HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990_01_09MINUTES OF THE REG~ MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL
- - JANUARY 9, 1990
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10
Loudoun Street, S.W., Leesburg, Virginia on January 9, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to
order by the Mayor. Councilmember Tolbert read some New Year resolutions which he asked the
public to think about. No one will ever get out of this world alive, resolve therefore, to maintain a
reasonable sense of values. Take care of yourself, good health is everyone's major source of wealth,
without this happiness is almost impossible. Resolve to be cheerful and helpful, people will repay you
in kind. Avoid angry, abrasive persons, they are generally vengeful. Avoid derelicts, they are generally
humorless. Resolve to listen more and talk less, no one will ever learn anything by talking. Be
cheerful when given advice, wise men don't need it and fools don't heed it. Resolve to be tender with
the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and be tolerant with the weak
and the strong. Sometime in life you will have been all of these. Do not equate money with success.
There are many successful money-makers who are miserable and failure as human beings. What
counts most about success is how a person achieves it.
The Salute to the Flag was led by Troop 954. Present were: Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers
James E. Clem, Christine M. Forester, Claxton E. Lovin and John W. Tolbert~ Jr. Absent were
Councilmembers Donald A. Kimball and William P. Mulokey. Also present were: Town Manager
Jeffrey H. Minor, Assistant Town Manager Steven C. Brown, Director of Planning, Zoning and
Development Katherine Imhoff, Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason, Director
of Parks and Recreation Gary Huff, Public Information Officer Susan Farmer, Planners Peter
Stephenson, and Sally Vecchio and Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh.
Petitioners
There were no petitioners.
Public Hearing - Stormwater Management Master Plan o Mr. Mason stated that discussions on the
master plan have been before the Administration and Public Works Committee of the Council, on three
separate occasions. Because of the concern and interest shown by the public, it was recommended that
a public hearing at the Town Council level be held. Mr. Brian Mack of Camp, Dresser & McKee
(CDM), the town's engineering consultant who prepared the master plan for the town was present to
give a synopsis of the plan. He briefed the Council on what the plan looks at, how it deals with the
issue of stormwater management and the basic recommendations that are being considered by the
Council for adoption. Mr. Mack also showed some view graph slides which gave the public some
technical background of the master plan. Models designed by CDM will identify where flooding occurs.
They provide elevations and flow information which win help to identify where problems exist. From
this information, CDM can ten what type of alternatives can be used to solve the problems, protect the
homes, protect from erosion, etc. CDM looked at regional detention basins, which control excess runoff
from development, retains the water and bleeds it of[ at a slower rate, thus keeping elevations down.
Stream crossing improvements, berms, onsite detention and flood proofing improvements were also
looked into. Areas identified as having problems include the eastern portion of Tuscarora Creek, areas
in the Virginia Knolls Subdivision, the area along Town Branch - homes along Monroe Street, King
Street, Dry Mill Rnad and Mosby Drive and the area along Cattail Branch identified as Edwards Ferry
Road. Onsite detention is recommended in the area of Cattail Branch for 2-year erosion control. Also
recommended is flood proofing for the pump station in this area Regional detention is recommended
for Town Branch, to reduce flows. Two options were considered for Monroe Street. One being a
channelization and berming and the other option being strictly berming. CDM's recommendation is
channel straightening with the berm. There has been recorded flooding in this area due to the natural
shape of the channel. CDM feels that by cleaning and straightening the channel along with the berm
will protect the homes on Monroe Street. Onsite detention is recommended for the proposed new
development in this area. CDM recommends that the Capital Homes project entail the Mosby Drive
homes. When the preliminary design of the Capital Homes project is submitted, the exact protection
of each home, in detail is performed to make sure the houses are protected. Four regional detention
basins are recommended for the upstream portions of the watershed of Tuscarora Creek. One hundred
year protection is recommended for protection in the Virginia Knons ares. A berm in this area is also
recommended, which will include 3 feet of freeboard above and beyond the elevations that CDM has
estimated, which is recommended by FEMA. In the Dry Mill Branch, CDM recommends that
development be minimized to maintain minimum flows coming down through the town.
Overall cost estimates for these projects are: For the channel improvements which include the berms,
channelization and crossing improvements $.7 to $1.3 million. For the regional detention basins in the
western portion, approximately $2.4 million for the construction of four basins.
Mr. Mason stated that based on CDM's findings in the master plan and considering the improvement
projects that the town has currently underway, there is currently over $2 minion worth of storm
drainage improvements. The town is taking a broad brush approach with this master plan and are
making some generalizations on the type of improvement that will solve the problem. These
improvements when they go into the preliminary design stage win need much more detail, and will
need to have other options evaluated.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
This master plan has taken a number of years to develop. It recognizes and uses the most up-to-date
computer modeling to predict where future flooding will be. CDM and staff have done a good job of
addressing stormwater management concerns.
Mrs. Heidi Malacarne, a resident of Leesburg stated that she has reviewed the master plan and does
not exactly understand the definition of it. The broad brush approach is the best definition. She
believes a stormwater master plan should include all the areas of the Town of Leesburg, which includes
annexed areas, instead of specific concentration on the areas along the Town Branch. Although these
areas are important - the future developments in other areas are just as important. A true stormwater
master plan would be based on future, maximum peak discharge rates, instead what they are basing
it on is pre development minimum discharge rates. Tuscarora Creek and Cattail Branch, specifically
at Lawson Road and Edwards Ferry Road were given very low priority on this master plan. In a
matter of 2 weeks the Town Council will be voting on rezoning of these two areas. This is a rezoning
from a rather less intense usage to a more intense usage. When you take an area ~!~t is heavily
wooded and covered with grass and areas that absorb rainfall and cover it with houses :.:~.d roads and
concrete - you are increasing the rate of discharge and runoff. Mrs. Malacarne did some ~esearch and
showed the Council what happens when you have urbanization in the watershed. It can have an
adverse consequence on the stream. One fact, she stated is increased peak discharges are about 2 - 5
times higher than pre-development levels. The increased volume of storm runoff produced by each
storm in comparison to pre-development rates in a moderately developed watershed may produce over
50% more runoff then a forested watershed during the same storm. There is an increase in frequency
and severity of flooding. A short summer storm that may have only raised the water level slightly in
the past, now turns into a major torrent. The channel itself will change as the town grows and
expands by increased urbanization. She explained stream geometry and stated that the reasons why
she put so much concentration on this is because the "poor saps" that buy the homes in the planned
residential neighborhoods are going to be the ones that suffer. They will pay 3 times as much for their
homes as what we did. It is a no win situation unless we have a high quality stormwater master plan
for everybody in the town. High quality means that it is not just a brush over plan. The elevation
of the stream flood plain must increase as density increases with development to accommodate higher
post-development peak discharge rates. Property and structures which had not been previously subject
to flooding are now at risk. The Stormwater Master Plan eludes to several regional detention basins
as a control to existing flooding. Where are the specific sites where the regional detention basins will
be constructed. How will the town acquire the land for these sites. Will the land be suitable for this
use, usually soils in flood plains are very poor. Will the proper federal and state permits be obtained
prior to construction. When will they be built and will they be built in phasing with other
developments on these sites. How much is the cost. The cost in this master plan indicates it is 50%
lower, I believe it is 50% lower to the developer. This reduced cost to the developer, however, the tax
payer will incur the overall $2.5 million for these detention ponds. Will the developers in these areas
be required to make a contribution to these regional detention ponds. Before Council approves the
master plan, Mrs. Malacarne would like to see comments from the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation District and, if possible, from the Water Resource Planning Board of the
Metropolitan Washington Counsel of Governments. A master plan is based on prevention. If we can
prevent a problem from occurring then the town should do so now. Some of the ways that it can be
done is to review the present floodplain regulations, monitor increased runoff by decreased density in
flood prone areas, adopt a lot coverage regulation for all districts as soon as possible. A prevention of
high quality will save the Town of Leesburg millions of dollars in remedial measures.
Mr. Larry Barnet, a resident of 22 Monroe Street, stated that he was impressed by the studies
presented tonight and the previous weeks by CDM. Approximately 12 years ago work began on the
Town Branch behind his home. Flood insurance policies are issued under federal guidelines and
revisions resulted in flood insurance being so restricted that it is practically useless for basement
flooding, which is what occurs on Monroe Street. Flood waters can do physical and mental damage that
no insurance can ever pay for. When the work on Town Branch was completed, Mr. Barnet's yard
was not fiooding as often. When Madison House was built, Mr. Barnet's holding pond was filled in.
Additional holding ponds were filled in when the Subaru dealership and Farmers and Merchants Bank
was built. Money has been spent, a little here and there - if it would have been fixed right the first
time, we would not be here tonight. If the problems are not solved this time, the new owner of Mr.
Barnet's home will be present at a future Council meeting, begging for the 100-year flood plain
construction work to be done. More and more land within the Town of Leesburg is being filled in and
drainage turned toward Town Branch. The solution is to vote for the 100-year flood plain construction.
Mr. Barnet asked Council to vote for the best plan that is available. Any improvements on Monroe
Street will benefit other areas above and below Monroe Street.
Mr. Charles M. Smith, a resident of Virginia Knolls for 22 years and has been a long-time flood
observer. He is an engineer by trade and has reviewed the master plan very carefully. He commended
the present Council and the town's engineering ~ff for their attention to this problem. One concern
of Mr. Smith is that the projected flooding problem that is shown in the master plan is considerably
less severe than his observations in the Virginia Knolls area. After reviewing the 1982 FEMA flood
study that was done for the Town of Leesburg - the elevations for the parking lot on Shenandoah Street
are exactly the tip of the parking lot, which made it convenient to compile statistics. The 100-year
concept is a flood that has a probability of .01 in a year. Over a period of 19 years, the 100-year FEMA
flood plain elevation was equal or exceeded six times. Six times in 19 years is a mean time between
floods - three years, not 100. If we are understating this then the fixes that are being recommended
may not solve the problem. Mr. Smith recommends that a combination of channelization and berms
be considered. He is not convinced that a 5.5 foot berm will do the job. The problem of stormdrainage
in Leesburg is more severe then many people realize. He supports the master plan, and supports the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
concept of getting it through, but at this point, the fix needs to be fine tuned and a combination of
these techniques evaluated.
