HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990_04_24123
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL
APRIL 24, 1990
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10
Loudoun Street, S.W., Leesburg, Virginia on April 24, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to
order by the Mayor, with the invocation given by Councilmember Tolbert and the Salute to the Flag
led by Councilmember Clem. Present were: Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers James E. Clem,
Christine M. Forester, Claxton E. Lovin, William P. Mulokey and John W. Tolbert~ Jr. Absent was
Councilmember Donald A. Kimball. All members of the Planning Commission were present and
included: Chairman Mervin Jackson, Commissioners Marvin Belles, Carl Johnson, Fred Williams, Ann
Darling, Clifton Vaughan and Christine Forester. Also present were: Town Manager Jeffrey H.
Minor, Assistant Town Manager Steven C. Brown, Director of Finance Paul York, Director of
Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason, Director of Utilities Randolph W. Shoemaker,
Planners Peter Stephenson, Sally Vecchio, Marilee Weir and Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the special meeting minutes of March 27,
1990 and the regular meeting minutes of March 27, 1990, were unanimously approved.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
Petitioners
Mrs. Pat McMahon, a resident of 1308 Campbell Court, addressed the Council regarding the
extension of time for public improvements in Potomac Crossing. She thanked the Mayor, Council and
Mr. Minor for their support given to the residents in Potomac Crossing. Councilman Clem has been
out to Potomac Crossing many times, Councilmembers Forester and Mulokey have also expressed their
interest in attending homeowner meetings. At least 6 months have past and the developer has not
cooperated with the town. The drainage problem in section IF has not improved. By allowing the
developer additional time, the homeowners have to put up with improper drainage in their yards. She
requested that this extension be denied and the town work with the developer to solve these problems.
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Mason if he had contact with the developers of the referenced sections
in Potomac Crossing, with respect to the requested extensions. Mr. Mason said the Grimm Company
had been contacted, who initially asked for a one year extension for 1F and a six month extension for
1C. Staff recommends an extension of three months for 1C and six months for 1F. The Grimm
Company did not disagree. Richmond American was contacted with regard to Section 1B2 and a six
month extension is recommended. The Mayor told Mrs. McMahon that Council shared her same
concerns. The length of time that the developers have requested were lengthier than the Council was
willing to give. We thought by shortening those times substantially it might encourage the developers
to go ahead and complete those improvements in a timely fashion. It was decided that Section 1B2 and
1F would received a 4 month extension and Section 1C would remain 3 months.
Mr. Ray Martin Glembot, a resident of 206 West Market Street, addressed the Council with
regard to the special exception process in the proposed zoning ordinance. He wanted to know how the
proposed zoning ordinance was going to directly affect his business. Several years ago he acquired an
additional 2 acres of land next to his property which was going to be a parking lot. In that period of
time to get that parking lot to be approved, he had to install a storm retention system. He was also
hoping to acquire the Jackson property. He had his engineers plan to install the retention system in
the Jackson property. It would cost $30,000 if he proceeds with the plan. Under the proposed
ordinance he no longer has the bi-right use to acquire the Jackson property and make an extension on
his car dealership. Does he spend the $30,000 to install the detention facility on property that he may
not be able to use for his intent. This has confused him with regard to the special exception process
in the B-2 district~ It makes it tough to plan.
Mr. Ter .ry Titus, a resident of 805 Wage Drive, S.W., addressed the Council. He referenced the
Annexation Area Development Polices (AADP's) and said that the 100' landscape setback along the
bypass has reappeared in the AADP's. He understood that this issue died and would like Council to
reconsider it to be removed. Another issue he commented on was the proposed zoning ordinance. He
thought, with regard to Mr. Glembot, that the automobile uses had been treated fairly. It is his opinion
that the Council has a proliferation on special exception uses. Granted, it is a viable means of land use
control. He does not understand why townhouses in the RH-D district have now been made a special
exception. He asked Council to look at townhouses as a viable use in the RH-D and put them back
in as a permitted use. The town needs standards for clusters. Lastly, it is time to adopt the ordinance.
Many hours have been spent on this document and he encourages the Council to adopt it tonight, with
the exception of the townhouses in the RI-I-D.
