HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986_05_28 212
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN r0UNCIL, MAY 28, 1986
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council
Chambers, 10 Loudoun Street, SW, Leesburg, Virginia on May 28, 1986, at
7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor with the invocation
given by Mr. Tolbert and followed with the Salute to the Flag led by
Councilman Bos. Present were Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers
Charles Bos, Arl Curry, Brian Kelley, Jerry Pelkey, John Tolbert, Jr., and
Charles Williams. Staff members present were Town Manager, Jeffrey Minor,
Assistant Town Manager, Steve Owen, Director of Planning, Zoning and
Development, Martha Mason-Semmes, Director of Engineering and Public Works,
Tom Mason, Town Attorney, George Martin and Deputy Town Attorney, Deborah
Welsh.
On a motion by Charles Williams and seconded by John Tolbert it was
recommended that Item 10C, an Ordinance amending the Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance regarding additional residential density in the Old and Historic
District, be referred to the next Finance and Administration Committee
meeting scheduled for June 3, 1986 at 7:00 p.m.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On a motion by Charles Williams and seconded by John Tolbert it was
recommended that the minutes of the special meeting of May 21, 1986 be
approved as submitted.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
PETITIONERS
Chip Groff, a Leesburg resident and manager of White's Department
Store, addressed Council as president of the Downtown Business Association.
He referenced a letter sent to Mr. Minor regarding the downtown municipal
center and parking complex. As members of the business community, the
Downtown Business Association endorses this project.
Chuck Thornton, Chairman of the Retail Committee of the Chamber of
Commerce, also gave an endorsement for the downtown municipal center and
parking complex. He stated that the physical location of the police office
in the new complex would definitely deter the fear of crime in the parking
complex. The major concern is the appearance of the structure, but he
feels that the staff will be sensitive to this and assure that it will be
aesthetically pleasing to the downtown landscape.
Frank Raflo commented on the compromise reached between the town and
the county on the Xerox agreement. He felt there was a positive step
toward working on a mutual settlement. Next he went on to make comments on
the parking complex and municipal center. Noting that tourism in the
Loudoun County and Leesburg area is sure to grow each year, parking will be
a crucial issue. He had some concerns about project figures on profit from
the garage, but feels they will work themselves out. He urged that general
obligation bonds be used, but cautioned that with the combination of the
county bonds, the bond co-panies look at the overall picture of the tax
payers debt, not just the local picture. He urged that the town stay away
from revenue bonds, and was not enthusiastic about a parking authority. He
urged the town finance and run everything themselves. Mr. Raflo also
endorsed this project.
The Mayor thanked the citizens for their support of the Downtown
Parking/Municipal Center report and the project in general.
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 213
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 1986-1987 BUDGET
Jeff Minor reminded the Council that they had received the prelim-
inary budget in April and also mentioned to the general public that copies
are available at the town office for their review. The Cornwall Street
storm drainage project was approved in the CIP. An expenditure of $70,000
is represented in this project to correct sidewalk and inlets, curb and
drainage problems.
Mr. Bos asked Mr. Minor to state last year's tax rate and this year's
proposed tax rate.
Mr. Minor responded that the tax rate remains the same at $.18, but
there is an increase in effect because of the reassessments effective this
year.
Fred Flemming, a Cornwall Street resident, spoke about the serious
drainage problem on the north side of Cornwall Street. He had written a
letter supporting a remedy to this problem. He asked that the Cornwall
VJ Street project be considered in this year's budget, rather than the
N following year.
N
UJ Fred Williams, the resident at 206 Cornwall Street, lived in the
CCI
house that flooded continuously during rainstorms. He was very pleased
that the town is considering the storm drainage project in this area. He
suggested that some of the sidewalk does not need rehabilitating at this
time and that maybe the monies that were to be used to repair it could be
put into further storm drainage improvements. He also mentioned a
vandalism problem on Wirt Street. They must now park their cars in the
street, and he suggested that possibly ramps over the sidewalk so that they
may construct driveways would be a solution.
Fred Hetzel, another Cornwall Street resident, urged that this pro-
ject be included in this upcoming fiscal year's budget. He went on to
mention that the construction could be potentially damaging to some of the
older structures and that care must be taken.
Charles Smith, President of the Virginia Knolls Homeowners Associa-
tion, spoke on stormwater drainage also. He was referring to the Virginia
Knolls area and the many problems they have been experiencing. He is
concerned about the Tuscarora Creek floodplain in that area. The FEMA
reports that he has reviewed were in serious error, in his opinion. The
channelization that was done will not cure the problem and much more must
be done to correct the problem. This is a critical problem and the costs
of storm drainage projects will run very high. The proper amounts must be
budgeted. He went on to support the parking garage concept, . hoping that the
building will be kept within the general architecture of the downtown area.
With regard to the effective tax increase, it seems somewhat high to him,
but if the town is responsive and services are good, then it would be worth
it. He supports expansion of the police department, and went on to laud
the general services that the town provides such as garbage co'lection and
the police protection.
Mel Converse, a resident of the south side of Cornwall Street,
addressed the sidewalk issue in that area. He does not experience a
drainage problem because of extensive reconfiguration of his yard area, but
does support the project. He is concerned about the sidewalk on the other
side of the street because of the large trees and the yard area that would
have to be sacrificed. The concern in the area should be more drainage
related and less sidewalk replacement related.
Mr. Minor interjected that a sidewalk on the south side of Cornwall
Street has not been planned, but he could not expand on the storm drainage
project because the design had not yet been done. He feels that the
problems being experienced in the area can be solved by the proper drainage
design on public lands in the area.
214 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
Stanley Caulkins, reiterated on the comments made by Mr. Smith on the
storm drainage problems. He also stated that until the town can make large
monetary commitments to projects of this nature, the problem will remain.