Mr. Thomas Gates,'a resident of Mosby Drive stated that this Council should listen to what has been
said tonight - it is all true. He is not here to challenge anyone. He wants what is best for the Town
of Leesburg and himself. He endorses the previous speakers. As he tells his patients, we cannot
always be sure that we will be right but we would like to assure them that we will do the very best.
If we have an occasion to look back at the plan that we make today, in 2 - 3 years, it will be satisfying
that we did everything we could. Dotted every i and crossed all the t's. I am not sure that the town
has done that in the master plan. I am concerned that in some areas of this plan there is 100-year
protection and whether that is adequate has been brought under question. Other areas there is 25-
year protection. There is a lot of hesitation in the plan itself as to whether this is indeed adequate.
Another concern are berms. I have never seen one that I like. How long do they last. Who will
maintain it. What is it's aesthetics and what is it's alternative. The emphasis of protection belongs
to the people who are here now, that have bought maintained their properties. The County is studying
stormwater management and nowhere in the town's plan does it interface with the County's plan.
Development seems to exaggerate stormwater management problems steadily. Be aware of the fact that
dense development in the watershed may only serve to exaggerate the problem.
The public hearing was closed. Mayor Sevila said the Council will receive public comment in
writing for a period of ten days. On motion of Mr. Tolbert~ seconded by Mr. Lovin, this matter was
referred to the Administration and Public Works Committee on January 17, 1990.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Councilmembers Kimball and Mulokey
Public hearing - Amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance
Mayor Sevila stated that this Council has been in the process of considering the amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance since 1975. Piece-meal legislation has been adopted. A lot of changes have occurred
since his election in 1982 that makes what the town is doing now, virtually mandatory. Most
significant of those events is the annexation of 7.5 miles of the Town of Leesburg in 1983/84. As a
result of the annexation, the Wwn brought the land into the town with its current zoning. The town
was placed in the awkward situation of administering two zoning ordinances within the town. One,
the town ordinance which was on the books and which governed all the land that was within the town
prior to the annexation. Secondly, the annexation area that was in the county, with county designation
and many cases county proffered zoning. The result of that was that the Town was administering
seven districts in the town under the town zoning ordinance and nine in the county - ranging from A-
3 through planned development regulations. The result has been both cumbersome and sometimes
confusing. The court order that approved the annexation did require the town to consolidate our
zoning ordinance. It permitted the town to administer two separate zoning ordinances for the period
of time leading to consolidation. Ultimately, to consolidate into a single zoning ordinance the
regulations governing all the land within the Town of Leesburg. The document that is before us
tonight for public hearing is one that has been the subject during the last two years of over 50 meetings
before the town's Planning Commission. Following Planning Commission recommendation, referral
to the Council in the spring of 1989. It was the subject of a roundtable discussion attended by many
of the public. Following the roundtable discussions it was the subject of at least 12 meetings conducted
by our Citizens Advisory Committee which met on Monday evenings for a period of 3 months and
culminated with a recommendation to the Council for approximately 65 changes to the text of the
ordinance. The document has incorporated approximately 55% to 60% of the changes. The document
has been in a constant state of evolution for a 2 year period. The result of much public input. We
are at a critical stage in the adoption process that is to receive more public input and comment on a
very important document. Following this meeting to consider the public comment and further revise
the ordinance as needed and hopefully get it into a form that we can all concede and agree that it is
a better document, a more modern revised document that best suits the needs of this town and all of
it's citizens as we begin this new decade.
The question has been raised whether or not the town is overly relying on special exception
provisions. Since the town has been administering two zoning ordinances, the town has not only had
a special exception procedure under the towns documents, but have also had a different special
exception procedure under the county documents and have also had a conditional use procedure. We
know from case law that the conditional use permits are in fact special exceptions under a different
name. We are abolishing conditional use permits under the new ordinance. We are consolidating the
special exception uses under a single chapter in the ordinance and are prescribing standards and criteria
for the approval of special exception. The Council has read and heard much criticism and outcry that
this is an anti-growth, no development, anti-business document because of the special exception uses.
At the June roundtable meeting, the Mayor reviewed with the public the town's Quarterly Development
Summary, in which the number of uses, both residential and non-residential have been approved in the
town over a 2-3 year period. Pipeline development was also discussed - in terms of millions of square
feet have recently been approved for commercial non-residential uses - also the gross numbers of
residential units that have been approved. Residential units of every mix that is permitted under the
town's regulations. As a result of the concern of adding special exceptions to the ordinance, staff has
looked at the gross numbers of pipeline development that we have before us in some phase of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
development. The Mayor asked everyone who believed that this document was an anti-growth
document, to look at the record of approvals. Of the 6.9 million square feet of non-residential projects
in the development, pipeline, 6.7% of the 6.9 million would have required special exception under the
new ordinance.
Another concern that has been brought up is the issue of vesting. The Council has adopted
a policy that win be a part of the ordinance which will relate to vesting and will exempt from the
coverage of the new ordinance the special exception provisions, any property on which there already
is an approved preliminary plan and a filed and received record plat. This policy is far more generous
then any under state law, as characterized by the town's special counsel, Terry Ney of McGuire, Woods,
Battle & Boothe. In his legal analysis of this policy, he uses the word generous because it does exceed
what is required under the existing state law.
With respect to grandfathering, the ordinance has a suggested grandfathering provision. It
refers to special exception. Any use that is now permitted at a site or is being conducted on a site, is
a permitted .use under the existing ordinance, that would have become a special exception after the
adoption of the new ordinance, will continue as a permitted use. Finally, any use that is permitted
under a proffered zoning that was approved by the town will continue as a permitted use and all of the
parcels specifically referred to in the Annexation Area Development Policy as proffered properties
remain as permitted uses. The town has tried to make the grandfathering provision of this ordinance,
and the vesting provision of this ordinance as liberal as possible.
Mrs. Katherine Imhoff stated that currently under the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance there are two
commercial zoning districts. B-1 Community Business District and B-2 General Business District. Both
of these districts currently have a broad range of commercial uses and rather minimal yard
requirements and setbacks. In these cases, they are also paramittal zoning districts and one of the goals
of the Town Plan is to eliminate paramittal zoning districts. The zoning ordinance also contains the
M-1 Industrial District which has outdated terminology, insufficient setbacks and height regulations and
some incompatible land uses. The final existing town commercial district is the medical hospital zone,
which is focused on the hospital and accessory uses to the hospital. This zone has the least changes.
The only proposal to this zone is the establishment of a new height - it is currently 30 feet, ~_~ff is
suggesting 45 feet. The B-l, B-2 and the M-1 districts have dramatically changed.
The town also administers 4 commercial districts through the Annexation Area Development
Policy Agreement, that were Loudoun County zoning ordinance districts. These represent the Planned
Development Industrial Park, Planned Development General Industry and Planned Development
Commercial High Rise Zones. All of these have very broad ranges of commercial and industrial land
uses. The Loudoun County commercial zone is also one that the town administers. TMs district
currently has no setbacks or density requirements, other than a 40% maximum lot coverage restriction.
In all districts, staff has tried to bring uses up to more modern practices.
The B-1 Downtown Mixed Use' District incorporates a lot of the previous B-1 zoned property.
The focus of the B-1 is to recognize the Old and Historic Distri~ which is an overlay zone. This is
the commercial component of the Old and Historic District. Previously the height was 40 feet, staff has
recommended 45 feet. A lot of changes have been incorporated that have come out of the Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC), and the Planning Commission. One of the recommendations from the CAC
was to allow residential above the first floor. This has been incorporated. Another change
recommended was to have the parking requirements lessened for such accessory apartments. This
change will be followed through under the parking regulations.
The B-2 Commercial Corridor District recognizes the town's commercial corridor. It is generally
along East Market Street, South King Street and the Catoctin Circle area. A lot of this area was
previously zoned B-2. According to the Town Plan this area has a lot of conflicting uses. In an effort
to address the importance of this corridor and some of its problems, it was recommended that some
uses be considered through the special exception process. Particularly uses that have an off-site impact
or an impact on adjacent uses. The height was 40 feet, it is recommended that it go to 45 feet.
The B-3 Community Retail Commercial Zoning District is a new one. It recognizes some of the
old areas that use to be zoned C-1. The purpose is to recognize the areas that the Town Plan calls for
planned, mixed use centers or major shopping centers. We have tried to recognize that there is a need
and an interest in having large scale retail centers in this area but there is also an impact, that is why
it is recommended for the B-3, that if there are retail centers over 100,000 square feet, they be reviewed
through the special exception process. Originally there was a requirement that there be a maximum
limitation of 60,000 square feet for any one store, that provision has been deleted.
Another new district is the Office Zoning District, which is a transitional zoning district. It is
to permit low density office development between residential and commercial properties. There are also
some commercial and other types of uses in this zone but are meant to be ancillary to the main
purpose of this district, which is the office function.
The Industrial District Zone recognizes and tries incorporate the County's PDIP and PDGI
districts. The town has a good way to do industrial development in Leesburg and that most people use.
which is the planned development process. The maximum height for the industrial district is 50 feeT'.
The Medical Office District has not changed and will still be a district in Leesburg.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
Currently the town has twelve existing residential zoning districts. Seven town districts and
5 County districts. One of the main processes has been to consolidate all of the residential districts.
We are proposing nine districts, ranging from residential estate, which is a density of 1 dwelling unit
per 3 acres - and 1~-1, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-8, R-16, R-22 and also the residential historic district.
The counterpart to the B-1 Commercial District is the Residential Historic District, which is a
very flexible district, we have reduced the lot area and the width to encourage infil! development.
Townhouses have been added as a permitted residential development. We have also suggested that the
rear lot setback be increased.
The zoning districts have been changed so that their names relate to the maximum density
allowed. Cluster developments have been limited to two residential districts, the R-4 and the R-6, both
are by special exception. There have been a series of recommendations to govern duster development -
minimum requirements. The maximum heights for all dwelling units have all been increased from
30 to 35 feet, multi-family can go to 45 feet - originally 40 feet. Finally, the existing R-5 Mobile Home
District has been recommended to be deleted.