Public Hearing. Joint public hearing - Modifications to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
and Land Development Regulations regarding pipestem lots
Mr. Minor said that the Town has recently received comments from the NVBIA as well as a
proposal on a vesting provision, to accompany this ordinance.
Minutes of April 24, 1990
Marilee Weir, gave a brief staff report. The proposed amendments will do two things. They ·
will limit the number of pipestems that can be served by one stem to two and it will eliminate the
potential to use pipestems for strictly infill purposes. She pointed out a few changes made to the
original resolution. A major concern from the developers deals with vesting. Staff has proposed a
vesting provision. Pipestems will be vested if; a pipestem has been approved, if an applicant has an
approved variation and a preliminary subdivision plat under review and, in the case of a planned
development, if it has been approved showing where the pipestems are located. NVBIA's concerns have
been addressed.
Mr. Bill Fissel, a resident of 602 South King Street and an engineer with Dewberry & Davis,
said that he met with staff last week with some concerns that were addressed at tonight's presentation.
A major concern, the change from three pipestems to two will not solve the issues identified by staff.
Such as preservation of vegetation and steep slopes.
Mr. Dave Culbert withdrew his comments.
Mr. Mark Dudrow, a resident of 173 Meadows Lane, stated that he was asked to attend
tonight's meeting as a public safety figure. He has 17 years with the fire department and is an
apparatus driver. Anytime you have multiple addresses in a pipestem, you are adding to the burden
to us - one, for getting the apparatus in and two, for long lays that we have to do from the hydrant
in to those areas. Anytime you can eliminate the number of addresses in a pipestem, you are saving
us work. He asked the Council, as a public safety employee, to think about this before making this
amendment.
Mr. George Webber, a resident of 515 Clagett Street, said that he is in favor of the proposed
amendment. This amendment is a reasonable compromise towards what is necessary in this area. He
read a staff report that said Leesburg is one of the most lenient communities, in Virginia, in terms
of granting pipestem allowances. He is troubled by that. His main concern is that pipestem not be
abused and not be used as a technique to allow greater housing density then would otherwise be
allowed under normal zoning practices.
Mr. Terry Titus, a resident of 825 Wage Drive, S.W., said that he was not aware that this was
a significant issue when the proposed zoning ordinance was dealt with. What is the hurry with regard
to adopting this. If we have a problem with pipestems, lets deal with it. He agrees with Mr. Fissel.
There are performance standards that can be done very easily. We can control the safety issues. We
can put hydrants within the pipestems. All of these issues are performance issues. The pipestem is
a viable method of development. It has been and will continue to be a viable, desireable and saleable
item. Why don't we look at setting standards for lot widths, areas, house orientation, etc. He
requested that the Council look into performance standards that can be developed very easily and
address the safety issues that we are all concerned about.
Mr. Joe Trocino, a resident of 213 Browns Meadows, feels very strongly about the issue of
pipestem and pipestem design. He would like to see it continue to be done well in the Town of
Leesburg. One of the fine aspects of an ordinance is to allow properly regulated creative uses of
pipestem lots. He lives on a pipestem lot and it works very well. He would like to see Council keep
some o$ the language in the ordinance that would allow some flexibility within standards so that
Council and staff, given the right circumstances, can be creative. Mayor Sevila said that when he hears
the word creativity used too much by developers, he starts to get nervous. He has seen examples of
creativity, which in 1984 the town had an absolute stop to all pipestem lots, because some of the
creativity then was an outrage to all of us. The same thing occurred when we decided to enable more
creativity in our subdivision regulations to permit private streets and all of a sudden creativity resulted
in the public outcry that we stop all public streets - and we did. We are in a situation where we need
to draw back and look at this. This will not be the end of a discussion on pipestem lots or private
streets within the town. When the need arises to address something Council has to move and move
swiftly to do it. We are trying to pull back from a situation that does allow abuses and abuses have
occurred. We encourage anyone to come forward and make suggestions about pipestems.
Mr. Joe Drnmheller, a resident of 519 Clagett Street, said that we are trying to limit the
number of pipestems on an infill basis. He supports the proposed amendment very strongly. He urged
Council to adopt the proposed ordinance in its entirety tonight.