The main reference was the Tuscarora Creek runoff. This creates a large
volume of water and with the increasing co^struction in town, the problem
will only increase. Because of the nature of the soil in the area and the
basin that Leesburg sits in, this will be a continuing problem that needs
to be addressed.
Since there were no other members of the public who wished to address
the subject of the budget, the public hearing was closed at this time and
referred to Council level for discussion.
•
The budget will be further reviewed by the Council at the next budget
workshop session scheduled for June 10, 1986.
At this point there was a five minute recess in the Council meeting.
The meeting was called back to order by the Mayor.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Bos gave a report on the Board of Architectural Review meetings
of the past few weeks. The former Hatcher's Building plans were turned
down by the Board. The owner will be appealing this decision to the
Council. Mr. Bos went on to comment on the Memorial Day Services that he
had attended which were officiated by Mr. Kelley. He thought they were
very nice.
Mr. Williams brought several items to Council's attention. First the
Xerox agreement was a beneficial one to both the town and the county and he
was pleased with the cooperation shown by both parties. Secondly, the
Environmental Advisory Commission met last evening at Market Station to
tour the project and be apprised of the development process in that area of
town. Today the Heart Fund had its cardiac "arrest" segment at Market
Station. This was a fund raiser that "arrested" leading citizens of the
town for "bail money". Lastly, he also commented on the Memorial Day
services and commended Councilman Kelley and the VFW for a fine program.
Mr. Pelkey commended the professionalism demonstrated by the town's
lawyers in arriving at the Xerox agreement. This was his first experience
in this type of agreement and he felt that it went very well.
Mr. Curry attended the Planning Commission meeting of May 15 at which
the Commission approved the final plat for Rock Spring Subdivision, Phase
I, the preliminary plat for Memorial Place Subdivision, recommended for
Council approval ZM-75, C. J. Payne, and recommended to Council the
proposed zoning ordinance amendments regarding density in the Old and
Historic District. Mr. Curry went on the address some zoning ordinance
issues. For two years the town has been working with two zoning
ordinances, one for the annexed area and one for the old part of town. He
thinks it is time to set a deadline for completion of a combined zoning
ordinance so that one document may be used. He would like this issue to be
brought up at the Finance and Administration Committee meeting and felt
that 30-days would be sufficient time to complete this project.
Mr. Kelley thanked Jeff Minor and the police department for their
support of the Memorial Day ceremonies. He also complimented Steve Owen
and Jeff Minor on the letter they compiled to the Governor regarding the
State Certification Process.
Mr. Tolbert attended the Airport Commission meeting last Thursday and
reported that it was/ stormy session. He also stated that the Activity
Report highlights the progress on the airport project.
MANAGER'S REPORT
Mr. Minor made a brief comment about the zoning ordinance. On the
agenda for Monday and Tuesday, there will be two divisions of the zoning
MINUTES OF THE MsY 28, 1986 MEETING 215
ordinance for Council review, one on landscaping and one on parking. Mark
Nelis is working on revising the ordinance, along with Tom Poupard.
In terms of the municipal government center and parking complex, the
concept percolated around town for many years. There is no one author of
the concept but a culmination of the concepts of many. What staff tried to
I do was to provide this concept as an alternative to an ever increasing
problem.
I
Pulte Homes has donated $52,629 for landscaping and planting material
for the new park, along with Phase I of the trail system.
Proposals for the 643 waterline project are being received. The
deadline for these proposals is this Friday. The agreements with Richlynn,
the County and Brownell, Inc. are being executed.
Bids will be opened for the Catoctin Circle/Harrison Street traffic
T signal tomorrow. Hopefully this will be on the next Council agenda.
CD Comment was made on how well the availability fee connection account is
N doing. What was projected as a deficit account for the next few years has
N turned into a profitable account making funds available for many new
W utility projects.
QLEGISLATION
On a motion by Mr. Kelley and seconded by Mr. Williams, the following
1 ordinances and resolutions were proposed as consent items and adopted:
I
86-0-23 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTIONS 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, 6-2, 8-1, 8-2,
AND 15-1 OF THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the general and community business zoning districts permit
the construction of dwelling units by right; and
1 WHEREAS, this Council has recognized conflicts between business and
residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, larger setbacks and screening are required to buffer these
incompatible uses and control the location of dwellings in business
districts; and
WHEREAS, the revision of these zoning district regulations is an
objective of the Town Plan; and
I
WHEREAS, the Council and Planning Commission held a joint public
hearing on October 9, 1985, and the Planning Commission recommended these
amendments to the Council on March 6, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held an additional public hearing concerning
these amendments on May 14, 1986; and
WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the policies of the Town
Plan and are in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. The use regulations within the B-1, Community Business
District, as they relate to single-family, two-family and multi-family
dwellings are hereby modified by amending Sections 5-1, 5-2.1 of the
Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 5-1 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES
5-1-1 All "R-1" and "R-2" Residential District permitted uses,
except single-family and two-family dwellings which Are a per-
mitted use only within the H-1 Historic Overlay District.
216 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
5-1-2 (No Change)
5-1-3 Hotels, Motels, and tourist homes
5-1-4 (No Change)
5-2.1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION (No Change)
5-2.1 (b) Multi-family dwellings meeting the standards provided in
Section 8-2-11-11A of this ordinance.
5-2.1 (c) Single-family attached and detached dwellings and two-
family dwellings meeting the standards provided in
Section 8-2-11-11B of this ordinance.
SECTION II. The use regulations within the B-2, General Business
District, as they relate to single-family, two-family and multi-family
dwellings are hereby modified by amending Sections 6-1 and 6-2.1 as
follows:
Section 6-1 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES
6-1-1 All "B-1" Business District permitted uses, except single-
family and two-family dwellings which are a permitted use
only within the H-1 Historic Overlay District.