In regards to special exception, it is integral to looking at the permitted uses in all of the
residential and commercial districts. We have tried to put forth a clear process. There is also general
criteria and specific criteria and previously there was no criteria for reviewing special exception or
conditional uses under either the town's current zoning ordinance or the county's.
There is a new chapter on Temporary Uses and Home Occupations. Currently, the BZA must
issue or deny a Temporary Use Permit. This can be very time consuming and difficult for people. We
are suggesting that it become an administrative process by the Zoning Administrator with an appeal
to the BZA. A whole new section has been added to Definitions to bring them up to date and in line
with current practice.
Mr. Jack Wallace addressed the Council stating that he heard what the Mayor said earlier and he has
also listened to people who make their living in the land planning process and they are saying
something quite differently. The following statement has been reviewed and discussed by the
membership of Pro Leesburg at a meeting held on January 5, 1990. It represents a consensus opinion
of the organization. The process which the Town Council is going through tonight and the holding of
a public hearing is simply that, a legal process. It is required by law that a public hearing be held, it
is our opinion that you do not want to listen to the public. As you well know, ten citizens of the Town
of Leesburg dedicated several months of Monday nights to working with you and making
recommendations for changes in the proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance. As mentioned earlier,
60% of the recommendations have been adopted. That is a failing grade. This followed a Saturday
session, which many members of the public made their views known to you about this same ordinance.
In our opinion, all of those events were a complete waste of time. Apparently you and your staff
believe that the public does not understand the intricacies of the planning process and therefore their
comments should be discounted. We think we understand the process much better than anyone gives
us credit for. In our opinion the principal reason for these changes and the insistence of obtaining the
special exception process is directly connected to the proffer system. Every opportunity that the town
government has to look at a piece of land or the development plans, therefore, or even the
administrative function of a subdivision, they ask for and usually receive a pound of flesh. The special
exception process expands the amount of land for which that flesh can be extracted. Two very
important pressures are being brought to bare on the landowners of Leesburg once this ordinance is
adopted. The first is that it will cost more to develop the land because of the proffer requirements
which will be extracted and because of the added cost in complying with the special exception process,
should a property owner find himself in a situation where he has property which will require a special
exception application. In addition, he will be able to do less with his property then he was able to do
before, therefore, further increasing costs. There is also the intangible costs of the uncertainty about
what your property rights are. There may be many citizens in the Town of Leesburg who think this
is just fine and the burden has been placed on the appropriate shoulders. However, in our opinion,
where the burden is really being placed is ultimately as always is on the tax payers shoulders. The
Town of Leesburg has been riding on the crest of a waive of unprecedented land value increases over
the last several years and your tax coffers have exploded as a result. This will not continue. You can
be assured that development will go where it is wanted and it is becoming quite evident that it is not
wanted in Leesburg. As a result a developer will go to West Virginia, Winchester and other areas
where the atmosphere is more conducive to doing business. The result, of course, will be eroding of
the commercial tax base in the town, yet the commercial development will continue to come. Real
estate values for commercial properties, as we speak have flattened out and in fact will probably decline
over the next year due to many landowners needs to liquidate their investments in the lack of demand.
The recent growing trend in the metro area towards effective down zoning, such as Fairfax's recent
action, Howard County's proposals, Montgomery County's action and similar examples led to a
conclusion by an area college professor in a Washington Post article on the subject that the locality that
takes an aggressive economic development role will be ahead of the rest of the area going into the next
century. We would like to think that Leesburg will take that aggressive role but we believe that the
removal of many by-right uses and the implementation of the special exception process is sending a very
negative message to the business community. We hope that Leesburg does not follow everybody eise's
lead in killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We can stand prosperity. Lets not stand in its way -
all the citizens will be the beneficiary. The final analysis, the reduction of economic activity in the
commercial sector of Leesburg will result in a need to increase the real estate tax rate which will
impact every homeowner in Leesburg. They do not know that increased taxes are coming yet, but we
predict it. When the citizens of Leesburg hear about it maybe then you will begin to listen. What do
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
we. want. What does Pro Leesburg think the Town Council should do at this point. Since we !:,~d
ourselves collectively in the process of trying to retain the town's two largest employers, since we find
ourselves in an economic downturn, since we see a decline in new sewer and water connections which
foretells higher user'fees, we therefore recommend the zoning ordinance aim broke. Our efforts need
to be redirected at attracting industry and business to the town in order to maintain a stable tax rate
for all the citizens.
Mr. Howard Katz, representing Fort Beauregard Development, Carl Bernstein Investment and Carl
Bernstein Development Corporations addressed the Council. He submitted a letter which addresses
their concerns over the vesting of the commercial uses proffered under rezoning application #ZM-63
on May 14, 1986, which permitted an automobile filling station as a by-right use under the PDCH zone.
He also stated that although a convenient center is permitted by special exception under the new B-
1 and B-2 districts it is not permitted under the new B-3 district. He gave a brief explanation of a
convenient center and stated that most new automobile filling stations provide for sale; petroleum and
food products. He feels that the convenient food store should be a special exception use under all of
the new "B" districts. He supports a grandfathering provision which would provide that all zoning
applications previously approved by the town with proffers shall be grandfathered and all ~overning site
plan and subdivision review processes shall follow.
Mr. Ray Glembot, stated that the Council has one of two decisions to make. Decisions made by this
Council at the beginning of this new decade will shape Leesburg's destiny into the new century. Be
assured Leesburg will grow with whatever decision you make. You have the opportunity to make
Leesburg an even more thriving, healthy community. A town less dependent upon outside forces. A
town able to offer its citizens, not only a place to live but a place to work, to earn a living and to
shop. The other less desireable choice is that Leesburg can become a larger bedroom community.
There are no free lunches. Do not be misguided into thinking that zoning by special exception is in
the best interest of our town. The residents of Leesburg win have to pay in the long run, in the form
of increased prices or increased inconveniences. Can this Town Council afford to be blinded into
approving zoning and planning ordinances whose main objective is extorting additional proffers. Is the
uncertainty and the potential increased proffers worth jeopardizing the health and welfare of Leesburg
and its citizens. These are the benefits and the curses of the special exception process. How many
commercial opportunities are going to be driven away or not even consider Leesburg, electing to take
their business or operation somewhere more appreciative of their investments in the community.
Whatever your decision be assured Leesburg will still grow. The quality of that growth is what should
concern all of us. Is it not wiser to have responsible, sensible controlled growth of both the residential
and the commercial sectors, further ensuring a solid tax base for our community as opposed to only
becoming a larger bedroom community. A community with even more residents forced to commute on
already clogged highways in order to earn a respectable wage for themselves and families. Residents
who will be forced to shoulder an increasing tax burden to pay for the community services they not
only expect but will demand. Residents who will be required to pay for the many capital improvements
Leesburg presently has under construction and those still in the planning stages. Is this what we truly
want. Each August Leesburg celebrates August Court Days. We all take great pride in the fact that
Leesburg historically has been Loudoun County's seat and leader. For more than 100 years Leesburg
has been respected not only for its government but also for its markets, its commerce and its medical
facility. Today we are threatened with a loss of both our county government and our medical facilities.
Why are we even considering endangering our commerce. Should not the main objective and duty of
this Town Council be to leave no stone unturned in order to protect and preserve what we now have
and to build upon that base. For the sake of Leesburg, wake up a smell the roses, before they all die
on the vine. Your decisions will dictate whether Leesburg becomes a has been - a town remembered
for what it once was or Leesburg can retain its rightful heritage and become an even stronger, prouder
and more vibrant community. A community steeped in history and tradition yet committed to offering
its citizens the best of both our historical past and its promising future. Be assured Leesburg will grow
and its citizens of this town will be made aware of each of your decisions. The removal of by-right uses
and the special exception process have already been addressed by the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Take heed into their recommendations. They are not the uninformed. They represent responsible,
caring and concerned citizens of Leesburg.
Mr. Peter McKee - an attorney with Hunton & Williams of Fairfax, representing Pence, Friedel
Developers, who own the Fort Evans Shopping Center and Battlefield Shopping Center, addressed the
Council. These centers are located at the northeast and southeast quadrants of the Route 15 Bypass,
Edwards Ferry Road intersection, respectively. These properties are currently zoned C-1 and are
proposed to be rezoned B-3, pursuant to the proposed amendments. We oppose the proposed
amendments because it will have the effect of significantly reducing the subject property, as well as,
subjecting prospective development of the parcels to discretionary review, which are both fll advised and
confiscatory. The B-3 zoning district unwittingly encourages small strip centers and discourages larger
centers by making retail uses over 100,000 square feet subject to the special exception process. It is
our view that consolidation of smaller shopping centers is significantly better than the proliferation of
smaller strip centers and that it is illogical and unreasonable to create disincentives for sensible land
use planning. A number of factors support larger shopping centers as a sensible planning alternative
to strip development. Small shopping centers cannot afford anchor tenants. Larger tenants pay less
rent but are important to the success of smaller tenants and increase the chances that a center will be
commercially successful. The larger tract B-3 properties can accommodate large department stores
which will attract sales dollars and forestall a retail revenue flight from Leesburg. Because of
architectural homogeneity, larger centers have superior aesthetics to a greater number of smaller centers
that have different styles. Larger centers function more efficiently and by virtue of their integrated
design and pedestrian scale are less automobile related than smaller strip centers. The market requires
MINUTES OF THE REG~ TOWN COUNCIL MEETING o JANUARY 9, 1990
sound traffic management and efficiency of function because larger tenants participate actively in
shopping center design and themselves have rigorous standards. The market requires superior design
and aesthetics because of the simple necessity to attract successful tenants. The use of the special
exception process introduces variables into the landowners use of its property, which diminishes its
value and creates immediate problems with those who have provided financing and reliance upon the
value of the property. While it may be 4ifficult to quantify the effect of such regulation on a broad
scale, its impact on the individual landowner is both measurable and pernicious. The planning goals
for the proposed amendments creating the B-3 zoning district, are especially troublesome considering
the mischief that such amendments would create on the individual landowner. We urge the Town
Council to reconsider approving the proposed amendments in their current guise until their efficiencies
presently existing are corrected, particularly the provisions relating to the B-3 zoning district and the
accompanying special exception provision.