Mayor Sevila read the following letter, by Mr. James Rich of 512 Clagett Street, into the record.
Dear Mr. Minor,
You particularly, and Leesburg government officials in general, have been very active in
soliciting citizen input. I'm confident that the current situation in rewriting legislation governing
pipestems is no exception.
My travel schedule prohibits my attending the meetings scheduled to discuss the pipestem
legislation. In the past five years I have formed some very definite opinions on the subject which I ask
that you share with the appropriate officials.
Having lived in Pennsylvania and New Jersey until five years ago I was unfamiliar with the
term, or the practice, of pipestems. In 1985 my wife and I signed a purchase agreement for a home
in Leesburg. While awaiting construction of the home we rented a condominium in Fairfax County.
Minutes of April 24, 1990
This was our first exposure to pipestems. I must say that when a development of so called "cluster ·
homes" is designed around the concept of pipestems it can be a very attractive development. The
people who purchase in such a development do so with an understanding of the pros and cons. When
pipestems are used for the sole purpose of increasing density in an existing community it presents
numerous drawbacks, including,
an unsightly, obviously unplanned appearance
an unsafe condition whereby children can't go to their neighbors house without crossing
a multiple use driveway
a previously unplanned burden on community services, including sewer, water, police,
fire, etc...
driveways through previously beautiful side and back yards where kids played ball and
families held barbecues
unplanned parking and related problems
I for one, am confident that Leesburg government officials have the intestinal fortitude to
prevent Leesburg from becoming a conglomeration of development nightmares that become nothing
more than monuments to government indecision and developer profits. ! urge Leesburg officiais not
to be intimidated into these types of situations. The citizens would much rather contribute to the legal
costs associated with protecting the integrity of their community than to bear the cost of living forever
with a poor decision made in a moment of pressure or weakness.
Mayor Sevila asked the members of the Planning Commission if they had any questions. They
did not. The public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission convened in the upstairs Council
chambers to further discuss this matter.
Joint Public Hearing: #ZM-116 (#ZM-95) Stratford property plan amendment
Mr. Peter Stephenson gave a lenghty staff presentation and noted that staff did receive amended
proffers on April 9, 1990, and a revised traffic study will be forthcoming.
Ms. Young, representing the applicant, was present to answer any questions.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed. Mayor Sevila said the Council will receive public comment in
writing for a period of ten days. The Mayor asked what kind of time frame the Planning Commission
would need. Chairman Jackson said since there was no public input he did not see any problem. On
motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Tolber~ this item was referred to the Planning Commission.
Public Hearing:. Daily short-term rental tax
Mr. York said that this item was brought up at the pre-budget workshop in March. Staff
wanted Council to look at this as a revenue item for next fiscal year. The reason it was brought to the
Council's attention was the fact that Loudoun County enacted this tax effective January 1, 1990. Since
the town does not currently have the tax in effect, the County has the ability and the authority to
impose this tax on town businesses. Staff feels that if the Leesburg citizens are going to be subjected
to this tax that the revenues should be coming to the town rather then the County. This tax is
charged by businesses who operate short-term rentals, such as video, equipment, rentals, golf courses
that rent out golf carts. When the customer rents the item, the business would access a 1% tax against
that person, in addition to any other sales taxes. The business would collect that tax and remit it to
the town. Mr. York pointed out that the businesses that are affected by this do get somewhat of a tax
break, in the fact that the tangible, personai property that is being rented is exempted from personal
property tax. It is considered merchants capital and the town does not have a merchants capital tax,
nor does the County. They aiso get a break on their business licenses.
Mr. Lovin asked if the town did not enact this legislation would the money go to the County.
Mr. York said that was correct. If the town does not enact the tax, the County will charge it against
the business being affected in the town. Mr. Lovin asked if the County could retroactively ask for
money until we enact this ordinance. Mr. York said that he was not sure. Mr. York said the town
is predicting to take in about $15,000 total for the next fiscal year. Since the businesses involved do
receive some tax benefit in reduced personal property taxes and reduced business license fees, that the
town's net gain is going to be about $10,000.
There were no speakers.