6-1-2 (No Change)
Sec. 6-2.1 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (No Change)
6-2.1 (b) Multi-family dwellings meeting the standards provided in
Section 8-2-11-11A of this ordinance.
6-2.1 (c) Single-family attached and detached dwellings and two-
family dwellings meeting the standards provided in
Sec. 8-2-11-11B of this ordinance.
SECTION III. The size and dimension standards for the B-1 Community
Business District, as they relate to dwellings, are hereby modified by
amending Section 8-1-2 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 6-1-2. In the B-1 Community Business District:
(a) Zoning lots shall be at least 8,000 square feet in land
area for detached dwellings. and 10,000 square feet in
land area for each two-family attached dwelling.
(b) (c) (d) (e) (No Change)
(f) Rear yards shall be at least 20 feet deep for residences
and 15 feet for all buildings on lots abutting an
existing residential use or "R" district.
SECTION IV. The size and dimension standards for the B-2 General
Business District, as they relate to dwellings are hereby modified by
amending Section 8-1-3 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 8-1-3. In the B-2 General Business District:
(a) Zoning lots shall be at least 8,000 square feet in land
area for detached dwellings and 10,000 square feet in
land area for each two-family attached dwelling.
(b) (c) (d) (e) (No Change)
(f) Rear yards shall be at least 20 feet deep for residences
and 15 feet for all buildings on lots abutting an
existing residential use or "R" district.
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 217
SECTION V. The types of special exception uses which may be approved
by the Town Council and the standards for approval of such uses are hereby
modified by adding new sections 8-2-11-11A and 8-2-11-11B to the Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Sec. 8-2-11-11A. Special Exception Multi-family Uses in the B-1 Community
Business District and B-2 General Business District.
The Council may grant a special exception to permit
multi-family dwellings in the B-1 or B-2 District when
the following standards are met:
(a) Maximum Density: Twenty-two dwelling units per
acre, or 30 units per acre if all
one-bedroom or efficiency units
(b) Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet
(c) Minimum Yard Requirements:
(1) Front: 30 feet
T (2) Side: 30 feet, with opaque screen approved by
CD the Council
(3) Rear: 30 feet, with opaque screen approved by
Nthe Council
W (4) Distance Between Structures: 20 feet
(5) The Town Council may modify the above yard re-
quirements within the H-1 overlay district when
Q deemed appropriate in order to maintain the
character of the Old and Historic District.
(d) Maximum Height: 40 feet; provided, however, height
may be increased at the Council's discretion by one
foot for every two feet of additional setback up to
an absolute maximum height of 50 feet.
(e) Minimum open space: 30% of lot
(1) The Town Council may modify the above open
space requirement within the H-1 Overlay district
when deemed appropriate in order to maintain the
character of the Old and Historic District.
(f) Minimum Recreational Amenities: Multi-family
developments containing 20 or more dwellings shall
include a minimum of 250 square feet of active
recreational space per dwelling unit, improved with
recreational facilities such as swimming pools,
tennis courts and playgrounds. All recreational
facilities shall be constructed prior to completion
of fifty percent (50%) of planned dwelling units.
(g) Architectural Treatment: Architectural treatment
shall avoid massive, monolithic and repetitive
building types, facades and setbacks, and shall be
compatible with surrounding areas. Building eleva-
tions and architectural details sufficient to show
compliance with this standard shall be submitted
with the final development plan application.
(h) Locational Criteria: In addition to the above
height, bulk and yard requirements, the Council
shall consider the following factors:
(1) Conformance with the Town Plan;
(2) Compatibility with adjoining land uses;
(3) Access to the site and impact on the adjacent
road network;
(4) Availability of public services including parks
and recreational areas;
(5) Architectural compatibility with neighborhoods;
(6) Avoiding concentration of multi-family units;
(7) Opportunity to buffer- apartments from adjoining
land uses; and •
(8) Availability of alternative, more suitable,
locations for multi-family construction.
218 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
Sec. 8-2-11-11B Special Exception Single-Family Attached and Detached
Dwellings and Two-Family Dwellings in the B-1 Community
Business District and B-2 General Business District.
The Council may grant a special exception to permit
single-family attached or detached dwellings and two-
family dwellings in the B-1 and B-2 District when the
following standards are met:
(a) Area, Size, Height and Yard Requirements: The
proposed use shall satisfy the minimum area, size, 111
height and yard requirements of Section 4-3 of
this ordinance.
(b) Screening. The Council may require the installation
of solid or vegetative screening along property lines
adjacent to a commercial as a condition of approval
of the special exception.
SECTION VI. The definitions of open space and multi-family dwelling
as presented in Sec. 15-1 of the Zoning Ordinance are amended to read as
follows:
Section 15-1-26. Dwelling, Multi-Family.
A residential structure located on a single zoning lot
containing three or more dwelling units. This defini-
tion specifically does not include attached single
family units.
Section 15-1-53. Open Space.
Land area intended to provide light, air and space to
be designed for aesthetic or recreational purposes,
and to be accessible and in reasonable proximity to
residents or occupants of the development. Open space
shall not include streets, drives, off-street parking
and loading areas, and areas so located or of such
size or shape to have no substantial aesthetic or
recreational value.
SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
86-0-24 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 4A-3 OF THE LEESBURG ZONING
ORDINANCE REGARDING MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS
WHEREAS, the R-4 multi-family district regulations presently do not
require adequate yards and open space for multi-family dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has identified the amendment of these
regulations as an important objective; and
WHEREAS, the Council initiated these amendments on July 10, 1985; and
i
WHEREAS, the Council and Planning Commission held a joint public
hearing on October 9, 1985 and the Planning Commission recommended these
amendments to the Council on March 6, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1986; and
WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the policies of the Town
Plan and are in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare:
ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as
follows:
SECTION I. The size and dimension standards applicable to multi-
family dwellings within the Town R-4 Residential District are hereby modi-
fied by amending Section 4A-3 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance as follows:
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 219
Sec. 4A-3. AREA, SIZE, HEIGHT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS
In the R-4 Residential District:
(a) Zoning lots shall be at least 8,000 square feet in land
area for detached single-family dwellings and 2,000 square
feet for attached single-family dwellings. Zoning lots shall
be at least 10,000 square feet in land area for two-family
dwellings. The total number of multi-family dwellings on a
zoning lot shall not exceed 22 dwelling units per acre, or
30 units per acre if all units are one-bedroom or efficiency
units.
(b) Zoning lots shall be at least 75 feet wide for detached
single-family and two-family, 100 feet wide for multi-family
dwellings and 20 feet wide for attached single-family
dwellings.
(c) No single-family attached or detached dwellings to two-
family dwelling shall exceed 30 feet in height. No multi-
family dwelling shall exceed 40 feet in height; provided,
lJJ however, the Planning Commission may approve an additional
N one-foot in height for every two-feet of additional setback,
up to an absolute maximum height of 50 feet. No other
w structure shall exceed 50 feet in height.
(d) Front yards shall be at least 20 feet deep for single-
family dwellings and 30 feet for multi-family dwellings.
Required front yards for attached dwellings shall not be
used for off-street parking or driveways.
(e) Side yards shall be at least 10 feet wide for detached
single-family and two-family dwellings and 15 feet for
each main structure for attached single-family dwellings.
Non-habitable additions to single-family and two-family
dwellings, such as a garage or carport, may be located
111 within five feet of the side lot line. Side yards are not
required between attached single-family dwellings. Minimum
side yards for multi-family dwellings shall be 30 feet and
shall include a screen approved by the Planning Commission
that is opaque when located adjacent to more intensive uses
or semi-opaque when adjacent to less intensive residential
uses.
(f) Rear yards shall be at least 30 feet deep for attached
single-family and multi-family dwellings and 20 feet deep
for all other structures. Multi-family rear yards shall
include an opaque or semi-opaque screen as provided in (e)
above.
(g) No structure shall contain more than eight attached
single-family dwellings and no more than two adjoining
dwellings shall have the same front yard depth and such
depths shall vary not less than one foot from the adjoin-
ing pair of dwellings.
(h) Attached single-family dwellings shall not be contructed
to a greater density than eight dwelling units to the gross
acre.
(i) All multi-family structures on single lots shall be
separated by a minimum horizontal distance of 20 feet.
(j) Multi-family developments shall include a minimum of
30% open space. Multi-family developments containing 20
or more dwellings shall include a minimum of 250 square
feet of active recreational space per dwelling unit, improved
with recreational facilities such as swimming pools, tennis
courts and playgrounds. All recreational facilities shall be
constructed prior to completion of fifty (50%) percent of
planned dwelling units.
(k) Architectural treatment of multi-family developments
shall avoid massive, monolithic and repetitive building
types, facades and setbacks and shall be compatible with
surrounding areas. Building elevations and architectural
details sufficient to show compliance with this provision
shall be submitted with the final development plan appli-
cation.
220 . MTNUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
86-0-24A-RESOLUTION - AMENDING CHAPTER 12.1, ARTICLE 21 OF THE TOWN CODE
(ARTICLE 21 OF THE PERSONNEL MANUAL) TO COMPLY WITH
STATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE POLICIES
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has established statutory
mandates for local grievance procedures; and
WHEREAS, the state has reviewed the Town of Leesburg's current
grievance procedure and has recommended changes to bring the Town's pro-
cedures
into compliance with State law:
ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as
follows:
SECTION I. Section 12.1-53, paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Town Code,
(Article 21 of the Personnel Manual) are, amended to read as follows:
Sec. 12.1-53. Intent and Application.
(a) For the purposes of this grievance procedure, a grievance shall
be construed as a complaint or dispute by an employee relating to his or.
her employment, including, but not necessarily limited to: (1)
disciplinary actions involving dismissals, demotions, and suspensions
provided that dismissals shall be grievable whenever resulting from formal
discipline or unsatisfactory job performance; (2) concerns regarding the
application, meaning or interpretation of these personnel policies,
procedures, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes; (3) acts of
reprisal as the result of utilization of the grievance procedure; (4)
complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex,
handicap, age, national origin or political affiliation; and (5) reprisal
on the part of the town as a result of an employee's participation in the
grievance of another employee.
(c) Questions of grievability shall be resolved by the town manager.
When either the town or the grievant so requests, the Town Manager shall
decide, within (5) five work days of the request, whether or not a matter
is grievable. The decision of grievability shall be made subsequent to the
reduction of the grievance to writing but prior to the panel hearing and a
copy of the decisions shall be sent to the grievant. The issue of
grievability shall be decided prior to the panel hearing or it shall be
deemed to be waived.
Decisions of the Town Manager concerning the issue of grievability may
be appealed to the Loudoun County Circuit Court for a hearing de novo on
the issue of grievability. Proceedings for review of the decision of the
Town Manager shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal with the Town
Manager within five (5) work days of the date of the decision. Within five
(5) work days thereafter, the Town Manager shall transmit 'to the clerk of
the Circuit Court a copy of his decision, a copy of the notice of appeal,
and the exhibits, with copies to the grievant. Within 30 days of receipt
by the clerk of such records, the Court, sitting without a jury, shall hear
the appeal on the record transmitted by the Town Manager and any additional
evidence as may be necessary to resolve any controversy as to the
correctness of the record. The Court may affirm the decision of the Town
Manager or may reverse or modify the decision. The decision of the Court
is final and not appealable.