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. McKee if both of the shopping centers have approved preliminary plans. Mr.
McKee stated yes. Mr. Minor stated that the vesting process is one that has been debated for many
months. The grandfathering process has not changed much since the June roundtable meeting. There
is approximately 650,000 square feet of shopping center that will be built on both sides of Edwards
Ferry Road - this project is vested. It will not undergo any special exception approval if this ordinance
is adopted. The Fort Beauregard project that Mr. Ka~z spoke of earlier, is a proffered rezoning and is
a grandfathered project and they can build a gas station.
Mr. Michael Payne - owner of the Country Butcher has heard a lot of comment from the CAC stating
that even though there has been some improvements in the zoning changes, it still falls far short in
critical areas. Council needs to take a longer look at this, and think about the economical damage that
will be done by some of the restrictive special exceptions.
Mr. Beckham Dickerson - stated that it was important that an ordinance adopting the proposed zoning
ordinance be drafted so that it is clear to what is being adopted and deleted from the zoning ordinance.
He has not seen any integration of the existing ordinance with the proposed regulations. He does not
know whether Section 8-10 conflicts with the new definition of home occupation. Section 8.2.11.11a
conflicts with the new B-I. In general there are a number of things under sections 8, 9 and 10 that
may conflict with the new ordinance. They should be addressed. It is unfortunate that the ordinance
that is before the public tonight only reflects that portion of the CAC that seemed to be acceptable to
the staff. The purposes and intent of the R-E suggests that the preservation of natural features be
encouraged in this district. Natural features should be encouraged throughout the town and not just
in this particular district. This phrase was not in any of the other proposed districts. There is no
definition for ~farming general". It seems that it allows to let people have animals, by-fight, but under
stable commercial, it states that any one that keeps four horses - it is a stable and needs a special
exception. The question is, does a farmer who has more than three horses, need to get a special
exception to be a stable or is he still a farmer and its okay. These are the types of decisions that a
zoning administrator has to make on a day-to-day basis. Nursery wholesalers are approved by-right,
whereas, nursery retail is not. Golf courses are permitted bi-right, but country clubs are a special
exception. Golf driving ranges are a special exception - if you have a golf course you have to get a
special exception for a driving range. Public schools and public uses are allowed by-right and public
uses can include a county bus yard or a town public works yard, but under uses by special exception -
there are things like places of worship, cemetery and schools of general education. The impact of those
are not as much or as bad as the impact of some of the uses that are approved bi-right. Warehouses
are not allowed in this district but it is interesting to note that if there is a retail or wholesale
warehouse - it is not a warehouse. A lot of warehouses are there for wholesale purposes. Public
facilities minor, under utilities is a special exception use - interpretation of the definition, is a
transformer or power line or power pole is a special exception. Some of these things need to be
checked. There is no discussion about accessory structures, either in the uses or in the requirements.
The phrase "purpose and intent" runs throughout the ordinance and it ties the B-1 to the 'Town Plan
Land Use Policy Map. Mr. Dickerson made several other comments to the proposed ordinance stating
that they should be looked into before adoption.
Eric Zicht spoke to the Council regarding an article in Planning Magazine. He is concerned about
group homes. He believes that it is a problem with the existing and the proposed regulations. In both
cases, existing and proposed, a special exception is required for a group home. A group home provides
a special function in a community. The state code recognizes group homes. Mr. Zicht then read the
following. It is the policy of the Commonwealth that physi~lly handicapped and mentally in or
mentally retarded and other developed mentally disabled persons should not be excluded by county or
municipal zoning ordinances from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. This act has been
supplemented by federal legislation. The article in the Plannin~ Magazine discusses this act and
suggests a couple of ways to test an ordinance as to whether it is discriminatory or not. Mr. Zicht
stated that Leesburg is rapidly acquiring a reputation of a community where development occurs by law
suit. In this case, the law suit would be a federal law suit initiated by the Justice Department. He
noted several such cases around the country. These homes are needed. It is very difficult for an
elected body to grant a special exception on a case-by-case basis for these homes. A special exception
is not morally or legally defensible.
Mr. Fred Williams stated that he was most familiar with the proposed ordinance that deals with the
commercial zones, and the special exceptions. Overall, we have a pretty good workable document,
which very fairly represents the Town Plan. As a resident of the historic district, he feels that it is
very well described, especially with the deletion, as compared to earlier drafts, of offices from the
residential district. It is appropriate to take these out. With regard to the I-1 zone - he commended
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
the staff with making some changes that make the I-1 zone more focused and clear on what the intent
is. As a member of the CAC, he is gratified to see that a large number of the committee's thoughts
made sense in terms of incorporating them into the draft ordinance. Under the special exception
category 5 - the miniwarehouse standards should be amended to allow a residential area for the
manager of the miniwarehouse. With regard to child care centers it is a permitted use in the medical
use, whereas it is a special exception in all the other zones. The CAC thought it should be a permitted
right.
Bernard Carlton stated that over the past ten months a lot has been discussed about the zoning
ordinance. A lot has been said and many laws and regulations are passed in what is said to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare. In deed there are many laws that rightfully fall into this
category. This is not one of them. The overriding considerations here should be to protect individual
and private property rights that our forefathers fought and died for. It is ironic that when freedom
is breaking out all over the world, the elected officials of Leesburg are constantly p~'.-~posing mc~-e
restrictive laws and rules which we would normally attribute to a Big Brother society. -~ urges the
Council to reconsider the whole course that Council has embarked on in rewriting this ~ nance. Go
back to the stated intent of cleaning up the current zoning ordinance and fix the thi~ that need
fixing.
Roland Carlson was a part of the CAC and in the beginning resented the implications that we did not
follow what the CAC recommended. The final product that is being recommended by the Council is
very much the product that we recommended in the CAC meetings. Council has followed just about
everything that was recommended except for a couple of areas such as child care centers, and
automobile sales. Basically, it is what the CAC recommended. People have been spending too much
time on the special exception process, concentrating on that area, saying that we are being too
restrictive. There are 68 items on just one zone that are permitted items - just be one of the 68 items
and you automatically go through - plain and simple. If you happen to be one of the 10 items in the
B-1 that are special exception then you have to go before the special exception. Ten vs. 68, that's not
bad math. The B-2, 65 permitted items, 22 by special exception. In the B-3, 63 permitted items, only
15 by special exception. O-1 zone there is 21 permitted items, only 4 special exc. eption. In the I-1,
there is 10 permitted items and 17 special exception. In all, there is 227 permitted uses and only 58
special exception. Basically, Council has followed these changes. If you look at all the recommended
items and the changes that were recommended by the CAC, the batting average is that 90% was
accepted by the Council. He applauds the Council.
Mr. Hubbard Turner also a member of the CAC supports the proposed document that the Council is
presenting. It is not a perfect document, there is no perfect document. Council will take into
consideration the valid points that have been brought up tonight. This has been a very difficult
document to develop. A lot of time has been spent on it and we should move forward. The right
intent is here.
Mr. Steven Calendar, a resident of 812 Anne Street recently had some discussion with Councilmember
Mulokey. After having lived in the Silver Spring area and some other areas where growth has sprung
unabated - they are now talking about down zoning. He commends the Town Council for the effort
and time that has gone into developing this document. The Council has taken the stand of saying we
want to be a responsible group such that growth does not get out of hand and that we have to revert
to some of the things that are being talked about in other communities. He commends the Council,
staff and everyone who has worked on this document for their hard work. These people have taken
a hold of what is happening and what is going on today and are trying to be truly responsive to the
needs of this community.
Don Caruthers, Chairman of the Leesburg Business Committee of the Loudoun County Chamber of
Commerce, addressed the Council. He was pleased to serve the Council as a member of the CAC. He
explained that at the beginning, one of the CAC members asked what is wrong with special exceptions,
therefore, part of the CAC discussion was about what is wrong with special exceptions. At one of the
meetings he listed 11 factors that he found to be a problem with special exceptions. They are listed
in the back of the report. One main problem with special exceptions - as we go through these various
uses and consider whether it should be a special exception, should it be a by-right use, should it be a
by-right use with limitations - consider the factor that is sometimes referred to as the "warp factor".
Anything that is made a special exception is going to discourage that particular use. People are going
to be less likely to build that use because it is a special exception than if it were a by-right or by-right
with conditional uses placed upon it~ For exaxnple, in the case of a child care center, this illustrates
the problem not only when you are originally building a building, but when you are leasing or re-
leasing a building. If you have a shopping center and that shopping center was not built with a special
exception for a child care center, and a space goes vacant in that shopping center, and a market analysis
shows a need for a child care center in that area, and a child care center wants to locate in this
shopping center - the landlord wants to lease to the child care center, but you have a problem. You
need a special exception for that child care center. This means, that business is going to have to wait
several months before it can begin. The landlord will have to leave that space dark for several months
before he can place it on his rent role. As a practical matter, that means that the child care center is
not going to go inW this shopping center. The landlord is not going to wait, the child care center will
not wait - it will go somewhere else or not be built at all. Anything that is made a special exception
is going to discourage that use. It will be more expensive and time consuming for that use. It may
be appropriate - not all spedal exceptions are bad - it needs to be balanced against what you a~'e
gaining. Many of the things that you are trying to accomplish with the special exception process could
be accomplished by conditional uses, a by-right or they can be accomplished through site plan. Wheu
MINUTES OF THE REG~ TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
you look at a particular special exception use - say, our desire is to have a second look at this particular
use - balance, does it over balance. The damage is going to be done by making that use more expensive
and less likely to occur. Many times you are getting a second look through the special exception
process will mean ~0u won't get any look at all because people just won't do t_.h~t. They will do
something else or they will take their business somewhere else. This is what we are concerned with
in Leesburg, when there may come a time when we have our two mojor businesses going somewhere
else. We don't need to add to that process.
