time and m learned about it upon receipt of parking tickets . Later Council OD amended the ordinance to restrict such parking to all-day parking Q by residents and their guests only. It offended him that his neighbors could park there and he could not (he was a resident of the building for three years from 1978 to 1981) and he has been occupied in the practice of law in that building for 10 years, as has Mr. Sevila. As a result, some of them did some research on this matter - they felt it was not constitutional . They found a Virginia case that was two or three years old - an ordinance passed in Arling- ton County, after which the proposed ordinance on tonight ' s agenda I is modeled (in some cases, almost verbatim) . That ordinance was challenged and went to the Virginia Supreme Court, where it was stricken down as unconstitutional . Arlington County appealed this decision to the U . S . Supreme Court, which upheld the ordinance. The Virginia Court had said that whatever authority local govern- ments may derive from zoning statutes to protect distinctive charac- teristics of residential neighborhoods , such authority does not in- clude the power to adopt ordinances which grant residents a parking monopoly in the public streets of their neighborhood. This is what irritated them - they pay taxes , they live here and work here - how are they suddenly relegated to the status of non-residents. A resi- dent of the street, and even his guest, could get a permit, but he couldn ' t. This case also says the ownership of abutting property gives the owner no right to use the street that is superior to that enjoyed by the public at large - this is the real nub of the whole problem in his opinion. He feels there is a two-prong approach to this problem - one is a legal approach that it is possible, although he doesn ' t think likely, that the town. can pass an ordinance that will satisfy the requirements of a later court scrutiny on constitutional grounds but, more importantly, he doesn ' t feel the town should want to do this . The other approach is the legislative wisdom of such an ordinance - to give the residents of this particular street special rights is not the way to answer the problem, if there is one. This was special interest legislation. It gave those residents an inter- est in the street that no-one else had. All the streets in the his- toric district share this same problem - not enough parking avail- able. Any and all residents of the town would have the same right to ask for this special parking privilege, so you could have the same problem all over town. Eventually you could close out the world from the charming historical town that we want to thrive and share with the public . This is hardly promotive of the historic nature of the town and protective of it - rather, it seems to be destructive. Where will it all end? Other towns of historic interest - Alexandria, Georgetown, Fredericksburg, Warrenton, Williamsburg -- all have the same parking problems, but they have no restrictions . Further, the town' s approach is inconsistent - Joe Ritenour was allowed to build MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. 150 condominium offices in the historic district, in which there is no requirement for parking . This doesn ' t make sense. There was some thought among the town representatives that Judge Aiken was anti- town. " He had agreed not to hear the case, but Mr. Mechling felt there was no problem with this . His one-page letter basically said that the equal protection clause requires only that the distinction drawn by an ordinance like Arlington ' s rationally promoted the regu- lation' s objectives. The Supreme Court held that the Arlington ordinance, on its face, met that test. The town ' s first ordinance had no objectives and the Supreme Court says you have to have them. In legislative wisdom, he did not feel the town should pass such an ordinance - it should not get to the second step at all . Both the Virginia and U. S. Supreme Court cases say the Council cannot address this situation by giving a propietary interest in the street to the residents who reside thereon. He does not believe the town can pass such an ordinance - it will be tested if it does. He urged Council to reject this ordinance entirely, as do the other occupants of the building who are here tonight. Look at it in a- nother light and from the whole town ' s point of view. Mr . Bos said one of the choices the town may have to face sooner or later is a multi-story downtown parking facility - the cost would be extremely high. He asked Mr . Hanes if he, both as a resident and a businessman, would support the town partially subsidizing this? Mr . Hanes said he would support it and knows it would be costly. If you don ' t support and create more parking in the downtown area, it will deteriorate - the historic and downtown area are what make Leesburg. It seems inconsistent that the downtown lot is always crowded, yet the town employees park there - then the town tells them they can ' t park on Cornwall Street. He feels a multi-story parking facility is inevitable and they would support it. Mrs. Hill said Georgetown does have permit parking - they have had it for about five years . Mr . Richard Saunders , a partner of Mr. Hanes, said there are another eight people here , most of whom are residents and taxpayers of Leesburg, all of whom support Mr. Hanes ' comments . He objects to the ordinance for the same reasons, though it does not speci- fically mention Cornwall Street. He understands that, if this ordi- nance is adopted, the town can later have studies done and desig- nate other streets without further hearing. He assumes that this ordinance is a response to the unconstitutionality of the specific Cornwall Street ordinance. This would be the first step, then the manager would commission a study of Cornwall Street, and nobody would know anything about it. They would not have the right to complain. He considers this a subtrefuge and urges Council not to pass this ordinance until specific problems come to light. Give the residents of Cornwall Street a chance to come here and learn the facts. Mr. Stanley Caulkins said the town will have to have some sort of general obligation bond to put in a two or three-tier parking area. The viable economics of downtown Leesburg depend on parking. He is not representing that group, nor the Downtown Business Asso- ciation, though he is a member of DBA, a merchant and a resident of Leesburg. He can ' t get Council to address itself to parking. Somebody