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. Tolber~ seconded by Mr. Lovin this item was
moved to the Council level and will be brought up at the legislation level of tonight's agenda.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
Councilmember's Comments
126
Minutes of April 24, 1990
Mr. Mulokey wished to remind the voters that Channel 37 will be broadcasting the significant
campaign oriented events. It will be broadcast twice daily, at noon and at 7 p.m., for the benefit of the
voters who would like to get to know the candidates before casting their vote next Tuesday.
Last week he had the opportunity to speak before the Board of Supervisors in favor of beginning
the library in Leesburg, this year. He conveyed to them the ordinance that the Town Council adopted
a few weeks ago, and asked them once again on behalf of their largest town and the County seat that
the citizens deserve to have this library built as quickly as possible.
The election process has been enlightening for Mr. Mulokey and he hopes that it has been for
the citizens as well. To all of his fellow candidates he wished to thank them for a campaign that has
been characterized by a mutual respect for each other and an open discussion of the issues. It assures
him that whomever the voters select they will do their best to represent all of the citizens.
Mr. Lovin said that he attended some of the Earth Day activities at Simpson Middle School.
They were very enlightening and enjoyable.
He pointed out that the firm of Sanbank and Partners of New York has selected the Town of
Leesburg to do a Progresso Soup ad campaign.
National Geographic Magazine - Travel Magazine has selected Loudoun County for a feature
layout in the magazine.
He wished to remind all the citizens to vote on May 1.
Mr. Clem wished to thank the citizens for their kind reception that he has received as he
walked through the town. He has visited every street in Leesburg and encourages everyone to vote.
Mr. Tolbert explained that on Candidates Night at the Best Western he started to make his
speech and realized that he had his wife's grocery list instead of his speech notes.
Mrs. Forester had the opportunity along with her children Kate and Jason to attend the Easter
Egg Hunt at Market Station inconjunction with the town's Parks and Recreation Department. There
were approximately 200 children. We had a great time.
Last Tuesday, she attended the Kiwanis Club candidates night. It was a very rewarding
experience.
She also attended the Downtown Business Association meeting that same evening.
She attended the Saturday Listening Session, where Mrs. Sarah Armstrong came in and they
had a great discussion of the needs of the elderly in town.
Mayor's Report
Mayor Sevila reminded everyone of the Arbor Day Celebration on Saturday at Ida Lee Park.
He encouraged all citizens to attend.
He presented an award to Randy Shoemaker from the Patawomack District Boy Scouts. They
have their camporee every spring along the Potomac and Randy makes available to the scouts an ample
amount of water during their camp.
He reminded everyone to vote on May 1.
Manager's Report
Mr. Minor said that Council did receive a copy of the written Activity Report on Monday.
Pro-Beverly Ba~efield Shopping Center, who is the subject of a special exception through the
Board of Zoning Appeals, will have a meeting on May 14 to consider that request. One of the issues
that have driven negotiations has been the architectural treatment and materials of the building.
Progress has been made.
The Finance Department has been notified for the 3rd consecutive year that the town's
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting did receive the GFOA award. This
gives the town confidence that we are doing a good job in presenting the town's financial position. He
appreciates the hard work that Mr. York has put in to those awards each year.
A few weeks ago the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed fire station
in the Exeter development to co-locate a fire station/little league field in the Exeter project. One of
the charges staff received from the Planning Commission is to try to find other potential locations that
would be more suitably located in terms of potential neighborhood conflicts. The Pinnacle/Ryan
people, who own both Edward's Landing and the International Pavilion properties, is willing to donate
a 1.5 acre site with access to Battlefield Parkway. That donation depends on the extension of Battlefield
Parkway. Staff will work with the owners and the fire company on this option. Mr. Minor thanked
Mr. Jerry Strausbaugh for this offer.
127
Minutes of April 24, 1990
The Planning Commission reconvened and the Mayor recognized Councilmember Forester to
make the report on behalf of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Forester said the Planning Commission
made a motion to favorably refer the modifications, to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
and Land Development Regulations regarding pipestem lots, to Council. The vote was 7 - 0. The
Planning Commission is taking this step because it is a first step in the necessary changes for this
ordinance. We need to work with the developers and the citizens to write a good pipestem regulation.
