Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1983_12_14 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 390 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES IN HISTORIC DISTRICT; PARKING SPACES FOR ELDERLY AND PROFFER PROVISIONS; AND BALLS BLUFF ROAD RELOCATION. A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on December 14, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with Mr. Tolbert giv- ing the invocation, and followed with the Salute to the Flag led by Planning Commission Member Mervin Jackson. Present were: Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers Charles A. Bos, Edgar L. Coffey, Jr. , Reginald K. Gheen, Mary- lou Hill, John W. Tolbert, Jr. and Howard M. Willis, Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Assistant Manager for Planning and Development Marc Weiss and Town Attorney George M. Martin. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the minutes of the regu- lar meeting of November 9 , 1983 were unanimously approved as submitted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE RE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES IN HISTORIC DISTRICT BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION. This being a joint hearing with the Planning Commission, the fol- lowing members were present: Chairman Leach, Commissioners Curry, Hill, Jack- son, Lay and Webb. Mr. Niccolls explained that this matter came to the Council at the re- quest of Mrs. Hill, who had learned of a specific proposal for property in the historic district on North King Street, which was prohibited under the current zoning regulations, yet had many desirable attributes. She concluded that the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to allow some flexibility, permitting the council to allow special exceptions as are authorized by State law when the use of the structure for residential purposes is really in the best interest and the only viable economic way of having a building converted to an economic use in a current time period. Specifically, we have structures in the historic districtwhich, because of their size or their location on a small lot or for other. reasons, can't be used economically except in a multi-family sense. Council has for some time had an interest in increasing the availability of residential dwellings in the historic district to maintain that area of Lees- burg as a viable commercial center, as well as an office center that might be empty at night, so she asked for the preparation of legislation that would create a process to approve special exceptions under conditions found to war= rant the project's approval. Council initiated the amendment and the matter) was set for a joint hearing tonight - it will then have to be acted on by the Planning Commission before Council can act. The proposed amendment calls for an application and a set of facts that must be found to warrant the approval of a special exception - these are listed. If Council could make these findings, it would, after recommendation by the Planning Commission, issue a special ex- ception for the project. Mayor Sevila asked for public comment on this proposed amendment. There being none, the hearing was closed. Mr. Bos generally supported the concept of this amendment. One of the processes that is taking place in the downtown area is the gradual conversion of former residential areas or dwellings to office or commercial. The vitality of the downtown area is to keep a relatively decent ratio of residential units - it's a very important concept to the continued survival of the downtown area. This type of special exception would allow this. He would like Council and the Planning Commission both to consider this very carefully. When you look at several small buildings that you could convert to apartments on a dwelling unit per acre basis, the number is staggering, but he feels this type of ordi- nance, on a case by case basis, would allow careful consideration for this. He hopes they can work out something that will allow this use. Mr. Gheen asked if anyone has any proposed changes in the ordinance, as drafted, at this time? He thought he would have some question concerning off- street parking, which could have some impact in the downtown area. Mayor Sevila felt this is just a guide - there should be plenty of time to address any speci- fic concerns. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. q n Mrs. Hill endorsed this ordinance. 3 9 1 Mr. Willis echoed Mr. Bos ' comments - he is generally in favor of it. Mr. Coffey supported the idea - he felt it would allow some renovations they could not otherwise have, which could improve what is already there. Parking and some other things might be considered when they get to the final draft. Mr. Tolbert endorsed it also - anything done on that corner (North and King Streets) would certainly help the appearance. 11 Mr. Leach said the Planning Commission could report back to Council on this no later than the Commission's January 19th meeting. Mayor Sevila deferred this matter to the January 25th Council meeting for action. (b) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE RE PARKING SPACES FOR ELDERLY. Mr. Weiss said there was some interest expressed by Mr. Lester Shor, who is proposing to develop an elderly housing project on Edwards Ferry Road, and some other people in having the Council consider a reduction in the parking re- quirement for elderly housing projects. Presently the requirement is the same CO as for any other project - two spaces per dwelling unit. The staff conducted some research in five jurisdictions and the result of that research is O pre- sented here. In addition, Lester Shor and Associates had a survey conducted M of nine elderly projects in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland and submitted W that information to us. The average of all nine projects was about .4 spaces m per unit. In the five we surveyed there was quite a disparity, but most of the requirements were less than two per unit. We also contacted the manager of Madison House in Leesburg - she said the parking lot has never been more than fifty percent full. They got a variance at the time they built and their project requires one space per unit or 100 or 110 spaces per 100 or 110 units there. The only time she thought it was fifty percent full was at the dedica- tion of the building. She also said the cost of maintaining the part they don't use is extremely high and the capital cost was substantial. They have had to have it repaved and they really don't use it. She supported this ef- fort and proposed two parking spaces for each three units, or two-thirds of a space per unit. There was a public hearing by the Planning Commission on Oc- tober 20th no-one spoke and the Commission unaimously adopted a resolution recommending adoption of this amendment . There was no-one to speak and the Mayor declared the hearing closed. He deferred this matter to the January 4 workshop meeting, to be placed on the regular agenda of January 11. (c) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE RE PROFFER PROVISIONS. Mn Weiss said this item first appeared in the annexation agreement with the county. As a part of that