has to bite the bullet. The Vinegar Hill lot was bought because DBA strenuously asked Council to do this, but it is not used. They still feel it is a good thing and there are three years to go. The town can' t possibly do away with it, but they will not put the town employees down there. They occupy something like 14 spaces - they are entitled to spaces for the Manager, the Police Chief , police cars and other management positions , but the secre- taries and others can walk - it ' s less than 400 paces from Vinegar Hill to the town office. Council is going to have to allocate some money to studies to tackle parking in their budget hearings . If Council is not going to do anything about it, then forget downtown Leesburg - if you can ' t get the people in and out and service them, then you can ' t do anything with them. There are many bus tours that come here and the Town and the County are working beautifully together to promote and advertise Historic Leesburg. There are no bathroom facilities, other than one in the Museum. Parking is a major prob- lem in town. On holidays the parking lot is empty. The 10-hour MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. 5i 1 meters are occupied on normal working days by those workers who come before 8 a.m. - the town meter maid parks there. Parking is as important as water and sewer works and annexation and Council is trying to bring people to this area, so something has to be done. Mayor Sevila said Mr. Caulkins did not specifically address the method in the proposed ordinance for dealing with restricted parking in residential areas as a method of dealing with the problem he men- tioned. Mr. Caulkins said this ordinance does not say anything about Cornwall Street. He did not feel it makes sense - it is poorly done. He is opposed to it until it is in better form. Mr. Doug Fleming, also an associate of Mr . Hanes and Mr . Se- vila, considers himself a resident of Cornwall Street - his apart- ment resides on Cornwall Street . He didn ' t attempt to receive a residential parking sticker when he first moved into the build- ing as a matter of principle , although he believed he would have been entitled to one. He doesn ' t believe there is a problem there. There are 10 to 12 parking spaces on Cornwall Street in the even- ings - he has always been able to park right beside his apartment. The only time there is a parking problem is in the mornings of busi- m ness days . He has driven around on other streets trying to find a parking place and the problem is universal - it is pervasive. He doesn ' t feel passage of this ordinance would withstand constitu- CD tional muster - it just isn ' t fair. Though he is probably speak- OD ing against his best interest, he doesn ' t think he has a right to m have a piece of the street just because he lives there. He didn 't Q feel any resident of that street could say they have a problem that is any more or less acute than residents in the entire perimeter of the historic district. He urged council to defeat this ordinance tonight - it is not proper and he didn ' t think there was a problem in the first place . He concurred with the remarks already made. COUNCILMEMBERS ' COMMENTS : Mr. Bos said a couple of staff members and he went to Richmond yesterday to speak to the Senate Committee on Local Government to promote the annexation bill on voluntary agreements . It went through committee with just one negative vote. The County people and our staff and Mr. Jolly had made some contacts. He didn ' t feel there will be a problem next week with the Senate. Mr. Bos said the Economic Development Advisory Committee was presented this morning with the initial conceptual plan by the con- sultant doing the East Market Street study. These people are quali- fied and came up with some exciting ideas and essentially have the full participation of the businessmen' s. committee. These consult- ants and the EDAC have gotten participation from the local business people on Route 7 and are getting their suggestions and guidance. This is the key to what might be done. Sooner or later, the council will be facing some hard decisions on design criteria and spending public funds for some of the improvements. Both the public and pri- vate sectors are working very well together and he is very much pleased. Mr. Bos also welcomed Martha Semmes to the staff - she is work- ing with Marc Weiss and Bob Forbes on the Comprehensive Plan. She is highly qualified. Mr. Gheen noticed the town has done some work on the right-of- way along the hike and bike trail along Dry Mill Road - it looks very nice and improves that end of town. He hoped they will be planting some grass seed on the sides by spring . Mr . Niccolls said this will be done. Mrs . Hill called attention to a letter from Tom O' Rourke con- cerning the museum - they are proceeding with the changes they asked for . They discovered, when they got the ceiling off of the middle room, that it was allone story at one time with a loft over it. Also, the door going into the east side of the building was a win- dow at one time and one of the windows was a door. They found a lot of original old doors and believe the old original museum was built onto the one-story building and the second story of the Odd Fellows building was built onto the museum. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING . 152 Mr. Coffey was interested in the item concerning vandalism of signs . Mr. Niccolls explained that the first estimate was high - they find they can be repaired for about $100 . Mr. Tolbert reported that the Airport Commission met the other night with a representative from the consulting firm, who presented a draft of the airport master plan and layout plan, along with a marketing brochure. They should have a final draft in the next couple of weeks . MAYOR' S REPORT: Mayor Sevila said Mr. Willis asked several meetings ago about a sign on the exit from the southbound Route 15 By-Pass at Route 7 . He asked if we have to go through the Highway Department to have this sign lifted above the eye level of the driver? Mr. Niccolls said Mr . Shope met with someone from the Highway Department resi- dency office and they sent a letter - it was their conclusion at that time that there is no solution. He felt that perhaps they were looking at the wrong sign. Mayor Sevila said the one he is talking about literally blocks three-quarters of your window if you are looking east to see if anything is coming. Obviously, they must be looking at the wrong sign. MANAGER' S REPORT: Mr . Niccolls