The Planning Commission would like to be pro-active instead of reactive in this matter and want to
address this as quickly as possible. The Planning Commission asks staff to refer this matter to the May
3, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
Legislation
On motion of Mr. Mulokey, seconded by Mr. Clem, the following ordinance was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-0-10 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF LEESBURG, VIRGINIA, AS
AMENDED, BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE VI "DAILY SHORT-TERM
RENTAL TAX" TO CHAPTER 17, ~TAXATION AND LICENSES' IN ORDER
TO IMPOSE A TAX ON TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY HELD FOR
RENTAL AND OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE SHORT-
TERM RENTAL BUSINESS
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg under Section 3-1 of its Charter and Section 15.1-841, Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, is authorized to enact taxes on property and other lawful subjects as
in the judgment of the Town Council are necessary to pay the debts, defray the expenses, accomplish
the purposes and perform the functions of the town; and
WHEREAS, under Section 58.1-3510.1, 3510.2 and 3510.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, and the aforesaid authority, the town is authorized to levy a tax upon daily short-term rental
businesses within the town; and
WHEREAS, this Council deems the levy of such a tax on daily short-term rental businesses
necessary to pay the debts, defray the expenses, accomplish the purposes and perform the functions
of the town; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 24, 1990, as required by the Town Code.
THEREFORE, ORDAINED, by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The Town Code is amended by adding an Article to be numbered Article VI,
which said article reads as follows:
ARTICLE VI - DALLY SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX
Section 17-124. Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them by this section.
(a)
Affiliated - for the purposes of this Article shall mean any common ownership interest.
in excess of five percent (5%), of any officers or partners in common with the lessor and
lessee.
(b)
Certificate of Registration - shall refer to the annual certificate issued by the Director
of Finance to persons engaged in the short-term rental business in the Town of
Leesburg who make application for such certificate pursuant to Section 17-126 of this
Article;
(c)
Director of Finance - shall mean the Director of Finance of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia and any of the director's duly authorized deputies or agents;
(d) Town - shall mean the Town of Leesburg, Virginia;
(e)
Daily Rental Property - shall mean all tangible personal property held for rental and
owned by a person engaged in the short-term rental business as defined in Section 17-
124(i) of this Article, except trailers, as defined in Section 46.1(33) of the Code of
Virginia and other tangible personal property required to be licensed or registered with
the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, or the Department of Aviation;
(f)
Gross Proceeds - shall mean the total amount charged including penalties, late charges
or interest" to each person for the rental of daily rental property from a short-term
rental business with a valid certificate of registration, excluding any state and local sales
taxes paid pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. Gross proceeds
is the taxable basis for the daily rental tax;
(g) Gross Rental Receipts - shall mean all proceeds from rentals during a calendar year
Minutes of April 24, 1990
except the proceeds from the rental of personal property which also involves the ·
provision of personal services for the operation of the personal property rented shall not
be treated as gross receipts from rental. For purposes of this section the delivery and
installation of tangible personal property shall not mean operation;
(h)
Person - shah mean and include individuals, firms, partnerships, associations,
corporations and combinations of individuals of whatever form and character;
(i)
Short-term Rental Business - shall include any person engaged in the short-term rental
of daily rental property as defined in Section 17-124(e) of this Article 1F;
(1)
not less than eighty percent (80%) of the gross rental receipts of such business
in any year from are transactions involving rental periods of ninety-two (92)
consecutive days or less, including ah extensions and renewals to the same
person or a person affiliated with the lessor; and provided that;
(2)
any rental to a person affiliated with the lessor shall be treated as rental receipts
but shall not qualify for purposes of the eighty (80%) requirement.
Section 17-125. Levy and Rate of Dally Rental Tax.
Pursuant to Section 58.1-3510.1 of the Code of Virginia, and in addition to ah other taxes of
every kind now or hereafter imposed by law, the Town of Leesburg hereby levies and imposes on
every person engaged in the short-term rental business a tax of one percent (1%) on the gross proceeds
as defined in Section 17-124(f) of such business. Such tax shall be in addition to the tax levied
pursuant to Section 58.1-605 of the Code of. Virginia.