Child care centers - in the B-1 and B-2 districts, the CAC did not recommend a change from
special exception. Mr. Caruthers, personally, did not think it should be a special exception in B-2, he
agreed that it should be in B-I. In the B-3 district, the CAC recommended moving from special
exception into by-right with appropriate site plan criteria, to deal with traffic, safety and health of
children. Handle it through the site plan not through special exception. Builders and developers will
frequently do what you want if they have certainty. If you tell them in advance what you want, they
will do it. The problem is with uncertainty - when you say, come and tell us what you want to do and
if we like it we will let you do it - if we don't, we won't. That is the special exception process. It
creates uncertainty and discourages projects. The CAC recommendation was rejected in the December
12, 1989 draft and in the B-3, which includes a lot of the business area yet to be developed, child care
centers are a special exception. What this means is that people who live and work in Leesburg are
going to be driving out into the county to child care centers. You are not going to have child care
centers, because you have made them a special exception. In the O-1 district, the CAC recommended
moving from special exception to by-right with appropriate site plan criteria, etc., again this was rejected
and it remains special exception. In the I-l, the CAC recommended moving away from special exception
to by-right provided they are ancillary to an office use as opposed to an industrial use. The idea here
was that the maximum convenience for parents lies in going to work in an office building and having
a child care center in that office building. What the CAC said in the industrial area was, you can have
office development in an industrial area if it is really office and not industrial. Please let the people
have a child care center in the office building without going through a special exception. That is what
the CAC said and you rejected that in the December 12, 1989 draft.
Banks - in the B-2 - should there be drive-ins, should there not. A lot of people think that
drive-in banking is a very great convenience to citizens. They don't have to park, they don't have to
get out and walk into the bank. They can just drive through a window. Apparently there is a great
resistance to that convenience. In the B-2 the CAC recommended that the requirement of 2 or fewer
drive-ins be by-right. Actually, it was recommended that they all be by-right, no matter how many
drive-ins. That was rejected and you continue to propose to adopt the 3 or more drive-in windows
remain a special exception. What is going to be the effect of that. You will not have banks with 3 or
more drive-in windows - they will all have 2. What is benefit of that. It means longer lines. In the
B-3 the CAC recommended that they be by-right with no reference to drive-ins. The draft maintains
the distinction that those which are without drive-ins are by-right, but if there are any drive-ins at all,
it is a special exception. Once again it is discouraged. The same thing in the O-1 and the I-1 - the
CAC recommendation was rejected and these were listed with drive-ins as special exceptions. The
result you will not get banks with drive-in windows.
Parking structures - Parking in Leesburg is a problem. Private parking in the B-3, the CAC
urged that it be moved from special exception to by-right when integrated with a commercial office
building. The draft rejects it and it remains a special exception, which means you will very likely not
see it~ In the 0-1 it was recommended to be by-right~ also rejected. In the I-1 it was recommended
by-right, it was rejected and is still special exception.
Vehicle sales - In the B-2 the CAC wanted to insure that modifications and enlargements of
existing automobile dealerships on existing lots do not have to go through the special exception process.
The staff said that these uses would not be non-conforming, however, under D-10 of the enforcement
procedures, a request for an enlargement or expansion of a special exception use is itself a special
exception. This seems, under the drafted ordinance, that if a dealership that was presently existing
wanted to expand or enlarge on it's own lot, without any adjoining property, it would have to go
through a special exception - it should not have to do that. In the O-1 the CAC recommended inclusion
of vehicles sales as a special exception use. That is rejected and it is neither by-right nor special
exception.
Emergency care facility - emergency care fa 'cdities in and around office complexes where people
work is a good thing. The CAC did not recommend a change away from special exception in the O-
1 and I-1, but I would. The permitting of an emergency care facility in industrial and office parks, if
the market indicates a need, should not have to go through a special exception process because you will
make it less likely to occur.
Research and development - The CAC went round and round with this and could not decide
what we meant. In the B-2, basically what we said, was if research and development is basically an
office function - a white collar research and development as opposed to laboratory testing and
production, it should be by-right. The CAC did not communicate this very effectively.
Retail centers - in the B-3, congratulations on eliminating the 60,000 square foot requirement
that it be a special exception if any one store is 60,000 square feet or more, however, the CAC
recommended that as to the total square footage - make retail centers over 250,000 a special exception
and not 100,000 square feet. The reason is that if it is 100,000 square feet and above a special
exception, you will get a lot of little under 100,000 square feet shopping centers, instead of bigger ones.
MINUTES OF THE REG~ TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
The CAC asked that their recommendation be followed with regard to retail centers, with the 250,000
square feet. With regard to the I-1 district, all of the commercial uses have been moved to special
exception, in the latest draft. The CAC did not ask for this - t. hi~ was a wholesale move - all of the
commercial uses to'special exception. This runs directly counter to the idea of having ancillary
commercial uses close to where people work. A health and fitness place, a place where people can do
incidental shopping is better there, rather than outside that district. Again the CAC was not followed.
People have made the point of quantifying the number of recommendations of the CAC which
were adopted as opposed to ones not adopted. I prefer to take a qualitative approach than a
quantitative approach. It does not add much to total up the numbers that were approved and the
numbers that were not approved. A lot of the ones that were approved were very minor and
inauculose, whereas, there were some biggies that were not.
At the beginning the Town Plan talks about the historic district and having ancillary dwellings
in the hisWric district, so that people live above shops, so that there are people who live downtown in
the historic district, so that it has a vitality at night" The CAC asked that accessory dwellings be
permitted in the B-I. What came out of the CAC's recommendation was that multi-family, up to five
will be permitted. The CAC said up to five over the second floor, but the CAC recommended one to
five, not two to five. The CAC believes that if you want to set one ancillary dwelling to a business that
should be permitted. The Town Plan encourages it. What you have done is said multi-family, which
means two or more, up to five may be permitted, but accessory dwellings are still listed as a special
exception, this is not what the CAC recommended. We recommend that you change this.
Mr. Caruthers stated that he has tried to be specific to specific uses and specific
recommendations of the CAC that were not followed in the draft ordinance.
Connie Collis stated that there is a common misconception on the part of the citizens of Leesburg and
perhaps on this Council that the concerns we express about the thrust of this new zoning ordinance
are somehow limited to the business community alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
state of mind which suggests that a government has a right to eradicate the scope of its planning
permissions after the fact of having issued them potentially threatens every citizen. What is at stake
here is the credibility of government as a servant of the people. If a government can strip an
automobile dealership owner of his by-right zoning privileges today, it can just as easily strip a
homeowner of his rights to a yellow house tomorrow. Those citizens and councilmen who think what
we say is an overstatement should take another look at the actual language of this proposed ordinance.
What applies today for business and commercial zones can by the stroke of a pen apply to every single
piece of property in Leesburg. The ordinance before you right now lays the ground work for that
mischief. The election laws of Virginia require that each of you be citizens of this town before you can
be councilmen. We suggest that you look at this ordinance and its ramifications as citizens and we
believe you will then view it quite differently as legislators. There is a palpable fear on the part of the
businessman in this town that what's a special exception provisions contained in this ordinance actually
amount to is a vehicle to solicit additional proffers from property owners. If this is the case, you as
legislators should say so. If it is not the case, then the ordinance language should be amended
specifically to state that no condition or conditions of granting a special exception shall be construed
as granting the Town of Leesburg the right to require or induce the applicant to propose any offsite
proffer or proffers as a condition of granting a spedal exception. By inserting this language the Town
Council would be clearing away a serious question as to whether the town is embarking on a fund
raising expedition under the guise of land planning. One saddening aspect of this entire process has
been the effort of the town to isolate the business community as some sort of alien entity which has
arrived on the door step of the community to assault the municipal sensibilities, it treasury and its
integrity. Whether you intended this or not. that is what happened. We are not talking about the
impact of the proposed ordinance on nuclear power plans. We are talking about the impact on the
places where your citizens take their cars to be repaired, their cloths to be deaned, their money to be
banked, their children to be tended, their dead to be buried. The government is not created nor should
it perpetuate its existence as a harbour for bureaucratic experimentation with the fabric of the
community it is privileged to govern. Pro-Leesburg did not exist ten months ago. It exists today only
because it is our very real fear that our government has completely lost site of it's duty.
Patti Muir stated that she was a member of the CAC. We all made a lot of compromises and changes
to the document. Some of them were good, some of them were things that we were suggesting that
the town look inW that we did not know for sure if they could even be implemented. Child care
facilities was an issue that was argued a lot" Many of these things are spec/al exception because they
are state controlled or state licensed and because of this and the safety aspect the special exception
process was put in place to keep extra control on these issues. It is not to keep child care centers from
developing in these areas. It is to make sure that they are safe environments for our children.
After all of the work that has gone into this document and the work that the CAC did, Mrs.
Muir feels that the document reflects the concerns and the needs of the people of this town. She is
not representing the business community, she is a citizen. She lives, shops and works in the Town of
Leesburg. This document is to protect the people of this town from over development, from shotty
development, from a lot of things that can happen in fast growth situations. The CAC worked through
the document and changed a lot of things that they thought would help, not only the business but also
the town, in order to keep this under control. The citizens of the town elect officials to reflect their
views in the community. Because we have this process, we can keep control of where our town is
going. She feels that this is the most important thing that has come out of this document. After years
and years of the Wwn growing and letting the market determine where things are going - that is not
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
always the best way for things to be done. The market sometimes goes in a direction that is not in
the best interest of the people in the community and later they say, what have we done to our town.
People are now starting to say, lets get these controls in place which will allow us, not to control
growth or development, but to make sure that the people of the community are reflected in the town
that is growing. This is what everyone is concerned about. We all invest a lot of pride in the system
which allows us to move our town in the direction that the people that live here want it to go. The
special exception process allows us to do that. It is a very important process and as much as a lot of
people say that it will deter a lot of businesses or deter a lot of application, it will also open things up
to businesses that perhaps would not have gone in to an area because it would have not been a
permitted use at all. We tend to look at the negative too much. People should look at this document
and say it is not perfect but we have made a lot of strides. We need to work through this with the
idea that the document is a whole and the intent of it is to protect the people and to have our town
to continue in a way that we all love it and want it to continue.