said a written Activity Report was delivered to members on Monday. We now have printed copies of Senate Bill 219, to which Mr. Bos referred. It has been reported favorably to the Senate Floor for action. We do not have a date yet for House Committee action. Memory Porter , from the County, advises that the House Committee on Cities, Towns and Counties is expected to refer it to subcom- mittee, which we had not hoped for. We have asked for copies of the Bill introduced by Delegate Rollins concerning proffer au- thority to put our proffer authority on the same footing as Loud- oun County ' s authority. Mrs . Semmes has begun her duties - her first task will be to basically prepare a detailed work program - an outline of the Com- prehensive Plan activities . She will be at the next committee meeting for introduction. They are looking forward to appointment of the Planning Task Force. There is a report attached to the Activity Report concerning performance bonuses. He hopes Council will review this and respond with a great deal of pride to the recommendations made by the de- partment directors. 83-0-3 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 12 . 1 OF THE TOWN CODE . On motion of Mr. Bos , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following ordinance was proposed: ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . Section 12 . 1-10 of the Town Code, the classifica- tion of town employees by occupational group and pay grades, is amended as follows : Sec. 12 . 1-10 . Classification of town employees by occupa- tional groups and pay grades . Employees in the town service are classified in the fol- lowing occupational groups and pay grades : Occupational Pay Groups Positions Grade Executive-Managerial Deputy Manager 17 Assistant Manager for Planning and Development 17 Director of Planning & Zoning 16 , MINITES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING . Occupational Pay 153 Groups Positions Grade Executive-Managerial Director of Public Works 16 Director of Finance 17 " " Director of Engineering 19 " " Director of Utility Plants 16 Law Enforcement Parking Meter Attendant 4 Police Private 10 " " Private First Class 11 " " Corporal 12 Sergeant 13 " " Investigator 13 " " Lieutenant 14 II IIChief of Police 16 Administrative-Clerical Secretary 6 " Police Clerk 6 � Receptionist/Secretary 6 " " Billing Clerk 7 " Accounting Clerk 7 " " Administrative Assistant 9 " " Administrative Assistant- COEngineering 8 " Executive Secretary 9 Accounting Supervisor 9 " Clerk of Council 10 m Supervisory Shop Superintendent 12 m I, Water Supply Superintendent 14 a " Street Superintendent 13 " Utility Lines Superintendent 14 " WPCF Superintendent 14 Technical Utility Maintenance Assistant 7 Senior Equipment Operator 8 " Meter Mechanic 8 " WPCF Operator Assistant 8 " Water Supply Operator B 7 I " Assistant Street Superintendent 10 WPCF Operator A 11 WPCF Operator B 10 " Assistant Utility Lines Superintendent 10 II Assistant Water Supply Superintendent 12 " Utility Plant Maintenance Foreman 12 " , Laboratory Technician 11 I " Assistant WPCF Superintendent 12 " Facility Inspector 14 Construction/Mainte- nance Laborer 5 " Maintenance Person 7 " " Laborer part-time 4 " " Mechanic 7 SECTION II . This ordinance shall be effective for payrolls beginning January 1, 1983 . Mr . Bos felt this is a good position for the town and we have quali- fied employees to fill these two changes . Mayor Sevila said this matter was hashed out thoroughly at the committee meeting last week II and it was thoroughly justified - he intends to support it. Though he questioned it, his comments were not directed to the man who will fill the position - Marc Weiss is extremely qualified and talented and we are very fortunate to have him. These new organizational re- structurings are going to be of ultimate benefit to all of us . Mr . Coffey said he is not opposed to the general idea of this - he under- stands that part of this is due to the pending annexation. However, he asked if this is a premature situation? If annexation should not pass , do we have a situation where we would have to backtrack? Part of the appointment is to assume additional responsibilities in con- nection with the annexation, as he understands it. Mr. Niccolls said this is a concern and they are aware that there is some possibility (however slight) that the annexation agreement may not be culminated in a court order effective January 1 , 1984 . However, we took this MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING . 154 approach in thinking about what we would do if it is disapproved because of the General Assembly ' s failure to act (this would be the only reason the agreement would not be put in effect in Janu- ary 1984) . We will need this same work regardless of whether this annexation is in effect or not and, in fact, we may need it more. He felt we should proceed immediately - this is why we have recom- mended the Planning Task Force begin work immediately and why we have recommended this whole operation. The ordinance was unani- imously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. • 83-0-4 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE. 83-0-5 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG SUBDIVISION AND LAND DE- VELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION OF THE TOWN CODE. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr . Gheen, the following ordinances were proposed: 33-0-4 - Leesburg Zoning Ordinance. WHEREAS, on September 8 , 1982 amendments to the Leesburg Zon- ing Ordinance regarding pipestem lots were initiated; and WHEREAS, on October 7 , 1982 , the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to express their views; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 1982 , the Commission forwarded their recommendations to Council; and WHEREAS, on November 24 , 1982 , the Council held a public hear- ing at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to express their views : THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . Add Section 8-2-11-9 , Pipestem and Irregular Lots, to read as follows : 8-2-11-9 Pipestem and Irregular Lots . Main buildings and accessory structures on pipestem or irregular lots subdivided under Sections 13-75 or 13-91 of the Town Code shall be located within the building lines shown on the final plat of the subdivision in which the lot is located. Required off-street parking on pipestem lots shall not be located on the stem portion of the lot or common driveway servicing more than one pipestem lot. Re- quired off-street parking on pipestem lots shall be connected to a street by a driveway with a minimum pavement width of 14 feet which shall be paved as required by the Leesburg Public Facilities Manual . Not more than three pipestem lots shall be served by a common driveway. The provisions of Section 2-7-1 (o) of this Ordi- nance shall not apply to lots authorized by this section. SECTION II . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its pas- sage. 83-0-5 - Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. WHEREAS, on September 8 , 1982 , amendments to the Leesburg Sub- division and Land Development Regulations regarding pipestem lots were initiated; and MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING . 155 WHEREAS , on October 7 , 1982 , the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to express their views; and WHEREAS , on October 21, 1982 , the Commission forwarded their recommendations to Council; and WHEREAS, on November 24 , 1982 , the Council held a public hear- ing at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to express their views : THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . Section 13-75 of the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regulations is amended to read as follows : 13-75 . Lots . (a) Lot dimensions shall comply with the minimum require- ments of zoning regulations for area and width unless varied as authorized in Sections 13-63 and 13-91 or herein. CD st (b) Side lot lines shall be generally at right angles O or radial to street right-of-way lines unless a variation from m this rule will give a better lot layout. Double frontage lots are permitted except that such lots which abut a major or pri- m mary or thoroughfare shall be provided with a separating buffer Q strip of land at least two feet in width without the right of access across such strip. (c) Every residential lot shall abut a public or private street. (d) Lots, to be known as pipestem lots, may be approved which do not meet yard and lot width requirements of the zon- ing regulations provided the proposed lots will preserve natu- ral features which through standard lot layout would be lost or the proposed lots will reduce vehicular access points to non-local streets or the proposed lots permit better utiliza- tion of irregularly shaped tracts on an infill basis. The stem of a pipestem lot is a narrow strip of land connecting the buildable portion of the lot with a street for the purpose of providing vehicular, pedestrian and utility access . Every pipestem lot shall comply with the following standards : (1) The minimum overall area for a subdivision contain- ing pipestem lots shall be four acres . (2) No more than five pipestem lots shall abut. ( 3) The maximum distance between the abutting public or private street and the front building line on any pipestem lot shall be 250 lineal feet. (4) The stem of any pipestem lot shall be excluded from the computation of lot area in determining compliance with zoning regulations . (5) The front, side and rear building lines for all pipe- stem lots shall be shown on the final plat. (6) The minimum width of the stem of a pipestem lot sepa- rated from any other pipestem lot shall be 20 feet. The minimum combined width of adjacent stems of pipe- stem lots, where a common driveway or accessway is to be provided, shall be 20 feet. The width of adja- cent stems of pipestem lots where separate driveways or accessways are to be provided shall be 20 feet. (7) The stems of pipestem lots shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility of the owners of the lots. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING . 156 At the time of recordation of a subdivision plat, the subdivider shall simultaneously record deed restrictions or covenants in form and substance satisfactory to the town attorney which shall pro- vide for the maintenance and use of the stems . (8) The provisions of paragraph (d) of this section do not apply to the lots created under Section 13-63 . SECTION II . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its pas- sage. Mr. Niccolls explained that there are two changes in the latter ordi- nance since the last meeting. The substantive change would prohibit any subdivision containing pipestem lots in subdivisions of less than four acres . Council received a report showing a survey and calcula- tions of where they might be used on an infill basis in Leesburg (less than 150 under the regulations then being considered) . Council decided that, pending a complete overhaul and review of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, they would like to stop the use of pipestem lots on an infill basis. By adding a new paragraph (1) and renumber- ing all the later paragraphs, this ordinance would do so. On page 2, paragraph (1) , the technical change would be "The minimum overall area for a subdivision " Mr. Bos said there is concern on all their parts as to the complexity of the infill issue - this is essen- tially the purpose of the four-acre minimum lot size now. This could easily end up being a permanent ordinance and let it essentially die. However, they have all agreed that is not their intent - that the pipestemming concept does have some intriguing possibilities if it is carefully done - he doesn ' t want to see it die. He suggested an amend- ment to both ordinances, for an expiration time - he suggested a six- month deadline. Mayor Sevila said it was the sense of the committee last week that the entire zoning and subdivision ordinances would have to be amended in connection with the annexation. Six months was talked about as a limit and even shorter limits suggested. He asked Mr . Bos if he would be willing to wait in light of this? Mr. Bos didn ' t want to see this dropped and preferred to get it on the floor. Mayor Sevila asked, procedurally, what would be the effect of the Council ' s failure to act within six months under this addition? Mr. Bos sus- pected it would revert to the present ordinance, which is sort of a lack of control at this point . Mrs. Hill agreed. Mayor Sevila said the infill problem is more complicated than originally anticipated and it was decided that this and the problem in connection with an- nexation could be taken into consideration later . He felt the senti- ment is present to keep this moving along and not let it die. He sug- gested that, rather than attaching it to this ordinance (it could potentially be harmful) , the best thing would be to prod the commit- tee to make sure something is reported out on