SECTION II. Section 12.1-54 paragraphs b, c, e, and f of the Town
Code (Article 21 of the Personnel Manual) are amended to read as follows:
Sec. 12.1-54. Procedure.
(b) Step 2. If the grievance is not resolved in Step 1, the employee
shall reduce the grievance to writing within five (5) days and present it
to the appropriate department head. It shall include a statement of the
grievance and the facts involved, alleged violation of these rules, the
initial decision of the immediate supervisor and the remedy requested by
22f
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
the grievant. Within five (5) days the department head shall arrange a
meeting with the grievant and his immediate supervisor where applicable to
review the facts and shall notify the grievant of his decision in writing
within three working days of such meeting. Step 2 and Step 3 shall be
waived if the Town Manager serves as the grievant's immediate supervisor.
(c) Step 3. If the grievance is not resolved in Step 2, the grievant
may ask the Town Manager for a meeting to discuss the grievance further.
Such request must be made within 5 working days following receipt of the
Department Head's reply. Such meeting shall be held within two working
days of the date of the request and shall be attended by the grievant, such
representatives as he may select, the Department Head and the immediate
supervisor. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel, management
likewise has the option of being represented by counsel. The Town Manager
shall provide a written decision to the grievant with a copy to all other
attendees, within three working days of the date of the meeting. This
section shall not be construed as limiting the Town Manager's authority to
require additional meetings with only the grievant present to discuss
matters pertaining to the grievance.
N (e) After the initial filing of a written grievance, failure of
w� either party to comply with all substantial procedural requirements without
just cause will result in a decision in favor of the other party on any
grievable issue, provided the party not in compliarcefails to correct the
Q noncompliance within five work days of receipt of written notification of
the compliance violation. Such written notification by the grievant shall
be made to the Town Manager. Failure of either party without just cause to
comply with all substantial procedural requirements at the panel hearing
shall result in a decision in favor of the other party.
SECTION III. Section 12.1-55, paragraphs (b)(4) and paragraphs (d)(2)
of the Town Code (Article 21 of the Personnel Manual) are amended to read
as follows:
(b) Panel Selection.
(4) The following relatives of a participant in the grievance
process or a participant's spouse are prohibited from serving as
panel members: spouse, parent, child, descendants of a child,
sibling, niece, nephew and first cousin. No attorney.having
direct involvement with the subject matter of the grievance,
nor a partner, associate, employee or co-employee of such an
attorney shall serve as a panel member.
(d) Powers
(2) The majority decision of the panel shall be final in all of
its determinations, and shall be consistent with the provisions
of law and written policies. The manager shall enforce all
decisions of the panel and the grievant may petition the circuit
court for implementation of the panel's decision if the manager
fails to act on the panel's decision.
SECTION IV. All prior ordinanes and resolutions in conflict herewith
are repealed.
SECTION V. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
86-92 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF
PORTION OF OLD VIRGINIA ROUTE 621
WHEREAS, an application by Carleton Penn and Lucas D. Phillips has
been submitted for vacation of a portion of old Virginia Route 621 right-
of-way in the Town of Leesburg, comprising 5,427 square feet and located
between South King Street and the relocated section of Route 621 north of
the Route 7 By-pass, as shown on a plat dated April 18, 1986, by Bengtson,
DeBell, Elkin and Titus; and
222 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
WHEREAS, the applicant requests that a hearing be held by the Council
of the Town of Leesburg on said vacation:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
The Clerk of the Council is directed to publish a notice of intention
to vacate the above described street, pursuant to Section 15.1-364 of the
1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, in the Loudoun Times Mirror on June 5,
1986 and June 12, 1986, for public hearing on June 25, 1986, at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia.
86-93 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PAINTING CONTRACT WITH SOUTHERN
CORROSION, INC. , FOR RECOATING THE CARR ELEVATED STEEL
TANK EXTERIOR
WHEREAS, the above described project was an approved and appropriated
capital outlay item in the FY 86 budget; and
WHEREAS, sealed bids for this work were solicited in accordance with
Leesburg's Purchasing Policy; and
WHEREAS, of the seven bids received, Southern Corrosion, Inc. was the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder: •
•
THEREFORE, RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute a
contract with Southern Corrosion, Inc for therec a inof the Carr
s o o f g
Elevated Steel Tank exterior in the amount of $27,600.00
86-94 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH SULLY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOXRIDGE PUBLIC PARK
WHEREAS, sealed bids were solicited for the construction of the
Foxridge public park in accordance with bid documents prepared by Patton,
Harris, Rust and Associates in accordance with park master plans approved
by the Council; and
WHEREAS, Sully Construction Company of Leesburg, Virginia submitted
the low bid for this work in the amount of $336,117; .and
WHEREAS, the Pulte Home Corporation, builders and developers for the
Foxridge Subdivision, have tendered an offer to the town in the amount of
$12,763 for Phase I trail development and $39,866 for Phase II landscaping
which will reduce the town's share for park development by a total of
$52,629 contingent on development of both phases of the park; and
WHEREAS, the approved Town Plan recognizes the development of quality
parks and recreation facilities as an important goal of this Council.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. The manager is authorized to execute a lump sum contract,
on behalf of the town, with Sully Construction Company for the construction
of Foxridge Park, Phase I, in the amount of $163,825.
SECTION II. A transfer of funds is made from the General Fund to
Parks Construction Capital Projects Fund, Account No. ' 9400.700.090,
Foxridge Park, in the amount of $163,825 which said appropriation shall
remain in effect until the project is complete.
SECTION III. The manager is further authorized to execute a lump sum
contract, on behalf of the town, with Sully Construction Company after July
1, 1986 for construction of Foxridge Park, Phase II, in accordance with bid
documents and specifications issued for the project, contingent on
sufficient appropriations to the Parks Construction Capital Project Fund
in the adopted FY 1987 budget.