Powers Thomas addressed the public stating that something this important should have been put
number one on the agenda this evening. To wait 45 minutes for this subject to be brought up - it
would have been wise to put it number one on the agenda. He stated that history was repeating itself
and reminded everyone of a hearing held by the Board of Supervisors, called the "Vision". Remember
making comments to yourselves that the thing had gotten out of hand and perhaps the Board at that
time did not have its finger on the pulse of its constituency. He submits that this is one that you
might not have your pulse on the constituency. Someone said earlier that this is a business black eye -
there might be something to that. This spreads pretty far. It hits fundamental issues. You have to
postpone this. It has been well documented that it is full of flaws and it needs to be in a final draft
form for the public to sign off. We think that it would be very unwise for you to push this through
behind doors with us intrusting you to dot all the i's and represent the will of the public. He recalled
a few years ago that something as simple as changing the numbers of the streets ended where some
of the members of the Council were not reelected.
Royce Givens stated that he once lived in Leesburg and hopes one day to be able to afford to come back
to Leesburg and live. He works in Leesburg and tries to be a good business citizen. He has not had
the opportunity, as Mr. Dickerson has, to detail the document. This is a public hearing and for the
Mayor to set arbitrary guidelines as to how long people may speak or what we may say, is another
example of attempts to govern this town by hammer. This is the public, this is our and my chance
to talk. Mayor Sevila told Mr. Givens that one of the guidelines to speak at the public hearing, is that
there will be no personal attacks and that Mr. Givens is already violating that nde. The Mayor noted
that there has already been one speaker that spoke for twenty minutes, tonight and one that spoke for
fifteen minutes. He told Mr. Givens that if he continued to make personal attacks, then he would also
be subject to them. The Mayor asked Mr. Givens not to talk about arbitrariness unless he could back
it up. Mr. Givens stated that he could, because the Mayor said those were the rules. The Mayor asked
people to hold their comments to 5 minutes because we only had so much time and were trying to
allocate it among 22 speakers. Mr. Givens stated that perhaps that was an indication that we need to
have more time. He said the Mayor would have plenty of time after the public hearing was closed, to
berate us and run us down. He wanted his time, now. Mr. Lovin asked if Mr. Givens was out of
order. The Mayor replied that Mr. Givens was totally out of order. Mr. Givens stated, whether out
of order or not, he was entitled to speak, the Mayor was entitled to speak - this was a free country.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Givens was not entitled to waste everyone's time. If you have comments
on the ordinance we want to hear them if not then you should not be up here.
Mr. Givens stated that the purpose of a zoning ordinance was to provide clear and predictable
results so that the business community and the public who want to live here know what is going on.
The special exception provisions don't do that. That has been well explained by other speakers. If you
don't know what it is, you don't do it. You talk about what is coming in the pipeline. Let's look at
how long the pipeline is, first of all. Time is money, if it takes too long to get through the pipeline
whether it is a special exception or anything else, then it does not matter - people are not going to do
it. They are going to go somewhere else where they can look at their properties, buy it, develop it and
move on. The special exception method will simply add to the length of the pipeline and I would
suggest, instead of looking at the projects coming out of the pipeline, that we look at the ones going
inW it today. Gross numbers are unimportant as far as the permitted uses and the focus should be
on the quality of what is going on, as Mr. Caruthers had said. Look at the reality of what happens.
Who is protecting the people, the citizens of Leesburg, be they business, homeowner or otherwise, from
higher taxes that are going to come when all you have is a bedroom community for Reston, where the
business development is going to go.
Chuck Jones, a resident of 112 Prince Street in Leesburg, and a businessman in Leesburg addressed
the Council. In his twenty-some years in Leesburg, he has not seen the businessmen and women of
the community show the perseverance about an issue as they have on this one. He is a member of
the Chamber of Commerce Leesburg Business Committee and is greatful to Don Caruthers for the
effort that he gave this town and also the citizens. He understands that there was a letter sent to
Council or town staff from some of the members of the b_ankiug community that talked to the value
of the special exception, or fixed assets. Businessmen must depend on predictability on their balance
sheet and other people depend on the businessman's ability to predict those things. Banks being some
of those. To take the predictability out of a businessman, whether he is a lessee or the owner of a
property, is a serious handicap. There is a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of those
formulating this zoning policy of spedal exception, about the value of predictability on the part of the
businessman and his effort. He wants to encourage the Council to sit back down with members of the
business community to ask questions and to exchange ideas about what it is that seems to be so wrong
MINUTES OF THE REG~ TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
with the degree of special exception application that this ordinance has been given. Special exceptions
in themselves are not wrong. They have application. Special exceptions being applied across the board
as they are in this ordinance are wrong. They have specific adverse impact on the balance sheet of
business people. They have specific adverse impact on the balance sheet of the community. In order
for a community to be successful under extraordinary growth pressure, as we have in thi~ town and
county - this Council is to be commended for seeing to and adding tools and mechanisms to address
the growth pressures - the business community is going to do its job if it has the flexibility, the
predictability and the innovation that it needs to move businesses from one set of circumstances to
another. He asks Council to readdress, not redo this ordinance, but to readdress this issue of value
because the special exceptions as formatted in this zoning ordinance needs to be fine tuned and
addressed to the business community's concerns and needs and they are very valid needs. It is the
future of this community.
Tom Muir, a resident of 1108 Bradfield Drive, stated that he appreciates the opportunity to speak in
this controlled public forum and appreciates the rules around it. This document has been put up for
a lot of interpretation this evening. We have all been kind of scared - there's been like a scare tacuc
that this document will drive everybody away. That the town will not be what we want it to be. That
it will become a bedroom community. We were given a dose of semantics which he proposes has more
value in their humor then in their content. We can take any sentence, any paragraph, any book and
semantically interpret those words to make them what you want them to be. We can sit here and look
at something of this nature or we can talk to the intent of this document. The intent of this document
is to protect the residents of the Town of Leesburg. Not the special interest groups, the specific
individuals who is seeing their rights controlled. This is not the case either. We were given a quote
that says ~builders frequently will do what we want them to do if we let them know what that is."
That is true but they frequently will not do what we want them to do and that is the requirement of
the special exception, to help them conform to what we are looking for. What do we do if they don't
do what we want them to do. Are we as a town to be so objected to the conscious and the charity of
developers to develop in what we consider an appropriate fashion. Or are we to have no say
whatsoever in how this town emerges and develops as we move into the 1990'S, and the twentieth
century. There comes a time when we have to say, no document is perfect. No document will ever
be perfect. The best document you can name consistently undergoes constant revision, arbitration and
that is the purpose of the governmental body, to create regulations to protect the people that they serve,
who elected them and to mandate changes to regulations to reflect the wills of the people at any given
time. He proposed that this Council was put into power because people were sick of developers moving
in to Leesburg, turning over, not caring about individuals and then moving on when they have made
their money, leaving our increased tax dollars to pay for the infrastructure that they created. It is the
fundamental responsibility of this Council to protect the citizens of the Town of Leesburg by legislating
and enacting contracts, regulations, etc., to protect all of the citizens of the community and at the same
time give the businesses their rights, give them their ability to develop appropriately. There is nothing
in the document that ever says you cannot do this. He owns land in Leesburg and wants to see it
maintained. We need to control and monitor and promote intelligent growth within the Town of
Leesburg not just haphazard growth as it relates to the free market system.
Norman Myers, his business is at 7B Loudoun Street. S.W., Leesburg. There are a lot of different
things that can be focused on in the ordinance. It is a very long ordinance, he has read it many times,
many different drafts.
In reference to the B-1 district - Leesburg has been selected and has come into vogue by a lot
of communities, by Bellmont Farms, by the Village concept, as a model community. There are things
about the Mstoric district and the way it is put together, by the way the buildings are set next to each
other that creates a pedestrian scale. Something that people can relate to - they don't have to go out
and drive from center to center. This is part of the charms of Leesburg and is part of what he believes
the Council, the Mayor and everybody has encouraged and wants to see in the downtown historic
district~ The first edition of the draft in the B-1 district t~}k.~ about side yards and there was a side
yard. Then the CAC recommended the elimination of the side yard requirements and reduced the rear
yard requirements. Now back in the draft, much to his surprise, to see again an 8 foot side yard
requirement in the historic B-1 district. He is puzzled as to why we are going backwards again. He
thought that it was established that this helped create the charm of the downtown. King Street would
look really silly with 8 foot side yards and 20 foot rear yards. The main irony, arrogance and
hippocracy of this nde is that the town judged this particular design for the municipal parking lot and
its own facility to be the best looking design out of hundreds that were submitted. Staff and Council
picked this as the award winning design and it does not follow the regulations. It is not a conforming
use under the present B-1 ordinance. He would like this to be considered.
Leland Mahan, a local attorney addressed the Council. He stated that he represents a couple of clients
that are directly affected by the I-1 industrial districk He noted that all the industrial zones, as he
understands it. are all consolidated inW the I-1 district. There are not many uses, with what is
presently proposed. Of all of the industrial districts in the town, the only permitted uses are farming,
stable, commercial stable, wholes nursery and some institutional uses, public use, community
recreational facility and a public airport. Under industrial trade and warehouse uses, there is research
and development and warehouse facility and also a public utility facility is allowed. The definition of
warehouse facility states that one can only store but cannot sell or either wholesale or retail. The
town's interests are being looked after, they can build a public utility fadlity, they can build a town
office, they can build a community recreational facility and public airport, but what is here for the
average citizen in the industrial district. The first draft had many of the commercial uses, all of the
MINUTES OF THE REG~ TOWN COUNCIL 1V[EETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
uses were initially proposed in the original draft as permitted uses. The CAC did not eliminate any
of those, but added additional uses. After the citizen input, the staff has reversed its position and
removed all commercial uses and put them into a special exception classification. The whole purpose
of zoning is to proteSt"the citizens. There is one district for residential, one for commercial and another
for industrial. Anyone who comes into Leesburg to buy industrial I-1 zoned property and went to his
banker and asked for a loan, the b-nker win want to know what he could do with this I-1 zone. What
could he do with it. He could do a warehouse, but not a wholesale or retail sale - only store - maybe
hay. He has been an advocate of special exceptions and has had very good success with them before
the Council and Board of Supervisors but what is happening here is that the staff recommendations
are going overboard. There are certain objectional uses that should be under the special exception
classification. It is just like the County's mountainside overlay district, it is a waste of time and effort -
it makes the lawyers happy and engineers, but there is nothing in the County's mountainside overlay
district that could not be handled in the form of standards. The same thing here. All of these
commercial uses should be shifted back to permitted uses, otherwise the I-1 industrial zone is worthless.