the calendar in six months . Mr. Bos and Mrs. Hill still felt there should be something firm in the ordinance - it could be re-evaluated later . That could be stricken from the ordinance at that time - it would be very simple. Mr. Niccolls said the time table on revisions is a year . On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr. Willis, it was proposed to amend Section II of each of these ordinances to read : SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage and remain in effect for a period of one year thereafter . There was further discussion between Mr. Bos and Mrs . Hill on this mat- ter . Mayor Sevila said he shares their interest, but he does not feel this is a procedurally sound way to go about it. We would be building in a penalty, this being to revert back to an ordinance which they all concede is not a good one - this should be the in- centive to compel them to act within that year ' s time or before then if they are not satisfied. This is not likely to die with people like Mr. Bos, who will make sure that staff and council are working on it. This way they could end up with a penalty harsher than they are will- ing to accept - a subdivision that would be entirely permissible under . the current zoning ordinance and which Mr. Martin might concede would have to be passed - this would not be acceptable to any of them. He, therefore, felt this amendment should be defeated. Mr. Gheen agreed with this . The proposed amendment was withdrawn by the makers . 157 MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. Mr. Coffey wanted to see a limit of one single-family resi- dence on a single pipestem, rather than multiple pipestems and no duplex-type units . On motion of Mr. Coffey, seconded by Mrs. Hill, it was proposed that Section 8-2-11-9 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to read as follows : Main buildings and accessory structures on pipestem or irregular lots subdivided under Sections 13-75 or 13-91 of the Town Code shall be located within the building lines shown on the final plat of the subdivision in which the lot is located . Required off-street parking on pipe- stem lots shall not be located on the stem portion of the lot. Required off-street parking on pipestem lots shall be connected to a street by a driveway with a minimum pave- ment width of 14 feet which shall be paved as required by the Leesburg Public Facilities Manual . No more than one pipestem lot shall be served by a driveway. Also, Sec . 13-75 (d) (6) and (7) of the Subdivision Ordinance to be amended to read as follows : (6) The minimum width of the stem of a pipestem lot sepa- rated from any other pipestem lot shall be 20 feet. (7) The stem of a pipestem lot shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility of the owner of the lot. Mr . Bos said the committee essentially agreed that the pipestemming concept was good planning if carefully done, although they ran into the problem with infill . He felt that limiting it to just one pipe- stem cuts the heart out of it to the point that he suggested they just scrap this and outlaw pipestems altogether . Mr . Coffey felt that, leaving it open, you will be designing subdivisions on a pipestem, using it as a tool to design. Mr. Bos felt this is highly desirable in certain areas and, since we can ' t solve the infill problem now, we are limiting it to four acres. Mrs. Hill said if we go back to one stem, we could get rid of the four acres . Mr. Gheen referred to 13-75 (d) , which defines why pipestems may be desirable. It seems this is reasonable at this point. The most effective thing now is that the minimum overall area for pipestem lots is four acres . If you restrict it to one lot, you will certainly not have many takers, just as he thinks there will not be many takers with a four-acre lim- it. He didn ' t feel we should go to that extreme. Mayor Sevila asked how many lots in the existing town limits would meet the requirements and thereby be permitted to have pipe- stem lots? Mr. Weiss said the only ones that would meet that cri- teria would be three of the larger tracts already identified on the map (he pointed these out) - they could be subdivided either con- ventionally or with pipestems - they are approximately the same size as Brown ' s Meadow and this was clearly a good use pipestem. Mayor Sevila said Brown ' s Meadow may be a good use and we may have been fortunate that it occurred under an ordinance which contained no regulations whatsoever. He believed the committee wanted this ordi- nance to reflect the maximum size of any lots that were available in the community. Mr. Niccolls said this distinction needs to be made by council - there were tracts not colored on the map and the map may have misled councilmembers . The policy choice of limiting them should be done by council ' s subjective evaluation of how large I/ a subdivision should be, rather than the staff saying what tracts it will apply to. He didn ' t feel the line has any meaningful relevance to a planning consideration. Mayor Sevila felt it does have rele- vance in one respect - it would give them the safety of six months to a year to do the general overhauling so that it could be done in an enlightened way. Councilmembers have specific problems with the ordinance and he felt that the purpose in setting it at four acres or above was to give us breathing room to give it the study it re- quires. Mr. Niccolls said if you don ' t want pipestems, then make it 20 or 100 or whatever . Mr. Bos agreed with this. Mr. Coffey said this was not his intent - he was thinking of something like Brown ' s Meadow that has single pipestem design - this would make it the sole 158 MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. responsibility of one owner . Mayor Sevila said the purpose of put- ting in this four-acre provision was to relieve us of the jeopardy or danger that there would be a rush of infill applications that they didn ' t feel they had an opportunity to examine. He felt this protection is in the ordinance proposed now. There are some speci- fic disagreements among council as to what is to be done as a de- velopment technique or tool . By adopting this ordinance tonight, all we are doing is addressing the infill problem on a very tempor- ary basis, the idea being that we will come back and look at it in greater detail when we are looking at the entire zoning and subdi- vision ordinances. This would be the time to address the particular problems in larger tracts of land that would meet the four-acre requirement. He asked