Section 17-126. Exemptions from Daily Rental Tax.
(a)
No tax hereunder shall be collected or payable on rentals to the Commonwealth of
Virginia, to any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or to the United States.
(b)
No tax hereunder shall be collected or payable for any rental of durable medical
equipment as defined in Subdivision 22 of Section 58.1-608 of the Code of Virginia.
(c)
Ail rentals exempt from the Virginia Sales and Use Tax pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title
58.1 of the Code of Virginia shall be exempt from this dally rental tax.
(d)
Ail exemptions from this tax claimed by short-term rental businesses at the time of
payment of collected taxes shall be proved by filing of appropriate documentation as
directed by the director.
Section 17-127. Short-term Rental Business Application for Certificate of Registration.
Every person engaging in the business of short-term rental as defined in Section 17-124(i) of
this Article, shall file annually for an application for a certificate of registration with the Director of
Finance for each place of business in the town from which short-term rental business will be conducted
by the applicant. Such application shall be filed by January 31st of each year or within thirty (30) days
of the beginning of a short-term rental business. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the
Director of Finance and shall contain;
(a) the name under which the applicant intends to operate the rental business;
(b)
the location in the town from which the rental business will be conducted as well as
the location of the rental business headquarters; and
(c)
the figures for the previous year's business including the total gross receipts from all
business, the total gross rental receipts and the total receipts from short-term daily
rental property;
(d)
a list of ah tangible personal property used for rental the previous year including a list
of ah property leased or licensed to the short-term rental business with the name and
address of the owner of such property;
(e) such other information as the director may require;
(f)
an oath by the person making the application or an officer or partner for such applicant
that they are in fact qualified for tax treatment as a short-term rental business and they
shall collect only those daily rental taxes due under the law and they shall remit all
daily rental taxes collected to the town.
Section 17-128. Issuance and Effect of Certificate of Registration for Short-term Dally Rental
Business.
Upon approval of the application required by Section 17-127, by the director, a certificate of
registration shall be issued from which a daily rental business is conducted in the town by the
Minutes of April 24, 1990
applicant. The certificate shall be conspicuously displayed at all times at the place of business for '
which it is issued. The certificate is not assignable and shall be valid only for the person in whose
name it is issued and the place of business designated.
Section 17-129. Collection and Record-keeping.
Every person engaged in the short-term rental business with a valid certificate or registration
from the director shall collect this daily rental tax from the lessee of the dally rental property at the
time of rental.
The person collecting this tax shall maintain a record of all rental transactions for which this
tax is collected, which record shall contain:
(a) a description of the property rented;
(b) the period of time for which the property was rented;
(c) the name of the person to whom the property was rented; and
(d) the amount charged for each rental including all late charges, penalties and interest.
Section 17-130. Filing of Quarterly Tax Returns and Remittance of Tax.
Each certified short-term rental business under the provisions of this Article shall file a
quarterly tax return with the director, indicating for the quarters just past;
(a) the total business gross receipts of the return filer;
(b) the gross proceeds derived from the short-term rental business;
(c)
(d)
all rental gross proceeds claimed to be exempt from the daily rental tax and
documentation of each such claim;
the total dally rental tax due the town for the previous quarteFs short-term rental
business.
Each return shall be accompanied by payment of the taxes due and collected by the certified,
short-term rental business. The quarterly returns and payment of the tax shall be filed with the
director on or before the 20th day of each of the months of April, July, October and January,
representing, respectively, the gross proceeds and taxes collected during the preceding quarters ending
March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31.
Section 17-131. Taxes Held in Trust for the Town.
The taxes required to be collected under this Article shall be deemed to be held in trust by the
person required to collect such taxes until remitted as required in this Article.
Section 17-132. Penalty for Failure or Refusal to Collect Tax.
If any certified short-term rental business in the town fails or refuses to collect the tax imposed
under this Article, their current Certificate of Registration shall be revoked and the business shall not
be subject to the provision of Sections 58.1-3510, 58.1-3510.1 and 58.1-3706.C of the Virginia Code nor
the provisions of Article VI of the Leesburg Town Code for the calendar year in which the certificate
was revoked. Any payments of dally rental tax made previous to the revocation of the Certificate shall
be refunded to the such lessees as can be identified with the balance being credited to the omitted
assessment of personal property and business license taxes due to the change in taxable status of the
short-term rental business.