agreement, the town agreed to seek special en- abling legislation to gain proffer power that had previously been limited only to certain jurisdictions that were either urban counties with urban county executive form of government or counties adjacent to those counties - Fairfax is such a county. Loudoun County is adjacent to Fairfax - therefore, it had the power, but towns within counties did not have it. There is a general proffer power which the town did have previously, but this is much more lim- ited than that granted to Fairfax County. The -county was concerned that those limitations might have a negative effect on some of the county and town ser- vices that will be required as a result of annexation and development which might occur. The town did seek that power in the last legislature and the General Assembly did pass legislation which includes Leesburg now under the more detailed proffer authority. The ordinance before Council tonight would simply amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the new authority which is granted to the town, replacing the old authority. Mayor Sevila understood this to be the "power to accept voluntary of- fers." There being no-one to speak, the hearing was declared closed. Mr. Bos felt he would have more questions as time goes on about how we will blend this along with our new Planned Development ordinance - when they can set up some density formulas for certain provisions by developers where that will eliminate a lot of the proffering posture. Now neither the de- veloper nor the town know up front what the end result will be - this is not a good way to conduct zoning matters. He believed our Planned Development ordinance will go a long way toward solving that problem. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. 392 Mr. Gheen had essentially the same question - how we will have a smooth operation. He supposed it will be addressed very well in the Planned De- velopment amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Sevila noted that there is a report of the Planning Commission meeting on November 3, 1983, at which the Commission unanimously recommended the adoption of these provisions. This will certainly be very compatible with the Planned Development ordinance and the Town Plan currently under con- sideration at the Task Force level. He felt this was a significant accom- plishment for the town to get through Legislature last year-to have this authority under 15.1-491(a)-to have the town named specifically as one of those jurisdictions to have the power to accept proffers - it really is a useful tool in PD development, which the town is moving into at a pretty rapid pace. He deferred this matter to the workshop of January 4 and for action by Council on January 11, 1984. (d) BALLS BLUFF ROAD RELOCATION. Mr. Weiss explained that this relocation issue arose as a result of dis- cussions we have had with developers who are interested in developing on both sides of the Route 15 Bypass north of Leesburg. It was the feeling that using the existing Balls Bluff Road as a major access point for major developments in the north part of town would notbea good idea from a transportation or safety point of view. It is very closet?he intersection of Route 15 Bypass and Route 15 Business - this is not the safest intersection now and is not designed to the best standards at the present time. There is also some doubt as to its exact status - the Veterans Administration has an easement to the battlefield and the cemetery and there has been a lot of discussion on the part of the county and the Balls Bluff Road committee about preserving the cemetery. Both developers have expressed interest-- in having access points to their develop- ments south of this intersection. This has been discussed with the Highway De- partment and their reaction is"neutral" - the Bypass is a limited access road and any relocation of this road would have to occur simultaneously with the closing of the existing intersection so there would be no additional access points to the Bypass. The developers of the two projects have been working together in an attempt to identify a common new intersection point and have met with Mr. Shope and this has been done. The theory behind direct access to the Bypass is to split the traffic from both developments as much as pos- sible with the least impact on existing residential neighborhoods. One of our objectives was a safe and adequate access point to the Route 15 Bypass from the Exeter development, otherwise this traffic would probably use Plaza Street and Edwards Ferry Road to the Bypass . The Beus tract is slightly dif- ferent, although many of the same objectives exist - they would have had to use the existing Balls Bluff Road as an access point (he pointed out:on.a plat what would occur here) . Town representatives have met with representa- tives of the Veterans Administration and they are generally supportive of the proposal as long as access is insured to the cemetery property. This would also provide access for the two or three landowners off that road. There has also been discussion about the developer transferring the cemetery and the bat- tlefield to the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority or some other entity as a historic battlefield site in exchange for some density transfers. oMr. Bos asked what time frame they are talking about? Mr. Weiss said he could/speak for the developers, but it is his impression that Exeter is on a shorter timetable - they are anxious to get going as quickly as possible. This will have to go to the Highway Commission and they are hoping the county will adopt a similar resolution with supporting material. It would probably take several months before we would know whether they have agreed to the re- quest. Mr. Gheen asked at what point the Planning Commissionnedinvolved as far as the road is concerned? Mr. Weiss said they have not been involved directly in the relocation issue, but they have seen the preliminary drawings of Exeter - none of those issues have been discussed in depth - they have been discussed somewhat at the staff level and the developers have made some adjustments based on staff recommendations. He felt they are waiting on the Planned Development regulations to submit an application. He did not believe the question of the intersection materially affects what happens inside of the two subdivisions. Mayor Sevila rephrased this to ask if Council's action on this request to relocate an intersection binds Council to either the proposal on the Beus tract or the previous one on the Exeter tract? Mr. Weiss did not think so - from an informational point-of-view, Council expressed interest in seeing the concept of the road system. There could.be many different align- ments of the entrance - the suggested one is based on an evaluation by both project engineers and Mr. Shope as to which has the best site distance. The rest of the road system has not been evaluated. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. 