Mr. Coffey to consider this as a valid basis. Mr. Coffey said he has been considering this for a long time - this does not really satisfy his concern. The proposed amendments were defeated by a vote of 6 to 1 : Aye : Councilmember Coffey. Nay: Councilmembers Bos, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila . Mr. Bos asked if anyone is going to be upset if a developer comes in and wants to develop a five-acre tract with pipestems? Mr. Coffey said he will be. Mayor Sevila said he wanted to know if there were any such tracts . Mr. Niccolls said the problem was in defining "in- fill" - if this is passed, then infill is anything less than four acres. Mr. Gheen said it is a calculated risk. Mayor Sevila acknowledged a letter from Mrs . Linda East, in which she is concerned about the particular provision relating to the four-acre minimum and the amount of time it will take council to act on this. The two ordinances, as originally proposed, were adopted by a vote of 5 to 2 : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Gheen, Hill , Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: Councilmembers Coffey and Tolbert. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIONS ON PARKING IN DISTRICTS IN WHICH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES ARE NOT PERMITTED. On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Willis , Council voted unanimously to waive the reading of the proposed ordinance : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Willis, an ordinance establishing restrictions on parking in districts in which commer- cial and industrial uses are not permitted was proposed. Mayor Sevila said he declined to take part in the consideration of this matter at committee meeting last week, his reason being that he owned property on Cornwall Street. Upon reconsidering this, he does not think he has a conflict of interest and it is not neces- sary to disqualify himself for this reason. This is not really a Cornwall Street ordinance - it does not identify Cornwall Street as a problem, but is a historic district problem. He does intend to take part and vote on the action. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Hill, motion was made and unanimously adopted to table this matter : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. Mrs. Hill felt the town ' s attorney should be present when this matter is discussed again. Mr . Bos suggested that any councilmembers who have concern about some of the specific points mentioned tonight talk with staff ahead of time so that they might gather any pertinent information regarding specific items . MINUTES_ OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. 5(, PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMMISSION PERMIT. J On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, a proposed resolution to approve a commission permit for use by the County of 42 Edwards Ferry Road as a family care home for the mentally retarded and 34 Edwards Ferry Road for use as a county office was proposed. After discussion of this matter, it was felt that it would be inappropriate to approve this permit before the com- mittee members have had a chance to talk to the neighbors in the area to explain further the use of these buildings . Mr. Estes, Director of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for the County, was not sure whether this would delay action by the County. Mr . Weiss understood it is scheduled for action on February 15 . Mr. Niccolls said Council meets again on February 9 , so it was de- cided this would have no adverse effect to delay the matter . Mr . Niccolls said there was some mandatory time built into this process because of BZA action and the County knew about this. Mr. Bos empha- sized that this is not lack of support on the part of the Council . The motion to approve the permit was rescinded by the makers. On motion of Mr. Willis , seconded by Mrs. Hill , Council voted unani- mously to defer this matter to the next Council meeting on February 9 : OD iq Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis Q and Mayor Sevila. m Nay : None. m Mayor Sevila declared a 10-minute recess. Council reconvened Q at 9 : 45 p.m. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SECTION 2-87 OF THE TOWN CODE . On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Hill, a proposed ordinance establishing a bad check fee was proposed. After dis- cussion, it was felt this needed further discussion. The motion was rescinded by the makers and, on motion of Mr . Gheen, seconded I by Mrs . Hill, Council voted unanimously to refer this matter back to committee : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis I and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-11 - RESOLUTION - APPROVING AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE NO- VEMBER 15 , 1982 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF LOUDOUN . On motion of Mr. Gheen, seconded by Mrs. Hill , the following resolution was proposed : WHEREAS , the Commission on Local Government convened in the Board of Supervisor ' s Meeting Room on Tuesday and Wednesday, December 14 and 15 , 1982 to receive a presentation from the town and the county and to hold a public hearing on the An- nexation Agreement; and WHEREAS, comments regarding the Agreement were received from the Commission and from the public; and WHEREAS , these comments have been carefully considered by the Annexation Negotiations Teams for the town and the county and the Teams have recommended certain amendments to the Agreement: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . The November 15, 1982 Annexation Agreement between the Town and the Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County shall be amended as follows : MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. 160 (1) Paragraph 5 of the Agreement should read as follows : Total Immunity. The Board of Supervisors agrees to waive its right to file for total immunity under Virginia Code Section 15 . 1-977 . 21 for areas within the Town of Leesburg until January 1 , 2014 or until a final decision, including appeals on any Leesburg city transition action filed be- tween January 1 , 2009 and December 31, 2013 . (2) Paragraph 6 of the Agreement should read as follows : Partial Immunity. In the event the town files a city transition between January 1 , 200.9 and December 31, 2013, the Board of Supervisors would retain its right to file a petition for partial immunity under Virginia Code Sec- tion 15 . 1-977 . 