Section 17-133. Penalties and Interest - Failure to File Return or Pay Over Taxes Collected.
If any certified short-term rental business fails to file the returns required by this Section or
fails or refuses to remit to the director the tax collected and paid under this Article at the time specified
in this Article, there shall be added to such tax a penalty in the amount of ten percent
(10%) of the tax past due or the sum of ten dollars ($10.00), whichever is greater. The assessment of
such penalty shall not be deemed a defense to any criminal prosecution for failure to comply with any
of the requirements of this Article.
Interest on late payments of any taxes due shall be added at the rate of ten percent (10%) per
annum. Penalty and interest for failure to file the return or to pay the tax due pursuant to this
Article shall be assessed on the first day following the day such quarterly return and tax payment is
due.
Section 17-134. Uncertified Renters Prohibited From Collecting Tax.
No person renting any property or services to any other person shall collect from the lessee the
daily rental tax authorized by this Article unless they have a valid Certificate of Registration issued
for the current year by the director. Any taxes collected in a manner not authorized by law shall be
forfeited to the town.
Minutes of April 24, 1990
Section 17-135. Criminal Penalties.
Persons violating or failing to comply with any provision of this Article shall be guilty of a Class
3 misdemeanor, except as provided below.
If the amount of tax due and unpaid for any quarter exceeds $1,000.00 any person failing to
file a return or remit payment when due and charged with such failure on a criminal warrant shall be
guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Section 17-136. Failure to File for Certificate of Registration.
In the event a newly established business or previously classified short-term rental business fails
to file for certification as a short-term rental business, they will relinquish the right to be classified
as a short-term rental business and all tangible personal property will be subject to taxation under
Section 58.1-3503 of the Code of Virginia.
Section 17-137. Taxation of Rental Property That is Not Dally Rental Property..
Except for daily rental passenger cars, rental property that is not classified as "dally rental
property" shall be liable for taxation pursuant to Section 58.1-3503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mr. Mulokey, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following ordinances were proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-0-11 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG SUBDMSION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE CREATION OF PIPESTEM LOTS
WHEREAS, this Council has found that Leesburg's pipestem regulations are less restrictive than
neighboring jurisdictions and are often undesirable when developed adjacent to existing neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to limit the use of pipestem lots to situations where their
approval will preserve natural features or reduce vehicular access points to non-local streets; and
WHEREAS, Leesburg citizens have petitioned this Council to request modifications to the town's
pipestem regulations; and
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of these proposed amendments;
WHEREAS, amendment of these provisions of the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development
Regulations is in the best interest of the public necessity, convenience, general welfare:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. Section 13-75(d) of the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regulations
is amended as shown below:
(d)
Lots, to be known as pipestem lots, may be approved which do not meet yard and lot
width requirements of the zoning regulations provided the proposed lots will preserve
natural features which through standard lot layout would be lost or the proposed lots
will reduce vehicular access points to non-local streets.or thc prcF. ccc~ !c+--~ permit
~ .... +;,;~.+;^. ~; .....,~,.. ~n.^~ +~+~ cn -"-n ~" ~;~ The stem of a pipestem
lot is a narrow strip of land connecting the buildable portion of the lot with a street for
the purpose of providing vehicular, pedestrian and utility access. Every pipestem lot
shall comply with the following standards:
(1)
The minimum overall area for a subdivision containing pipestem lots shall be
four acres.
(2) No more than five pipestem lots shall abut.
(3)
The maximum distance between the abutting public or private street and the
front building line on any pipestem lot shall be 250 lineal feet.
(4)
The stem of any pipestem lot shall be excluded from the computation of lot area
in determining compliance with zoning regulations.
(5)
The front, side and rear building lines for all pipestem lots shall be shown on
the final plat.
Minutes of April 24, 1990
(6)
The minimum width of the stem of a pipestem lot separated from any other
pipestem lot shall be 20 feet. The minimum combined width of adjacent stems
of pipestem lots, where a common driveway or accessway is to be provided, shall
be 20 feet. The width of adjacent stems of pipestem lots where separate
driveways or accessways are to be provided shall be 20 feet.