It is meaningless and deathly going to effect property values when one attempts to secure financing to
purchase and develop on land that does not have any permitted uses. This is not a fair shake for the
industrial community. Otherwise, why have zoning, just call everything special exceptions and leave
it to the town's whim. The purpose of zoning is to make sure that there is no clash between the
heavy uses. What is a heavy use. Where do you have a heavy use, like a PDGI. I-1 is the only
industrial district that is left, there are no heavy uses. You have moved them all to the County, maybe
that was the intent. There is not one use that he would classify under the I-1 that was previously in
the PDGI. It does not make sense. The problem with the applicant is the attorney - you go in and
deal with the staff which is turning over in a frequent basis and you feel like you know what they want
on a special exception and six months later they have hired someone else. It is a mass confusion. It
is not that the developers that he represents don't want to put up screening or setbacks or buffering,
etc., that is not the issue. It is the question of consistency and being able to know. They ask what
are the chances, what can you tell them as a professional. When you have to become a mind reader
and try to predict what the Planning Commission and Council think about this particular application.
It is not fair to the business community that own the I-1. The residential people have their own
standards to protect them. Why not have acceptable standards for the other part of the community.
He asks Council to move these commercial uses back into permitted uses.
Marc Weiss, a resident and business owner in the Town of Leesburg, addressed the Council. He does
not believe that anyone is talking about the free market or regulation. Zoning is here, there are plenty
of ways that the town does regulate and will continue to regulate business and the business community
accepts that. We are talking about a level of regulation and how that regulation is going to be
administered. If you read the state code, it is very clear that special exceptions are for unique and
unusual circumstances or circumstances when the particular use might have a particularly negative
effect in the community. When you get to the position where many of the uses become special
exception, you have in fact turned the ceiling as the floor and the floor as the ceiling. There are better
ways to treat many of those uses. Standards can be developed. In many cases to deal with the specific
problems that might occur in development and many of the developments which are listed in special
exception. The town needs to take the time to do the homework and develop standards. He is a
professional planner and has been a planner for 16 years and has spent a lot of time looking at special
exception uses and uses permitted by-right" If you can develop the standards and become predictable -
- I don't think that you will hear a.lot of complaining from the business community. There has been
a lot of abstract discussion about what a special exception is, what it is going to do, whether it is good,
bad or indifferent. He has the opportunity to represent clients before Loudoun County through their
special exception process. He thinks the problem is that everyone in this room tonight are people with
good intentions. He is not questioning their intentions, or the staffs, with respect to this ordinance.
The problem is - the good intentions - the people in this room are not the people who are going to be
here necessarily in the long run. Good intentions soon become forgotten and the process is soon subject
to abuse. He recalls a concrete experience, not an abstract experience that he went through with a
client. He had a client that applied for a special exception use in a commercial district in Loudoun
County. Part of the problem with Loudoun County's ordinance is that there is no rhyme or reason
between special exception and permitted uses. The first reaction of the County's was we don't
particularly like that use because it will be a large traffic generator. His client paid to do a full blown
traffic study, which documented that the traffic effect of the proposed special exception use was not
greater than many of the uses permitted by-right. After looking at that the staff transportation planner,
in a private conversation with Mr. Weiss said that he looked at the study and heard what you said and
agrees with you - you are right, but I am going to recommend against this application because it is not
going to be politically acceptable with the Planning Commission. In fact, he did that, and in fact he
also recommended against the application, but if you do approve it here are some conditions that I
would attache to it. Those conditions were proffers in vaiue in excess of $100,000 for a simple special
exception application. What happened was the application went to the BZA of Loudoun County, and
after 8 months of negotiation and discussion - and that's a time factor, the application was approved.
Unfortunately the client was in a position where he had to agree to make improvements and
contributions that were in no way related to his application, simply to get the application approved.
Mr. Weiss pointed this out for the people in the audience who think that there is not a potential for
this kind of abuse, because there is. You need to look very carefully to make sure that those uses that
are special exception uses are the minimum number and do those uses really require a special
exception. We need to do our homework now, otherwise we will be facing the same situation that
Loudoun County faces in 3, 4 or 5 years. Take a close look at this and only retain those special
exception uses which are absolutely necessary.
Terry Titus stated that he was a native of Leesburg, a taxpayer and businessman and a member of the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
CAC. He is very disappointed in the document that has been presented tonight. There have been
changes made, whether it is 65% or 55%, the large issues that we need to deal with are the traffic
issues, hacking issues, special exception issues, child care centers, research and development issues -
those changes that'were made in this document are relatively nocuous. These changes were not
addressed. They were done away with. The ridiculous setback that we have in the town zone - where
did it come from. We have a nice town, we have created through lots of years of creation, lots of years
of pressure by the BAR and to have an 8 foot setback is a ridiculous ordinance requirement. To count
the number of special exception uses and number of permitted uses is ridiculous. Look at the
magnitude of what has been left out from what the CAC recommended and didn't recommend. He is
disappointed and hopes that Council will go back and look at this again. Mr. Mahau, Mr. Myers, Mr.
Weiss all brought up points which haven't been brought up tonight - standards. Aside from special
exceptions, lets look for some standards that can be done with some of the uses in the special exception
that can be handled in the site plan, and with standards. Mr. Titus thanked the Mayor for the
opportunity to serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee and also for the compliment that the Mayor
paid to Mr. Titus - he called me the constant capitalist - I believe in that and appreciate it because I
believe in what I say.
Mike Payne stated that he heard the comment about the developers coming in to town, :~:aking their
money and leaving town and raising the tax base - Royce Givens and myself are partners in a piece
of property on Catoctin Circle which is said to be an eye sore. The property has a problem with being
in the floodplain. Two years ago we contracted this piece of property and was told he was crazy
because it would take 18 months to go through the town. He asked why and was told that it was just
the "norm". Mr. Payne said, no it won't because we are going to fix a floodplain problem which is a
help to the town, it will improve the look of the property, etc. W~ll, it has taken us 11 months to get
a construction plan reviewed to put a tube under Catoctin Circle, which was approved by an engineer
of the town in 1983. We even had to argue about the zoning, which was approved by the Leesburg
Town Council contingent upon placing the tube under Catoctin Circle and eliminating the floodplain
problem. We have wasted 11 months of time, we have wasted 11 months of debt service on this piece
of property, which cuts down on the potential profit to us. The response we get to this sometimes is,
you knew what you were getting into, you knew it was going to take time, you knew it was going to
take money. I have no problem in spending the money to do what we were going to have to do to
correct the problem. I have a problem with continuously being stalled and continuously being put back
in the pile with little comments. We now have the plan approved, it is not significantly different then
the plan that was pre-approved in 1983. Every person in this town who is trying to build on a
commercial piece, of property is not greedy and if I am able to make a few dollars at this after these
sleepless nights, then I deserve it. These special exceptions are not going to do anything but create
more problems like this, more slow-ups of projects that are worthwhile. Everything that is built is not
bad for this town.
The public hearing was closed. Mayor Sevila said the Council will receive public comment in
writing for a period of ten days. On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Lovin, this matter was
referred to the Planning and Zoning Committee on January 17, 1990.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Councilmembers Kimball and Mulokey
Councilmember Comments
Mr. Lovin had the opportunity to be with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor Tolbert at the DARE
graduation held at the Leesburg Elementary School. Officer Taylor and the town's police department
along with the public schools, that are involved in the progro~m~ should be commended on a very
worthwhile endeavor.
Mr. Clem hoped that the citizens of Leesburg had a happy holiday. He attended First Nite
Leesburg. His family is a lot richer for helping some families in town that are in need of suppo~
Mrs. Forester reported that the Planning Commission had an election of officers. Mr. Jackson
is the Chairman, Mr. Johnson is the Vice-Chairman.
She and Mr. Tolbert held the Saturday Listening Session and will have the notes available for
the manager's office tomorrow.
Mr. Tolbert announced that he will run for re-election in 1990, for another four year term.
Mayor's Report
Mayor Sevila reported that he, Mr. Tolbert and Mr. Lovin did attend the graduation program
of 5th graders at the Leesburg Elementary School, from the DARE Program. He was very much
inspired. It was well attended by parents, teachers and staff members and a very enthusiastic
auditorium full of 3rd, 4th and 5th graders. Our police force, in particular Officer Taylor and before
him Chris Jones, should be commended on the outstanding job they are doing. Not just of educatir, g
these youngsters on the evils of substance abuse and addiction but also for an excellent job of
community relations on behalf of the police department and law enforcement in general. He urged the
MINUTES OF THE REG~ TOWN COUNCIL lV[EETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
public to go by and see what the police force has done.
On Tuesday, the Parks and Recreation Department along with the Parks and Recreation
Advisory CommissiOn presented awards for the First Annual Volunteer Awards Program to Todd
Wanless, Lee Phillips and Bob Starkey. Each was named for outstanding service provided to the
community as a volunteer in connection with programs administered by the parks and recreation
department.
On a sadder note, we observed the passing of two citizens of the town. Deputy Bill Bill Wright,
who was born in Leesburg and served most of his adult life in the Sheriff's department of Loudoun
County. Also Katherine Costello. A Resolution of Respect was prepared for Mrs. Costello. The Mayor
asked that one be prepared for Mr. Wright also.
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
RESOLUTION OF RESPECT
WHEREAS, Mrs. Katherine Costello, wife of Mr. Herman Costello, and well known resident
and business woman of Leesburg and Loudoun County, died January 5, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Costello, with her husband, operated the Mighty Midget Kitchen in Leesburg
for more than forty years; and
WHEtLSAS, Mrs. Costello and the Mighty Midget Kitchen came to be a unique landmark in
the Town of Leesburg, as well as throughout Northern Virginia:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Mayor and members of the Council of the Town of
Leesburg do extend their sympathy to her family and to all who knew her; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution of Respect be spread upon the minutes of
this meeting and that a copy be sent to her husband and children.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Councilmembers Kimball and Mulokey
Manager's Report
Mr. Minor noted that the Council did receive a written copy of the Activity Report, on Monday.