22 : 1 and have said petition heard in the manner prescribed in Virginia Code Section 15 . 1-977 . 20 . The Board of Supervisors hereby waives its right to file a petition for partial immunity prior to the filing of a town transition petition for areas within the Town of Lees- burg until January 1 , 2009 . ( 3) Paragraph 1 of the EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES POLICIES of the Annexation Area Development Policies should read as follows : The town shall acquire six school sites of the type and size indicated below, when warranted by rezoning actions which increase density in the annexation area. A. Elementary : 4 at 15 acres each B. Middle: 1 . 5 at 25 acres each C. High : 1 . 5 at 40 acres each (4) Paragraph 2 of the commentary under Water and Sewer of the Annexation Area Development Policies should read as fol- lows : The enlarged town limits have been established as a bound- ary line beyond which central water and sewer service should not be provided in order to concentrate growth in and around the town with the exception that the town may choose to serve either the recreational use approved by the Board of Supervisors on the property identified as Tax Map 14 , Parcel 32 (J. R. Goodtimes , Inc . , Festival Lake Park) or the industrial use approved by the Board of Supervisors on the property identified as Tax Map 61, Par- cel 4 (East Leesburg Hills) . SECTION II . These amendments shall be executed by the mayor on behalf of the Town Agreement and submitted to the Commission on Local Government. Mr. Niccolls explained there was a technical correction to reflect in the agreement a five-year time period instead of six. There was a similar error under Partial Immunity for a county limitation. There was an inconsistent reference to the number of school sites anticipated to be required in the annexed territory. There was al- so a correction which had to do with the extension of future water and sewer service to the property known as East Leesburg Hills, which is partially in and partially out of the new annexation area. This would extend to the area partially out the privilege of future water and sewer service, though it is beyond the new corporate lim- its. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-12 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT, APPROVING A PERFORM- ANCE BOND AND APPROVING WATER AND SEWER EXTEN- SIONS FOR WESTGREEN SUBDIVISION. On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following reso- lution was proposed and unanimously adopted : MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING . RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginial 6l as follows : SECTION I . The manager is authorized and directed to execute the contract for public improvements for Westgreen Subdivi- sion. SECTION II . A letter of credit from Farmers & Marchants Nat- ional Bank of Hamilton in the amount of $67 , 523 . 50 guarantee- ing installation of public improvements in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Engineering for Westgreen Subdivision is approved. SECTION III . Extension of municipal water and sewer facili- ties is approved for this development. SECTION IV. This resolution is in effect upon approval of the contract, the letter of credit and extension permits by the Town Attorney. Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. OD Nay : None. 'Cr 83-13 - RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING DEED OF EASEMENT FROM NATIONAL CHILD- REN' S CENTER AND ALFRED A. AND HARRY C . PERRY & m ASSOCIATES FOR CATOCTIN CIRCLE WEST. CD Q On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Bos, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The Deed of Easement made the 23rd day of November, 1982 by and between National Children ' s Rehabilitation Center and Alfred A. and Harry C. Perry and the Town of Leesburg for j I construction and maintenance of an extension of Catoctin Circle is hereby accepted. Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-14 - RESOLUTION - WISHING RADIO WAGE "HAPPY TWENTY-FIFTH ANNI- VERSARY" . On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs . Hill , the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted : WHEREAS, Radio WAGE will be celebrating its twenty-fifth year on the air waves on March 7 , 1983; and WHEREAS, Radio WAGE has been providing news coverage, important information and entertainment to the citizens of Leesburg and surrounding areas over these twenty-five years; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The Mayor and the Council of the Town of Leesburg wish to say "Happy Twenty-fifth Anniversary WAGE Radio" and many, many more. Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. 83-15 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING KEEP LOUDOUN BEAUTIFUL' S ANNUAL CLEAN-UP . On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Gheen, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted : MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. 162 WHEREAS, Leesburg is blessed with unusual natural beauty; and WHEREAS , past efforts by many individuals and organizations have contributed to keeping this beauty unspoiled; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . The Leesburg Town Council hereby declares April 1 through April 18 , 1983 as Spring Clean-up Weeks. SECTION II . The Leesburg Town Council urges all families, businesses, organizations , clubs and groups, governmental as well as private, to cooperate with Keep Loudoun Beautiful in this worthy effort to benefit the Town of Leesburg. Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. 83-16 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO LEESBURG PLANNING COMMIS- SION. On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Gheen, the following resolution was proposed : WHEREAS, the terms of office of Lynnwood L. Lay and Mervin J. Jackson as members of the Leesburg Planning Commission expire on December 31 , 1982 ; RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : Lynnwood L. Lay and Mervin J. Jackson are hereby reappointed to the Leesburg Planning Commission for a term of four years, the terms of office to expire on December 31 , 1986 . Mrs. Hill said both have been very conscientious members .