393 Mr. Willis favored the relocation for several reasons - for safety rea- sons and it should stimulate some additional tourist traffic into the cemetery, which could help preserve it. We should see that this is done. Mr. Coffey asked if the road on the west side of the Bypass would be aban- doned also? Mr. Weiss said it would - the whole intersection would be relocated. Mr. Coffey questioned the safety factor of having an entrance into a subdivision as proposed on this particular drawing - this should be examined. Mayor Sevila asked for members of the public who wished to speak. Mr. Tom Nalls, representing Beus Company, owner of 478 acres on the east side of the Bypass, said they have been working for some time with representa- tives of the town and the county, and with the Balls Bluff Preservation Com- mittee. The idea for development of this property is an overall plan to help preserve and enlarge the existing cemetery site. Initially they did not ask for a closure of this road - they felt there would be a natural separation of the traffic. However, early discussions with the Highway Department showed there would be very little chance of getting a second opening - they wanted one closed and one opened. So they got together with the developers across the road and the town engineer and decided this location was the best one from a site distance standpoint. He understood Mr. Coffey's concern about the im- m mediate left turn - that is conceptual in nature only - the idea was to hook 'Cr up to the Balls Bluff Road as soon as they reasonably could. 0 Mr. Rick Stieff, representing the Leesburg properties which own and plan CO to develop the Exeter subdivision on the west side of the Bypass, said the ad- vantages far outweigh any of the disadvantages in terms of safety and access, Q and almost in terms of all criteria. Mr. Hugh Harmon, of 3 Nottoway Street, has had an interest in Balls Bluff since he moved here about four years ago. Balls Bluff is a piece of federal property and not a policeman in this county has jurisdiction over it. It is a liability to the Federal Government and they pay one man to clean up the trash and another to scrape the road annually - the State does not spend a nickel on it. It represents very little as a resource to this county and town - there is i very little there to enjoy. The roadway is bumpy. If these developers are willing and eager to work with the county and the town to realign the roadway so Balls Bluff can be developed as a historic battlefield, then let's work with them. Mr. Niccolls understood a representative of the Beus Company contacted other property owners who are served by the present road. Mr. Nalls said he went to the two houses that are accessed on that road on two different occa- sions, but could not raise anyone. He spoke on the phone with a Mrs. Hoopaw, a landowner out there, and she was happy to hear that something might happen to improve the road - other than that, he was unable to contact the people. Mr. Niccolls said the purpose of this hearing was for Council to satisfy them- selves and the Virginia Highway Commission that there are no reasons to pre- serve the road in its present configuration according to the adjoining prop- erty owners. This hearing was advertised in the Loudoun Times-Mirror and an attempt made to locate the other property owners - they have done the best they could. Mr. Nalls said access to these properties would be maintained uninter- rupted to those parcels - there are only two houses. Mr. Gheen said there is also access to the island near the Hoopaw property. Mr. Nalls believed this is the same owner as one of the houses. Mr. Bos suggested sending registered let- ters to the property owners. It was felt this was reasonable and should be done. Mayor Sevila suggested doing this and set the matter for action by Council for January 11th. Mayor Sevila thanked the Planning Commission members for being here for the joint hearing. COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS: Mr. Bos reported the Board of Architectural Review met on Monday and processed several sign applications, including a second hearing for the one for Peoples National Bank (First American) - these people have been very co- operative. Their first sign was rather contemporary and stark and they have come back with a more appropriate sign - this was a good process. Also, the Wynkoop Nursing Home has been sold recently and is being changed slightly to a retirement home. The owners sought a historic zoning permit for a slight modi- fication of the exterior of the building - it was a very tasteful adaptation of the building. n MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1984 MEETING. 394 4 The Economic Development Advisory Committee met this morning. Work is continuing on the State certification program - one or two subcommittees have met on various aspects of this. There was considerable discussion on the ar- chitectural control ordinance. The Task Force met last night for final con- sideration of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. There is con- cern by some residents concerning use or lack of use of some properties in town and the Task Force did not wish to make land use recommendations about the areas near those properties, so the draft of the land use element will go to the Plan- ning Commission essentially with a land use map that has several big holes in certain areas, along with comments by individual members. The Task Force felt there were such political considerations that it was beyond the scope of their decision to cope with that, so this will be thrust on the Planning Commission and the Council to resolve. He personally would like to see the focus of the planning discussions get back to the central theme of identifying the character of the town and what it should be for the next generation or so. As chairman of this committee, he has recommended that each task force member attach his or her individual comments when the final plan goes to the Planning Commission so the Commission and the Council will have all the individual viewpoints, as well as combined policy statements in the whole plan draft. There is still the transportation section to be considered, probably in January - they are waiting for VDH&T information on this. So the draft plan should be ready for the Plan ning Commission toward the end of January. The committee in general has done a lot of work and the staff is to be congratulated on its effort and the quality of the presentation of the material - he thinks the Planning Commission and the Council will get a good package. Mr. Coffey also felt the committee and the staff have worked hard in try- ing to come up with what it feels should be forthcoming in Leesburg. It is un- fortunate that a little too much time was spent on certain items, however, he felt that was anticipated. Mr. Bos said there has been continual comparison between the land use map and proposed or reasonable land use designation - he thinks the two are getting mixed up. He felt a long-term land use recommendation for any particular area is probably going to conflict with properties, no matter where it is in town. Rezonings need to be kept in focus. He urged that councilmembers get a copy of the draft when it is available to the Planning Commission and consider the is- sues and policies well in advance of the time it gets to Council. Mrs. Hill reported