He showed a rendering of Ida Lee Park, prepared through the Hughes Group and reported that
they are making excellent strides. It is a very beautiful facility.
Le~slation
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following ordinance and resolutions were
proposed as consent items and unanimously adopted.
90-0-1 - ORDINANCE - ACCEPTING THE REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
OF REZONING APPLICATION #ZM-88 BY RANDY DEHART
WHEREAS, Randall W. and Delores Y. DeHart applied to rezone 3.0495 acres of land from
Town R-2, residential to MC, medical hospital center district; and
WHE~, the land proposed for rezoning consists of two parcels, one parcel abutting
Memorial Drive on the east and the other parcel abutting Memorial Drive on the west, bounded on the
south by West Market Street and Cornwall Street on the north, and further described as Loudoun
County Tax Map 48A, Parcel 5 - 15; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council received and referred this rezoning application #ZM-88 on June
10, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on rezoning application #ZM-88
on August 20, 1987; and
WHERF, AS, the applicant requested an indefinite deferral of consideration for rezoning
application #ZM-88 on May 12, 1988, prior to a recommendation being made by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, in September, 1989, the Town Council directed staff to notify applicants of rezoning
applications initiated prior to 1989 which never received final action, that consideration of their
rezonings would be re-initiated within ninety days; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Randall W. DeHart was notified on September 21, 1989 that should final
consideration of rezoning application #ZM-88 not be desired at this time, that a request to withdraw
without prejudice could be forwarded to Town Council; and
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
WHEREAS, Mr. Randall W. DeHart submitted a request to withdraw rezoning application
#ZM-88 from consideration on December 7, 1989;
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The request to withdraw without prejudice rezoning application #ZM-88 by the
owners, Randall W. and Delores Y. DeHart, is hereby approved.
SECTION H. The land proposed for rezoning, identified as Loudoun County Tax Map 48A,
Parcel 5 - 15 (2 parts) remains zoned Town R-2 residential district.
SECTION III. Per Article 11 - 7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance, rezoning application #ZM-
88 is withdrawn without prejudice. Therefore, the twelve (12) month time limitation for the filing of
a new rezoning petition for this property shall not apply.
SECTION IV. This ordinance is effective upon adoption.
90-1 - RESOLUTION - AGREEING TO FUTURE EXTENSION OF SEWER SERVICE TO THE
WOODLEA MANOR SUBDMSION
WHEREAS, approximately 100 acres of the Woodlea Manor Subdivision is located outside of
the Leesburg corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, the 38 units within this area are required to be served by public sewer under the
proffers attached to the 1979 Woodlea Manor Subdivision rezoning;, and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Area Development Policy require Town and County agreement to
extend sewer service beyond the Leesburg corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors has agreed to the proposed sewer
extension:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The Town of Leesburg agrees to an extension of its sewer service system to the 38 lots of the
Woodlea Manor Subdivision located outside of the Leesburg corporate limits, at no cost to the town
and subject to applicable regulations.
90-2 - RESOLUTION - AWARDING A CONTRACT TO PILOT BUILDERS, INC., FOR THE
RENOVATION OF THE IDA LEE PARK FARMHOUSE
WHEREAS, bids were solicited under Section 8.1, Competitive Sealed Bidding of the Leesburg
Purchasing Regulations, for the renovation of the Ida Lee Park farmhouse; and
Vv-HE~, Pilot Builders, Inc., submitted the only bid in the amount of $140,449.40; and
WHEREAS, Pilot Builders, Inc., has been evaluated as a responsive and responsible bidder:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The manager is authorized and directed to execute, on behalf of the Town of Leesburg, a lump
sum contract with Pilot Builders, Inc., based on their bid in the amount submitted $140,449.40.
90-3 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO THE LEESBURG PURCHASING POLICY
WHEREAS, several departments have expressed the need to amend Section 12.4-1 of the
Leesburg Purchasing Policy to allow for increased limits in the amounts used for local supply orders;
and
WHEREAS, increasing these limits would improve the efficiency of the purchasing process:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
Section 12.4-1 of the Leesburg Purchasing Policy, as revised September 23, 1987, is hereby
amended to increase the limits of local supply orders from $50.00 to $200.00 for goods and services
and from $200.00 to $500.00 for automotive supplies.
90-4 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A SUBSTITUTE AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A
SUBSTITUTE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION
1E AND RELEASING THE LETTER OF CREDIT FROM LONG SIGNATURE
HOMES, INC., FOR SAME
WHEREAS, Council Resolution #87-168 approved a letter of credit from First American Bank
of Virginia in the amount of $458,000.00 as security to guarantee installation of public improvements
by Long Signature Homes, Inc., as shown on plans approved by the Director of Engineering for Potomac
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
Crossing Section 1E; and
WHEREAS, Council Resolution #89-222 approved a reduction of the letter of credit for Potomac
Crossing Section 1E' to $91,600.00; and
WHE1LEAS, Richmond American Homes of Virginia, Inc., new owner of Potomac Crossing
Section 1E has requested to replace the previously approved letter of credit with its letter of credit from
First American Bank and is requesting approval of same;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The manager shall execute a substitute contract for public improvements with
Richmond American Homes of Virginia, In., for the improvements shown on plans approved by the
Director of Engineering for Potomac Crossing Section 1E.
SECTION II. The substitute letter of credit from First American Bank provided by Richmond
American Homes of Virginia, Inc., in the amount of $91,600.00 in a form approved by the Town
Attorney is approved.
SECTION III. The letter of credit from First American Bank provided by Long Signature
Homes, Inc., in the amount of $91,600.00 is released contingent upon approval by the Town Attorney
of the substitute letter of credit from First American Bank provided by Richmond American Homes of
Virginia, Inc.
90-5 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION AT LEESBURG CHRYSLER NISSAN
WHEREAS, the town's Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the public
improvements installed to date at Leesburg Chrysler Nissan and certified that the value of work
performed is $29,596.00; and
WHEREAS, a letter of credit from the Bsnk of Loudoun in the amount of $44,761.20 has been
provided by the developer and approved by Council to guarantee installation of public improvements
for Leesburg Chrysler Nissan.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The letter of credit from the Bank of Loudoun in the amount of $44,761.00 is
reduced to $15,165.20.
SECTION II. This Town Manager shall notify the developer that liability for the letter of
credit has been reduced as outlined in Sect/on 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 Leesburg Chrysler Nissan.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Councilmembers Kimball and Mulokey
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-6 - RESOLUTION - PROMOTING RECYCLING EFFORTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF LEESBURG
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Town Council has historically supported recycling efforts of individuals
and organizations; and
WHEREAS, the town Parks and Recreation Department is sponsoring a live Christmas tree
pick-up and planting program; and
~, the town is represented by the Director of Engineering and Public Works at regular
meetings of the Northern Virginia Waste Management Board which is working toward regional recycling
solutions; and
WH]~REAS, the town's utilities department is working with the equipment maintenance
division, local service stations and the County's Recycling Coordinator to conduct an antifreeze/coolant
recycling program; and
WHEREAS, the town has promoted and endorsed a used oil recycling program by distributing
and publicizing Northern Virginia Planning District Commission posters and other printed material; and
WHEREAS, the town has donated the temporary use of its brush and tree limb chipper to the
County's Recycling Coordinator to reduce Christraas trees to mulch during the holiday season thereby
more effectively using the landfill; and
WHE~, the town's leaf and brush collection program is designed to allow for disposal by
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1990
means other than landfill; and
WHEREAS, other recycling efforts are being conducted by the town staff, the Environmental
Advisory Commission, Keep Loudoun Beautiful and Loudoun County's Recycling Coordinator.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The Town Council endorses and supports the search for effective recycling programs and directs
the manager and his staff to work with Loudoun County and other agencies to develop an effective
recycling program within the Town of Leesburg.
Mayor Sevila commended the Council and staff for getting this matter on the agenda in a
relatively short notice. Stephen Carfora, Loudoun County's Recycling Coordinator attended the town's
Administration and Public Works Committee meeting on January 3. Leesburg is in support of recycling
efforts. The Environmental Advisory Committee will be reporting back to Council on ways that the
town can begin to implement a recycling program. The Mayor attended the Round Hill Council
meeting last week and they are doing the same thing, as well as other communities.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Councilmembers Kimball and Mulokey
New Business
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-7 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $10,000 TO REMOVE THE
CONCRETE WALT, ON EAST MARKET STREET IN CONNECTION WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE JIFFY LUBE PRELIMINARY/FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, at the town's request, the applicant for the development of a Jiffy Lube to be
located immediately west of the existing Popeye's fast food restaurant has agreed to modify the
restaurant to remove lava rocl~ substitute appropriate roof colors for the proposed service facility and
remove the existing concrete wall below the site, conditioned on the town participating in the cost of
the wall removal and limited regrading required; and
WHEREAS, these changes will significantly improve the appearance of East Market Street:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The town is authorized and directed to reimburse the developer of the approved Jiffy Lube
project for removal of the concrete wall, in an amount of up to $10,000, based on invoices approved
by the Department of Engineering and Public Works in accordance with hourly rates for equipment
and personnel agreed to by the town.
Mayor Sevila commended staff on successful negotiations that will improve the site for
development and the aesthetics along that corridor. Mr. Clem stated that it will also improve safety
along this area. Mayor Sevila asked who is actually paying the cost of the improvements at the
adjoining site. Mr. Minor stated that the wall itself is on town property. The town will pay for the
cost of having the wall demolished, taken away and the grading that is required to have a stabilized
b~nl~. The developer has been very cooperative. The town has an opportunity to do 3 important
things. Mrs. Forester, as the councilmanic representative to the Planning Commission, stated that the
Planning Commission and staff worked very hard to get the developer to agree to these changes in not
only the site plan but also in colors of the Jiffy Lube building and also the remove the lava rock from
the existing Popeyes. The developer did not have to do this, but did it voluntarily. She encourages
the Council's support in this request. The removal of this wall win improve the landscape, streetscape
and improve the safety of that intersection.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Councilmembers Kimball and Mulokey
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Forester, the meeting was adjourned.
Aye:
Nay: None
Absent: Councilmembers Kimball and Mulokey
Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
·
Clerk of Council
Robert E. Sevila, Mayor
Town of Leesburg