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 223
SECTION IV. The manager is authorized and directed t0 accept, on
behalf of the town, payments from the Pulte Home Corporation up to the
amount of $52,629 to offset town expenses for this project.
I
i
86-95 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PERMIT FOR DOWNTOWN LEESBURG SIDEWALK
SALE DAY
WHEREAS, a request has been submitted by the Downtown Business
Association for a sidewalk sale on June 29:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. The manager is authorized to issue a permit under
paragraph 10-13 of the Town Code to the Downtown Business Association for a
sidewalk sale on King Street to be conducted on Sunday, June 29 from noon
until no later than 6:00 p.m. and is further authorized to close King
Street between Loudoun and Market during those hours.
vl SECTION II. The permit may contain reasonable and appropriate
N conditions as determined necessary by the manager and shall require the
Ntown to be named as additional insured under a $500,000 public liability
CO
insurance policy secured by the Downtown Business Association.
86-96 - RESOLUTION - SUPPORTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND
Q TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED WIDENING AND PAVEMENT OF ROUTE
643 FROM THE TOWN LIMITS SOUTH TO ROUTE 648
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
proposes to improve a 1.47 mile section of Route 643 from the town limits
south to Route 648; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg has adopted a Town Plan identifying
Route 643 as a major arterial roadway; and
WHEREAS, Route 643 is proposed to be improved to a four-lane divided
roadway from the Town of Leesburg to Washington-Dulles International
Airport, also known as the Loudoun Parkway:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. The Town of Leesburg supports the improvements to Route
643 proposed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
SECTION II. The Town of Leesburg also supports the eventual
improvement of Route 643 to a divided highway from the town to Washington-
Dulles International Airport.
SECTION III. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to present this
resolution at the VDH&T public hearing to be held on June 11, 1986.
86-97 = RESOLUTION - APPOINTING JOHN W. TOLBERT, JR. AS THE COUNCIL'S
APPOINTMENT TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE ROUTE
643 WATERLINE DESIGN PROJECT
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal has been issued to select an engineer-
ing firm to design the Route 643 waterline project; and
WHEREAS, the cost of these services will exceed $35,000; and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 8.2-5 of the town's Purchasing Policy requires the
appointment of a councilmember to serve on the Review Committee to recom-
mend contracts to the Council:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
224 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
John W. Tolbert, Jr. is appointed to serve as the Council representa-
tive on the Review Committee to recommend a design engineer for the Route
643 waterline project.
86-98 - RESOLUTION - ESTABLISHING A SANITARY SEWAGE CONVEYANCE PLAN FOR
THE CATTAIL BRANCH SEWER SERVICE AREA WITHIN THE
CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1984, the Town of Leesburg annexed 7.17
square miles; and
WHEREAS, there is no approved general plan for a sanitary sewer
conveyance system within major parts of the annexation area; and
WHEREAS, this Council has approved the Potomac Crossing planned
development within the Cattail Branch service area and other applications
are active and pending for significant development in this area; and
WHEREAS, a general plan detailing the approximate location and size of
necessary conveyance facilities and pump stations as well as estimated
sewage flows is essential to effectively coordinate the review and approval
of the sanitary conveyance systems approved for new development within the
Cattail Branch service area; and
WHERAS, the sewer conveyance plan and projected sewer flows by
development tract are essential for developing pro rata cost sharing
agreements for the extension of specific sewer conveyance facilities
pursuant to paragraph 15-15 of the Town Code and for calculating amounts
due the developer from the town for oversizing sewer lines pursuant to
paragraph 13-84(a) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, paragraph 13-84 of the Subdivision and Land Development
Regulations further requires all sanitary sewer improvements to be designed
and completed to such sizes and capacities as prescribed in the town's
master plan for sewer works; and
WHEREAS, the last trunk sewer master plan in use by the town was
submitted in January, 1976; and
WHEREAS, a revised sewer and water master plan for the expanded town
will not be complete for at least six months; and
WHEREAS, a report has been sumitted by the professional engineering
consulting fins, B.C.M.Potomac, Inc., which includes the information and
data necessary to establish a generalized sewer conveyance plan for the
Cattail Branch sewer service area within the town corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the
plan and concurs with its recommendations:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. The report dated April 29, 1986 submitted by B.C.M.-
Potomac, Inc, as amended to incorporate minor modifications suggested by
the Director of Engineering and Public Works, is approved for use as the
town's master plan for sewer works pursuant to paragraph 13-84 of the
Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
SECTION II. The Director of Engineering and Public Works shall have
the authority to interpret and modify the location of sanitary sewer lines
and sewage flows as necessary to accommodate changing development plans
within the Cattail Branch sewer service area in keeping with the general
concept of the conveyance plan adopted herein.
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 225
86-99 _ RESOLUTION - INITIATING A REVISION TO THE LEESBURG ZONING DISTRICT
MAP FOR THE HARRISON SQUARE SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS
WHEREAS, the Harrison Square South Condominiums were constructed with
federal funding assistance as part of the South Harrison Street Community
Development Project specifically to provide moderate-income homeownership
opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the town's agreement with the developer of this project
required that the condominiums be sold for moderate-income residential
purposes only; and
WHEREAS, the present B-2 zoning of this property would permit non-
residential use within this residential project; and
WHEREAS, the continuing residential use of this property is essential
to support the goals of the South Harrison Street Community Development
Project and the Town Plan for the maintenance of moderate-cost housing in
the downtown area; and
N WHEREAS, the rezoning of this property to an appropriate residential
N district is in the interest of good zoning practice and the public welfare:
CO THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
CO follows:
Q
SECTION I. An amendment to the Zoning District Map is initiated to
rezone the Harrison Square South Condominiums, located on .7553 acres of
land as shown on the attached map, from B-2 to R-4.