- Mr. Jack- son has missed only two meetings in eight years - and she recommends both of them for reappointment. The resolution was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-17 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING STRUCTURAL ALTERATION OF THE LOUDOUN MUSEUM BUILDING AT 20 SOUTH WIRT STREET. On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Bos, the following reso- lution was proposed and unanimously adopted after brief discussion: WHEREAS, the Loudoun Museum, Inc . requested authorization for certain structural alterations of the building leased by the town to the Museum at 20 South Wirt Street; and WHEREAS , the lease agreement between the town and the Museum requires approval by the town for any structural alterations : THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The Loudoun Museum, Inc . is authorized to perform structural alterations to the lower level of 20 South Wirt Street (Odd Fellows Hall film room) as described in a January 6 , 1983 re- quest for bids issued by Loudoun Museum, Inc . provided, however , acoustical tile is not used on the ceiling in the new film room to be constructed west of the new load bearing partition. Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. 83-18 - RESOLUTION - SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING. 1 6 3 On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, an application has been received from J. Lynn Corn- well, Jr. , Trustee for Sycolin Partnership, requesting amend- ment of a proffer submitted April 9 , 1980 setting forth cer- tain conditions which became a part of rezoning request ZM-28; and WHEREAS , Section 15. 1-491 . 6 of the Virginia Code provides that there shall be no amendment or variation of conditions created pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 . 1-491. 2 of the Vir- ginia Code until after a public hearing before the governing body advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15. 1-431 : THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : A Notice of public hearing to consider the application' of J. Lynn Cornwell , Jr. , Trustee for Sycolin Partnership, for amend- OD ment of a proffer submitted April 9 , 1980 setting forth certain conditions which began a part of rezoning request ZM-28 shall O be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on February 3 , 1983 and February 10, 1983 for a public hearing on February 23, 1983 m at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers . QAye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. Mr. Niccolls said we have had no experience in handling an amendment to a proffer, so there is a question as to whether Council wants to refer this to the Planning Commission for further comment. There is time before the hearing for the Commission to review it. Mr . Bos felt it would be appropriate for them to comment on a�tl aSt was the sentiment of the Council that Mrs . Hill take this totommisswbnfor dis- cussion before the Town ' s public hearing. 83-19 - RESOLUTION - REVISING FISCAL YEAR 1983 APPROPRIATIONS . On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Bos, the following reso- lution was proposed : WHEREAS, the manager recommends the purchase of equipment for the street and utility lines divisions ' lunchrooms in recog- nition of exceptional performance of personnel of these divi- sions during 1982 : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . The appropriation from the general fund to account number 4600 . 108 , performance bonuses, for fiscal year 1983 is reduced by $750 . 00 . SECTION II . A $600 . 00 appropriation is made from the general fund to account number 4301 . 704 , buildings, equipment/fixtures, for fiscal year 1983 . Mr. Gheen asked if this means we are having a savings of $150 . 00? Mr . Niccolls said this was what was left, so we just wiped out the rest of the appropriation. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. 83-20 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR END- ING JUNE 30 , 1983 . On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Willis, the following resolution was proposed: MINUTES OF JANUARY 26 , 1983 MEETING. 164 RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : An appropriation is made from the General Fund to Account Num- ber 4102 . 701 , Harrison Street Construction, in the amount of $1500 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983 . Neither Mrs . Hill nor Mr. Willis remembered that this matter came before their committees. Mr. Niccolls said the Public Works Com- mittee has been concerned for some time about the acquisition of a piece of land remaining on the northeast side of J. B. Anderson ' s property at the end of Monroe Street - the creek runs right through the square tract of approximately one-half acre, leaving the prop- erty useless on the northeast side of that tract. He has proposed the sale of that tract to the town, which will benefit land that we own on South Harrison Street. It is also appropriate to acquire this property to construct the bike path. We are acquiring it at very reasonable cost. The resolution was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila . Nay : None. 83-21 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING #ZM-42 BY THE TOWN OF LEESBURG . On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mrs. Hill, the follow- ing resolution was proposed: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : A Notice of Public Hearing to consider Rezoning ZM-42 by the Town of Leesburg to have rezoned from M-1 to B-2 and R-2 land in the South Harrison Street neighborhood as shown on sketches on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Zoning shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on February 3 , 1983 and February 10 , 1983 for public hearing on February 23, 1983 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia. Mrs . Hill said the Planning Commission voted unanimously on this - no-one spoke at their hearing . The resolution was unanimously a- dopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. 83-22 - RESOLUTION - RECOMMENDING APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF ZONING AP- PEALS . On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr . Willis, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted : WHEREAS, the term of Robert W. Spunar as a member of the Lees- burg Board of Zoning Appeals expired on December 31 , 1982 ; RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : • Council recommends the appointment of Dennis J. Hanrahan to the Leesburg Board of Zoning Appeals for a term of five years, said term to expire December 31 , 1987 , to replace Robert W. Spunar, and the Mayor is directed to send Council ' s recommenda- tion to the Judge of the Circuit Court. Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by r. Coffe , the meeting was Qadjourned at 10 : 5 p.m. C /i Mayr C/erk