that the Planning Commission voted last week to extend the site plan for Part of Parcel M, Section 1, Virginia Village for one year. There are quite a few site plans coming up tomorrow night . Mr. Willis thought the Christmas lights looked very good - there is one decoration on South King Street that needs to be checked. Mrs. Hill understood that four of the small Christmas trees have been stolen. Mr. Tolbert said he was unable to attend a meeting at the airport today with members of the Virginia Department of Aviation - he asked Mr. Gheen to represent him. Mr. Gheen said Mr. Minor and Mr. Shope acquitted themselves well in talking with the three representatives from the State, covering a num- ber of projects. It looks encouraging that we may get some of the further im- provements we want there. It was a very good meeting. MANAGER'S REPORT: (1) Mr. Niccolls said a written Activity Report was delivered on Monday. (2) Today one of our department directors, Juan Chaves, was taken by emergency vehicle to the hospital. His wife feels confident that he will be home in a few days - it does not appear to be a heart problem. (3) They will be interviewing candidates for the Assistant Engineer po- sition - he is very pleased with the quality of the applications so far. He felt it will be quite possible to hire someone that exceeds the minimum quali- fications (with some municipal experience, as well as professional training) . This will be a big help in the Engineering Department. (4) The airport project is heading toward the substantial completion stage (the sewer part of it) . There is a project cost recap attached to the Activity Report and he has asked Mr. Minor to give a few more details about some of the changes in the estimates. I MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14 , 1983 MEETING. (1 (5) The annexation pamphlet is at the printers, but it will probably 395 5 be Tuesday of next week before it can be delivered. (6) They are expecting approval of the construction plans for the sewage treatment and upgrade project in January. This will mean this project can go out to bid in early 1984. It may be 30 to 60 days behind schedule, but it is certainly well in advance of the October deadline set for the grant funds in this fiscal period. 1 (7) Some dechlorination facilities appear to be necessary to meet effluent I limitations. We add chlorine to disinfect the final effluent, and now they want us to remove the chlorine before it enters the stream so that aquatic life isn't harmed. It's not particularly expensive, but it involves the addition of a chemical feed process. He thought the capital cost was about $200,000, and this is probably about two-thirds of that. There will be some design costs later .on, all eligible for 75 percent. (8) A few months back, he asked Randy Shoemaker to conduct a thorough chlorine-handling safety inspection on all our facilities, (we have gas and liquid chlorine both in our plants) . He found our safety procedures sound and our handling methods are careful. Chlorine accidents do pose a serious threat to personal safety, and even life. OD (9) Two of our officers recently hired - Webber and Ebersole - graduated O from the Criminal Justice Academy with very high marks and compliments from the instructors all around. They are examples of the type of officers we are proud CO to hire and hope to keep. One of these instructors said these officers could m work in any police department in the state. Q Mr. Tolbert asked if the check he mentioned from Mr. Haynes goes into the Airport Fund? Mr. Niccolls said it will. Mr. Willis said that, with regard to the chlorine Suffolk Chemical, in conjunction with the class they are going to hold, will do5county-wide presen- tation for all the volunteers at the Leesburg Fire Station. i Mr. Coffey asked if we incorporate someone from the Fire Marshal's office or someone else in connection with this chlorine inspection to see if we have overlooked something to further safeguard our own people? Mr. Niccolls was aware that he has conducted tours for members of the Fire Company and Res- cue personnel of our facilities so that they are familiar with and can do a pre- plan for approaches to our facilities. He didn't know if he asked them to be specifically involved as to our chlorine handling methods, but he has the high- est regard for his procedural knowledge in handling that material safely. He will ask that question. MAYOR'S REPORT: (1) Mayor Sevila asked who the environmentalists are with regard to de- chlorination? Mr. Niccolls said it is a nationwide concern for chlorine dis- charge - we don't have a specific group or person that said this - it's a poor choice of words. There is a standard - it is probably a reduction to near zero. Our chemical feed requirements will be intended and measured to achieve that degree of chlorine reduction. There is no standard currently imposed on our NPDES permit, so he is not familiar with the number they may choose. He did not believe a standard had been established for the Dulles Area Watershed policies on dechlorination. There is a study being conducted for the State Water Con- trol Board by NVPDC on effluent quality policies and that is expected to in- clude a dechlorination requirement. We are prepared to beat them to the punch and the engineers have been asked to prepare the plan amendments. (2) Mayor Sevila had received an observation from a concerned citizen regarding the traffic flows at the intersection of Route 15 South and Catoctin Circle. This has been referred to Mr. Niccolls. It concerns the stacking up of vehicles turning south from Catoctin Circle onto Route 15, which makes ingress and egress virtually impossible during the afternoon rush hour. He understands this has been referred to VDH&T for report as to whether any action is appro- priate. (3) He has received letters from the third graders at Leesburg Elementary School, where some of the councilmembers visited during National Education Week. They were amusing and enjoyable. He has written them a letter and urged other councilmembers to do the same. They were obviously impressed that members of their local government came and visited and had lunch with them. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. 396 (4) He reminded everyone of the Christmas party - Noon on December 23rd. Mr. Niccolls said this is a vacation afternoon and the staff has put this party together. This party is given in honor of the elected and ap- pointed officials and members of the various Boards. (5) He mentioned the statement in the Times-Mirror last week. He hand- delivered a letter to the Times-Mirror this week for publication - a copy of it is before them for information. PROPOSED RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A PORTION OF CATOCTIN CIRCLE AS RESTRICTED ACCESS. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, a resolution designating a portion of Catoctin Circle as restricted access was proposed. Mayor Sevila - had received a letter from Mr. Arl Curry raising several questions and had discussed this at length with Mr. Martin. A memo has been received from Mr. Martin confirming the fact that there may be problems. It was, therefore, sug- gested ug gested that this matter go back to committee to be discussed further and see if they can't work out some solutions that would satisfy Mr. CurryMr. Perry and Mr. diZerega. He also asked that staff prepare a proposed map showing the proposed access points. It may be possible to resolve this whole question. Mr. Al Perry, representing the developer of Foxridge Subdivision, urged that they try to give them as much freeway as possible with minimum access. Mr. Curry also addressed Council on his problems with this resolution and objected to a letter from Mr. Shope telling him exactly where his entrance onto Catoctin Circle would have to be - he objected to this and said he would like to see the Council and the Plan- ning Commission get back on the same track as their forefathers - to have govern- ment by the people for the people instead of government by the staff for the staff. The motion was withdrawn by the makers and on motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Coffey, Council voted unanimously to defer this item until January 4th for further consideration: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. Mayor Sevila asked that staff prepare a mock-up plat of the entire road, showing suggested limited access points that would, under our Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, serve the adjacent properties. 1 83-188 - RESOLUTION - EXTENDING TIME FOR COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE BOND FOR PART OF PARCEL M - VIRGINIA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, a request has been received from the developer to extend the time for completion of public improvements and performance guarantee for part of Parcel M, Section 1, Virginia Village warehouse develop- ment plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has extended the development plan approval for a period of one year until January 1, 1985: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir- ginia as follows: The performance guarantee, contract for public improvements and water and sewer extension permits are extended until January 1, 1985 for a part of Parcel M, Section 1, Virginia Village warehouse development plan. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. Mayor Sevila declared a recess at this time, with Council reconvening at 9:38 p.m. 83-0-39 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD GOVERNMENT OFFICES AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following ordinance was proposed: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. 9 WHEREAS, on October 26, 1983, this Council initiated the following 3 9 amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing between the Council and the Planning Commission was held on November 23, 1983, according to the require- ments of Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on Decem- ber 2, 1983, recommended the following amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and this Council find that the fol- lowing amendment is required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because: 1 - Government offices can be an appropriate use in the R-2 District if properly controlled as a conditionally per- mitted use; 2 - Much of the land near the existing county offices is zoned R-2 and the town has consistently expressed its support for the expansion of county facilities where appropriate. CO THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia O as follows: CO CC) SECTION I. Section 3A-2 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to W read as follows : Q 3A-2 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES. The following are conditionally permitted uses in the R-2 Resi- dential District: (a) Public and private school. (b) Public recreation facility. (c) Country club; golf course. (d) Public utility substation or transmission facility. (e) Church. (f) Cemetery. (g) Boarding or rooming house. (h) Family care home. (i) Group home. (j) Clubs, lodges and recreational buildings. (k) Government offices. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Mr. Bos commented that several people were concerned, at the public hearing, about the intrusion of such a use into the residential district. He felt, though, that the conditional use process is an adequate safeguard to that. Mr. Niccolls explained that this is a multi-stage process. Before any public government or public utility use is permitted, there must be a commission per- mit determination, which may or may not have a public hearing (dependent on whether or not the Planning Commission chooses to do so or whether the Council has ordered them to have one) . On the assumption that the g vvernment use has received a commission permit from the Planning Commission and%confirmed by the Council, the applicant would apply for a conditional use permit under this ordinance. At that point it would go to the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Planning Commission could have a hearing (it would at least accept public comment) - the Board of Zoning Appeals action must be ad- vertised for public hearing. After approval by the BZA, the application would go back to the Planning Commission for action. The Zoning Administrator would then issue a zoning permit for the government use in the R-2 District. There is no requirement for posting the property. Mayor Sevila felt the key word here is government "offices," rather than general uses. The ordinance was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1984 MEETING. 398 PROPOSED RESOLUTION PROPOSING AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7A-2, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, OF THE TOWN CHARTER. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Bos, a resolution proposing amendment of Section 7A-2, Board of Architectural Review, of the Town Charter was proposed. Mr. Bos, Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Coffey and Mayor Sevila all spoke of the concerns that have arisen regarding this proposed Charter amendment, not only in the public hearing, but from comments from other concerned citizens and from Delegate Rollins. It was generally felt that it would be better to wait a while on this until we have some input from the East Market Street study, from the Economic Development Advisory Committee, the Board of Archi- tectural Review, the Planning Commission and our State delegate and senator and then perhaps come up with something for next year's legislature. On motion of Mr. Gheen, seconded by Mrs. Hill, the proposed resolution was unani- mously deferred indefinitely. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following resolutions were proposed and unanimously adopted as consent items: 53-189 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AMENDMENT TO THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED DEVELOP- MENTS. WHEREAS, comprehensive regulations and requirements for unified planning. and development of tracts of land held in common ownership or control will promote the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, a draft "Amendment of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to Provide Planned Development Regulations" dated December 2, 1983 has been pre- pared for consideration by this council and the Leesburg Planning Com- mission: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. An amendment of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is initiated to add a new article to be known as Article 7-B, Planned Development, the form of which proposed amendment to be as set out in the draft "Amendment of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to Provide Planned De- velopment Regulations" dated December 2, 1983. SECTION II. A public hearing at which persons affected by or interested in the zoning ordinance amendments proposed above may appear and pre- sent their views shall be held beginning at 7:30 p.m. or as soon there- after as the matter is reached on January 11, 1984 in the Council Cham- bers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia and in line with Sec- tion 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia this hearing shall be a joint pub- lic hearing of both Planning Commission and Council. The clerk shall give notice of this hearing and the council's intention to adopt an amendment on December 22, 1983 and December 29, 1983 and shall advise the Planning Commission of the purpose, time and date of the hearing. SECTION III. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendations to the Town Council on the proposed amendment within 60 days of the pub- lic hearing. 83-190 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AMENDMENT OF THE LEESBURG SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CONCERNING REGULATIONS AND RE- QUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. WHEREAS, comprehensive regulations and requirements for unified plan- ning and development of tracts of land held in common otmershin or control will promote the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, a draft "Amendment of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to Pro- vide Planned Development Regulations" dated December 1, 1983 has been initiated by this Council; and WHEREAS, amendment of the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regu- lations is necessary to eliminate conflicts between the subdivision regu- lations and the zoning ordinance provisions for planned development: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. 9((]�n THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia3` 9 as follows : SECTION I. An amendment of the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, Article IV, Chapter 13 of the Town Code, is initiated to add a new section to be known as Section 13-54.1, Planned Development, to read as follows: Section 13-54.1 Planned Development. Any provisions of this Article in conflict with an ordinance approving a concept plan and establishing a planned development I district, a resolution approving a final development plan, or the approval of a final plat or site plan under the regulations of Article 7-B, Planned Development, of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance are varied to the extent necessary to fulfill the purpose of the regulations. SECTION II. A public hearing at which persons affected by or interested in the amendment proposed above may appear and present their views shall be held beginning at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached on January 11, 1984 in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun 03 Street, Leesburg, Virginia and in line with Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia this hearing shall be a joint public hearing of both Planning O Commission and Council. The clerk shall give notice of this hearing and mthe Council's intention to adopt an amendment on December 22, 1983 and m and December 29 , 1983 and advise the Planning Commission of the purpose, time and date of the hearing. Q SECTION III. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendations to the Town Council on the proposed amendment within 60 days of the public hearing. 1 83-191 - RESOLUTION - REQUESTING STATE LEGISLATION CONCERNING LOCAL CELEBRATIONS. WHEREAS, Leesburg annually conducts a celebration of Colonial August Court Days and has adopted appropriate regulations concerning use of public streets and ways during the celebration; and WHEREAS, general authority for such regulations is appropriate: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Leesburg's delegate and senator are requested to introduce and support an amendment of the State Code generally as follows: The governing body of any county, city or town may by ordinance provide for the re-creation and portrayal of important historical or cultural events associated with or which have taken place within the political subdivision; to enter into agreements with public or private non-profit organizations and agencies to stage and promote such events; to establish regulations for the conduct thereof; to permit street vend- ing restricted to the sale of food and the sale of merchandise related to and compatible with the objectives of the public celebration arranged for such occasion; to delegate to the organization the collection of the license fees from the vendors, and to require a surety bond therefrom adequate to protect the public interest; to restrict traffic on desig- nated streets for the duration of the event; and to make gifts to said organizations from the treasury in furtherance of the objectives of the ordinance. 83-192 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF LEESBURG AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, PROVIDING FOR FEDERAL AID FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO LEES- BURG MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (AIP NO. 3-24-0025-03) . WHEREAS, engineering consultants obtained by the town have identified serious primary, transitional and approach obstructions to Leesburg Air- port which require removal; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: n MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. 4 O O SECTION I. The manager shall file all necessary preapplications and applications for federal and state assistance in the removal of FAA Part 77 obstructions from Runway 17-35. SECTION II. The Town of Leesburg shall enter into a grant agreement with the United States of America for the purpose of obtaining federal aid in the development of Leesburg Municipal Airport by executing the acceptance of the grant offer for AIP No. 3-24-0025-03. SECTION III. John Niccolls, Town Manager, shall execute said grant agreement, six copies, on behalf of the Town of Leesburg', and Dorothy B. Rosen, Clerk of Council, shall impress the official seal of Lees- burg to attest said grant execution. SECTION IV. The grant offer referred to is incorporated herein by reference and a copy shall be filed in the Office of the Clerk. SECTION V. The manager shall execute similar agreements between the Town of Leesburg and the Commonwealth of Virginia with respect to this project. 83-193 - RESOLUTION - CANCELLING THE DECEMBER 28, 1983 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The regular December 28, 1983 meeting of the Town Council is cancelled. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-194 - RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF PROPERTY ON DRY MILL ROAD FOR PUBLIC STREET AND UTILITY PURPOSES. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolu- tion was proposed: WHEREAS, a parcel of property 6,462 square feet in size on Dry Mill Road as shown on a plat of the E. Frank Myers, et al property pre- pared by DeLashmutt Associates, dated November, 1982, was dedicated for public use in July, 1967 and recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 209 in Clerk's Office of Loudoun County but said plat was not an approved subdivision; and WHEREAS, no formal acceptance has been made by the Town of Leesburg and no public improvements have been installed on this parcel of property: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The 6,462 square foot parcel of property described and shown on the plat prepared by DeLashmutt Associates dated November, 1982 show- ing the property of E. Frank Myers, et al is accepted by the town for public use. SECTION II. This acceptance is conditioned upon compliance by the owner of record of the adjacent property to the south, Woodrow W. Tur- ner, Jr. , Trustee, or his assigns, with all requirements of the Town's Subdivision and Land Development Regulations with respect to installa- tion of public improvements on this dedicated area when the Turner property is properly developed. SECTION III. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded in the land records of Loudoun County under the names of Woodrow W. Turner, Jr. , Trustee, and the Town of Leesburg. To Mr. Gheen's question concerning sidewalk if and when this property is de- veloped, Mr. Niccolls said it is the intent of the owner to comply with all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the resolution requires this. Should he receive a waiver for this, it would not be required. Mrs. Hill thought sidewalk in front of the church was waived. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmenbers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. 4 0 1' 83-195 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPOINTMENT TO LEESBURG AIRPORT COMMISSION. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, the Leesburg Airport Commission has endorsed the following appoint- ment: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The following appointment is made to the Leesburg Airport Commission for the term indicated herein: Carl W. Gregg for a term expiring June 30, 1987. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-196 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted after explanation by Mr. Niccolls: er L!� RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Appropriations are made from the General Fund unappropriated fund balance 4 to the accounts and in the amounts shown below for fiscal year 1984: Account Number and Name Amount 1201.101 Salaries & Wages $ 5,500 1201.200 Fringe Benefits 500 4102.701 Market Street Improvements 32,670 4102.703 Road Room Relocation/Remodeling 9,000 II/ 4301.705 Renovation - 13,500 Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-197 - RESOLUTION - REGARDING C & P RATE NEGOTIATIONS. • On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following resolution was proposed: WHEREAS, the rates charged to local governments by C &' P Telephone Com- pany of Virginia are not subject to the jurisdiction of the State Cor- poration Commission; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Municipal League/Virginia Association of Counties Steering Committee has been formed to negotiate fair and equitable tele- phone rates on behalf of local governments; and WHEREAS, there is pending before the, State Corporation Commission a re- quest by C & P Telephone Company of Virginia to increase its Virginia jurisdictional rates effective January 1, 1984: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Council of the Town of Leesburg is opposed to any proposal for the telephone companies and other public utilities to amend the Vir- ginia Code provisions which exempt local governments from the schedule of rates established by the Virginia Corporation Commission for service rendered to persons, firms and corporations, and it authorizes appropriate officials of the town to express this opposition to members of the Vir- ginia General Assembly. SECTION II. The Council of the Town of Leesburg authorizes the Virginia Municipal League/Virginia Association of Counties Steering Committee to negotiate fair and equitable rates on behalf of the town. 402 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. SECTION III. In the event that a contract providing for fair and equitable rates for telephone service rendered by Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company to the town has not been accepted and entered into prior to the imposition of an increase in telephone service rates by the State Corporation Commission now being con- sidered thereby, the Finance Director is directed to continue pay- ment of those rates that are in effect on December 1, 1983 and es- crow the balance until the negotiations are resolved. Mr. Niccolls explained that early last summer Council authorized the Virginia Municipal League to negotiate with C & P on our behalf. This resolution says we are at a dead end and it's time to take some affirmative action.- this is the recommendation of the negotiating group. Mr. Coffey questioned Section III - he would not like to see the town's service cut off. Mr. Niccolls said this too was a recommendation from the steering committee and he would hope from that committee's counsel. We have contracts with C & P with regard to equipment, but nothing concerning monthly rates. After some further discus- e sion, the resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-0-40 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 5.1-10 OF THE TOWN CODE. On motion of Mr. Gheen, seconded by Mrs. Hill, the following ordinance was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, the sale, transfer or assignment of Leesburg's cable system franchise will require an investigation and review of the qualifications of the prospective purchaser or assignee at a level equal to the initial review of the original franchise holder; and WHEREAS, this investigation and analysis will require additional staff time and report production: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia II/ as follows: SECTION I. Section 5.1-10 of the Town Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 5.1-10. Notice of transfer or assignment A franchisee shall promptly notify the town manager of any proposed change in, or transfer of, or acquisition by any other party of control of the franchise. For the purpose of determining whether it. shall con- sent to such change, transfer or acquisition of control, the town may inquire into the qualifications of the prospective controlling party, and the franchisee shall assist the town in any such inquiry. A trans- fer fee in the amount of $500 shall be paid to the town by the prospec- tive assignee or purchaser at the time of application. In the event that the town council adopts a resolution denying its consent and such change, transfer or adquisition of control has been effected, the town council may cancel the franchise unless control of the franchise is re- stored within 30 days to its status prior to the change or to a status acceptable to the town council. Any mortgage, pledge or lease shall be subject and subordinate to the rights of the town under this chapter or other applicable law. SECTION II. All prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 1 Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. • 83-198 - RESOLUTION - RECEIVING AND REFERRING THE APPLICATION OF LEESBURG JOINT VENTURE, INC. FOR REVISION OF ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER CHAPTER 11, TITLE 15.