SECTION II. A public hearing on the proposed zoning map amendment,
assigned #ZM-77, shall be held at 7:30 p.m. on June 25, 1986, in the
Council Chambers, 10 Loudoun Street, SW, Leesburg, Virginia, and, in
accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, this hearing
shall be a joint public hearing of the Council and Planning Commission.
The clerk shall give notice of this hearing and the Council's intention to
adopt the zoning map amendment on June 5, 1986 and June 12, 1986, and shall
advise the Planning Commission of the purpose, time and date of the
hearing.
SECTION III. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendation
to the Council on the proposed amendment within 30 days of the public
hearing.
86-100 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS CHAIRS
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as
follows:
An appropriation is made from the unappropriated General Fund balance
to General Fund Account No. 200.1101.700.020, Office Equipment, in the
amount of $4,833 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1986.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
86-101 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE LOUDOUN COUNTY GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
CENTER WITH COMMENTS
On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, the County of Loudoun is the owner of approximately 92 acres
of land located adjacent to Sycolin Road and bounded by the present
Leesburg corporate limits hereinafter referred to as "County Government
Support Center" and more particularly shown on a map transmitted with a
report to the Council on May 20, 1986; and
228 MTNUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
WHEREAS, the town desires to cooperate fully in assisting the county
in the location of needed public facilities and supports the continued
location and operation of important county government functions and
facilities within and adjacent to Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, the proposed facilities will not impair safe air. navigation
around Leesburg Municipal Airport; and
WHEREAS, the proposed support center does not conflict with the
Annexation Area Development Policies or the town's goals for the Greater
Leesburg Area:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. The Council generally endorses the proposed support center
concept plan with the following qualifications:
1. Adequate right-of-way should be provided to allow for upgrading of
Route 643 to a four-lane arterial as called for in the Leesburg Town Plan.
2, The final development plan for the facility should incorporate all
appropriate precautions to minimize the impact of the facility on adjacent
properties, including, but not limited to:
(a) The provision of generous landscaping and buffering along the
entire perimeter of the tract;
(b) Use of walls, berms or natural vegetation as sound deadening
devices around noise generating areas, specifically the vehicular
rescue area; and
(c) Careful consideration to the exterior architectural treatment
of all buildings proposed along Route 643.
3. The County should make provisions on site for adequate water flows
until the town's Hogback Mountain pumping station is completed.
4. The county should confer with the property owner on the tract's
northern and eastern boundary for providing access to Route 643.
SECTION II. The town manager is directed to forward this resolution
to the Loudoun County Administrator for transmittal to the County Board of
Supervisors.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
86-102 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICA-
TION TO THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS FOR A
DESIGN ADVANCEMENT MATCHING GRANT TO CONDUCT A DESIGN
COMPETITION FOR A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT CENTER/PARKING
COMPLEX
On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, the adopted Town Plan and Capital Improvements Program call
for the redevelopment of the downtown municipal parking lot into a muni-
cipal government center and parking complex; and
WHEREAS, a design competition will be a useful process to ensure a
high-quality design that will be compatible with the historic district; and
WHEREAS, the National Endowment for the Arts provides matching funds
for conducting design competitions; and
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 2 27
WHEREAS, applying for matching funds does not reduce the Council's
flexibility in the timing or method of implementing the proposal for
constructing a municipal government center and parking complex:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
•
The Council hereby authorizes the Town Manager to submit an
application to the National Endowment for the Arts for a Design Advancement
matching grant for conducting a design competition for a municipal
government center/parking complex.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert,' Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
86-103 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH BROTHERS SIGNAL AND
T CONTROL COMPANY, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A
0) TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF CATOCTIN
N CIRCLE AND DRY MILL ROAD
WOn a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
W
WHEREAS, the engineering consulting firm of Kellerco, Inc., prepared
construction plans and specifications for a traffic signal at the
intersection of Catoctin Circle and Dry Mill Road; and
WHEREAS, sealed bids for the installation of the traffic signal were
opened on Tuesday, May 13, 1986, and Brothers Signal and Control Company,
Inc. , is the low bidder with a bid of $29,831.50; and
' WHEREAS, Kellerco, Inc., has reviewed the bids and advised the Town of
Leesburg that the Brothers Signal and Control Company, Inc. was the
qualified low bidder and recommended award of contract to them;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. A contract award is made to Brothers Signal and Control
Company, Inc. of Leesburg, Virginia for the installation of the traffic
signal at the intersection of Catoctin Circle and Dry Mill Road on a lump
sum basis in the amount of $29,831.50.
SECTION II. The manager shall enter into a contract with Brothers
Signal and Control Company for the installation of the traffic signal based
on this award.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
86-104 - RESOLUTION - MAKING COUNCILMANIC APPOINTMENT TO CABLE TELEVISION
ADVISORY COMMISSION
On a motion made by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the
following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, Councilmember Marylou Hill submitted her resignation from the
Leesburg Town Council on May 7, 1986, effective immediately; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Hill was the Councilmanic appointee to the
Cable Television Advisory Commission; and
WHEREAS, Jerry S. Pelkey was appointed to fill the vacancy on the Town
Council:
228 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
Jerry S. Pelkey is hereby appointed to fill the vacancy on the Cable •
Television Advisory Commission, his term to expire June 30, 1986.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
•
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
86-105 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 17 "TAXATION AND LICENSES" OF THE TOWN CODE
On a motion by Mr. Tolbert and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
A notice of Public Hearing to amend Chapter 17 "Taxation and Licenses"
of the Town Code regarding the imposition of a 2% tax on prepared meals and
a 3% tax on transient room rental receipts shall be published in the June
5, 1986 Loudoun Times Mirror for public hearing on June 11, 1986 at 7:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers at 10 Loudoun Street, SW, Leesburg, Virginia.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
NEW BUSINESS
86-106 = RESOLUTION = MAKING A REDUCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION FOR EXETER HILLS
SUBDIVISION, SECTION IV
On a motion by Mr. Kelley and seconded by Mr. Williams, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, a registered engineer has certified the public improvements
installed to date in Exeter Hills Subdivision Section IV has a value of
$149,755; and
WHEREAS, a letter of credit from Providence Savings and Loan
Association in the amount of $193,256 has been provided by the developer
and approved by Council to guarantee installation of public improvements
in Exeter Hills Subdivision Section IV.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. The Providence Savings and Loan Association letter of
credit originally in the amount of $193,256 is reduced to $43,501.
SECTION II. The manager shall notify the developer of Exeter Hills
Subdivision Section IV that liability for letter of credit funds has been
reduced as outlined in Section I of this resolution, and that this
reduction does not constitute acceptance of public improvements by the town '
or relieve the developer of responsibilities outlined in the contract for
public improvements for the Exeter Hills Subdivision, Section IV.
SECTION III. This reduction is contingent upon the Town's Director of
Engineering and Public Works certifying the value of the completed
improvements equals $149,755.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING 229
86-107 - RESOLUTION - AGREEING TO A SETTLEMENT REGARDING THE XEROX REALTY
CORPORATION REZONING
On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, a dispute arose between the Town of Leesburg and County of
Loudoun concerning the interpretation of the November 15, 1982 Annexation
Agreement, Annexation Area Development Policies (AADPs) and Court Order
with respect to their application to the Xerox Realty Corporation rezoning
approved December 15, 1985, the Leesburg Area Management Plan amendments
approved September 16 , 1985 and the timing and source of utility services
to the development hereinafter referred to as "Potomac Park"; and
WHEREAS, the town retained legal counsel to enforce the terms of the
Annexation Agreement, Court Order and AADPs with respect to all aspects of
the Potomac Park development ; and
WHEREAS, both the County Board of Supervisors and the Town Council
have attempted over the last weeks to negotiate a settlement acceptable to
the county and town; and
WHEREAS, by motion adopted May 22, 1986', the Board of Supervisors
accepted the offer of the Town of Leesburg contained in its letter by
counsel dated May 21, 1986, as amended by letter of counsel dated May 22,
1986 and subject to an amendment to the attached map (and subsequent letter
of clarification) illustrating the service area of the existing Loudoun
Sanitation Authority package sewage treatment plant in the Sycolin
Watershed; and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to reasonably accommodate the proposed
Potomac Park development consistent with the Annexation Agreement, AADPs
and Court Order; and
WHEREAS, this Council is confident that the settlement agreement
— serves the mutual objectives of the town and county and is in the best
interest of the town' s and county' s citizens:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
Subject to preparation and execution of a formal legal agreement, the
Town of Leesburg agrees to the terms of a proposed agreement reflected in
the following documents:
1. Letter dated May 21, 1986 from G. H. Gromel, Jr. to Edward J.
Finnegan;
2. Letter dated May 22, 1986 from Deborah Welsh to Edward J.
Finnegan;
3. Approved motion of Loudoun County Board of Si pervisors adopted
May 22, 1986 regarding Settlement Proposal to the Pending and
Threatening Lawsuit Initiated by the Town of Leesburg; and
4. Letter dated May 23, 1986 from Edward J. Finnegan to G. H.
Gromel, Jr.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Bos, Council voted
unanimously to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters
pertaining to the Planning Commission appointment, and applicant review for
the Airport Commission and Board of Architectural Review. Section 2. 1-344
(1) and 2. 1-344(3) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (Freedom of
Information Act) permits the Council to discuss such matters in executive
session.
230
• MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1986 MEETING
-Only the Town Council is requested to attend this executive session.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams
and Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
Council reconvened at approximately 10: 22 with no action taken.
86-108 - RESOLUTION - APPOINTING JAMES E. CLEM TO THE LEESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
On:notion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following reso-
lution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, a vacancy exists on the Leesburg Planning Commission:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
•
James E. Clem is appointed to the Leesburg Planning Commission for a
term ending December 31, 1988.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Pelkey, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
Mr. Williams asked the indulgence of the Council to consider compensation
issues for the Planning Commission and the Council.
Mr. Bos did not support a raise for the Council but is in favor of a raise
for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kelley does support a raise for the Planning Commission and is also in
support of a raise for the Council. He feels the time spent by the Council jus-
tifies an increase in pay. He proposed raising the Mayor' s salary from $6,000
to $7,200 and the Councilmembers' salaries from $4,500 to $6,000, effective
July 1, 1986.
Mr. Pelkey was also in support of the raise for Councilmembers. He felt some
of the special meetings that require travel, along with a larger number of func-
tions that need attendance, are well justified.
Mr. Tolbert concurred that a raise is justified.
Mr. Curry was also supportive of the raise for both the Planning Commission
and the Council.
Mr. Williams made further comment on the many meetings and functions that
are required and how oftentimes the out-of-pocket expenses required do add up.
The increase should more than offset these expenses.
Mayor Sevila stated the last increase for Council was in the 1984/85
budget. He does not support pay increases for the Mayor and Council. No-one
should have to serve in office and have to pay, but he felt the compensation
more than covers any expenses. He suggested that maybe the reimbursement poli-
cies be restructured. He does support the raise for the Planning Commission
members.
It was suggested that this matter be reconsidered at the next budget re-
view meeting.
On motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Pelkey, the meeting was adjourned.
Mayor
/—
Clerk of/ouncil