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following resolution was proposed: 403 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The application of Leesburg Joint Venture, Inc. for revision of the zoning district map, assigned No. ZM-45 is received and referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Mr. Niccolls pointed out on a map the 47.5 acres for which the applicant is seeking rezoning in the proposed Exeter development - this is to be for town houses. This is being sought now so that he will be ready to proceed when the Planned Development Regulations are adopted. After some discussion on the plan for the overall project, Mr. Niccolls felt it appropriate for Coun- cil to look at the entire project at the time they do this . The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-0-41 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO PROVIDE FOR COUNCIL WORKSHOPS AND STANDING COMMITTEES. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Coffey, it was proposed to refer this ordinance to committee. After discussion, the motion to refer it to com- mittee was withdrawn by the makers. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Gheen, the following ordinance was proposed and adopted by a vote of 6 to 1: WHEREAS, the council has concluded that a return to workshop meetings will more effectively prepare council members for succeeding regular meetings: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: ARTICLE II. COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE Sec. 2-20. Time and place of regular meetings. The council shall meet in formal session at 7:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Wednesdays in each month in the council chambers. Sec. 2-21. Quorum; procedure in absence of quorum. The majority of the members of the council shall constitute a quorum. If a quorum fails to exist, the meeting shall stand ad- journed to a time and place agreed upon by a majority of the mem- bers present. Sec. 2-22. Journal of proceedings. The clerk shall keep a journal of the council's proceedings and shall read the minutes recorded in the journal at the next regu- lar meeting of council following each regular meeting and interven- ing special meetings, unless each member has previously been fur- nished a copy of such minutes . Council shall approve the minutes, which shall be signed by the person presiding when the previous meet- ing adjourned or, if he be not then present, by the person presiding when presented. The name of each member voting and how he voted shall be recorded on the final vote on any ordinance of resolution. Sec. 2-23. Council workshops. The council shall meet in workshop session at 7:30 p.m. on the first and third Wednesday in each month in the conference room of the council chambers building or other place as agreed. At workshop ses- sions council shall review upcoming meeting agenda items, discuss gene- ral council business, hear staff reports and take other actions it deems appropriate. 404 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. Sec. 2-24. Standing committees. The following standing committees of the council are created and their respective areas of jurisdiction are established as shown: (a) Utility and Public Works Committee (1) Water and sewer systems (2) Streets (3) Sidewalks (4) Storm drains (5) Non-police vehicles and equipment (6) Rights-of-way and easements (7) Utility and storm drainage master planning 1 (b) Finance and Administration Committee (1) Appropriations (2) Utility rates (3) Business and professional licensing (4) Taxes (5) Personnel rules (6) Police matters (7) Airport matters (8) Cable television (9) Franchising (10) Planning, zoning and subdivision matters (11) Parking facilities (12) Public buildings The members and chairman of each committee shall be appointed by the mayor annually except that the initial appointments shall be made at a regular meeting of the council in January, 1984, such appointments to expire June 30, 1984. The committees are to conduct special studies and special reports and analyses of matters in their respective areas of jurisdiction when so requested by the mayor or the council. When so directed the com- mittee will meet on call of the chairman. Sec. 2-25. Application of Robert's Rules of Order. The provisions of Robert's Rules of Order, revised, shall govern the council in its meetings, except insofar as such provisions are in- consistent with law. SECTION II. All prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: Councilmember Hill. In view of a conflict of interest, Mayor Sevila asked Mayor Pro-Tem Bos to assume the Chair for the next resolution. 83-199 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A SIXTH REDUCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION FOR CEDAR WALK SUBDIVISION. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolu- tion was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, the developer's engineer, Bengtson, DeBell, Elkin & Titus, and the town's Director of Engineering have reviewed the public improve- ments installed to date in Cedar Walk Subdivision and certify that the value of work performed is $313,209 and the remaining amount of work is less than $229,701; and 4O5: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 MEETING. WHEREAS, a $412,235 Round Hill National Bank set aside letter and $99 ,354 Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland surety bond have been provided by the developer and approved by Council to guarantee installation of public improvements in Cedar Walk Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the town has agreed, when appropriate, to decrease the per- formance guarantee by reducing set aside bank funds by 90 percent of the value of work completed on the public improvements: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Round Hill National Bank set aside letter originally in the amount of $412,235 is reduced to $130,347. The Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland surety bond in the amount of $99,354 re- mains unchanged. SECTION II. The manager shall notify Cedar Walk, Inc. that liability for set aside funds has been reduced as outlined in Section I of this resolution, and that this reduction not constitute acceptance of public improvements by the town or relieve the developer of responsibilities outlined in the contract for public improvements for Cedar Walk Subdi- vision. L. Aye: Councilmembers Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Pro-Tem Bos. i.T.. Nay: None. Abstain: Mayor Sevila. 0 Mayor Sevila assumed theehair. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. 1 III Mayor 'i Clerk of the Council