(7)
The stems of pipestem lots shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility
of the owners of the lots. At the time of recordation of a subdivision plat. the
subdivider shall simultaneously record deed restrictions or covenants in form
and substance satisfactory to the town attorney which shall provide for the
maintenance and use of the stems.
(~)(8) No more than t~vo pipestem lots shall be served by a stem.
SECTION II. Any proposed subdivision which has preliminary plat approval from the Planning
Commission, or has an approved variation to the pipestem regulations and a preliminary subdivision
plat under review shall be vested in the pipestem lots shown, if all other requirements of the
Subdivision and Land Development Regulations are met at final plat submission. Furthermore, Planned
Developments zoned under Article 7B of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance shall be vested as to design
and number of pipestem lots if all other applicable zoning and subdivision requirements are met.
SECTION HI. All prior ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed.
SECTION IV. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the decision shall not affect the validity of the Article as a whole or of any
remaining provisions of the Article.
SECTION V. This Ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
90-0-12 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE
CREATION OF PIPESTEM LOTS
WHEREAS, this Council has found that Leesburg's pipestem regulations are less restrictive than
neighboring jurisdictions and are often undesirable when developed adjacent to existing neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to limit the use of pipestem lots to situations where their
approval will preserve natural features or reduce vehicular access points to non-local streets; and
WHEREAS, Leesburg citizens have petitioned this Council to request modifications to the town's
pipestem regulations; and
WHEREAS, limitations on the number of lots to be served by a stem are more appropriately
placed in the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regulations; and
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of these proposed amendments;
WHEREAS, amendment of these provisions of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is in the best
interest of the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. Section 7A-4.(6)c. of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as shown
below:
7A-4.(6)c. Pipestem and Irregular Lots.
Main buildings and accessory structures on pipestem or irregular lots
subdivided under Sections 13-75 or 13-91 of the Town Code shall be
located within the building lines shown on the final plat of the
subdivision in which the lot is located. Required off-street parking on
pipestem lots shall not be located on the stem portion of the lot or
common driveway serving more than one pipestem lot. Required off-
street parking on pipestem lots shall be connected to a street by a
driveway with a minimum pavement width of 14 feet which shall be
paved as required by the Leesburg Public Facilities Manual. ~
SECTION II. Any proposed new subdivision which has preliminary plat approval from the
Planning Commission, or has an approved variation to the pipestem regulations and a preliminary
subdivision plat under review shall be vested in the pipestem lots shown, if all other requirements of
the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations are met at final plat submission. Furthermore,
Planned Developments zoned under Article 7B of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance shall be vested as to
Minutes of April 24, 1990
design and number of pipestem lots if all other applicable zoning and subdivision requirements are met. -
SECTION III. Ail prior ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed.
SECTION IV. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the decision shall not affect the validity of the Article as a whole or of any
remaining provisions of the Article.
SECTION V. This Ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Mulokey, the reading of this ordinance was
waived.
Aye: Couneilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mr. Mulokey, seconded by Mrs. Forester, the following ordinance was proposed
and unanimously adopted.
90-0-13 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING COM-
MERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL
EXCEPTION REGULATIONS, HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS, TEMPORARY
USE REGULATIONS,DEFINITIONS AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP
OF THE TOWN OF LEESBURG, AND REPEALING THE LOUDOUN COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE, AS ADOPTED BY THE TOWN OF LEESBURG ON
NOVEMBER 23, 1983, EXCEPT SECTION 740
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to establish new commercial
district regulations was initiated on September 24, 1986 and re-initiated on FebrUary 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to establish new residential
district regulations, special exception, home occupation and temporary use regulations, definitions,
changes to the official zoning district map and repealing the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance as
adopted by the Town, was initiated on FebrUary 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1989 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on these proposed
amendments and forwarded the commercial district amendments to Council on July 13, 1989, and
recommended to Council the adoption of the remaining amendments at subsequent meetings; and
WHEREAS, the draft zoning ordinance amendments were the subject of a public roundtable
meeting on June 24, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Council conducted a public hearing on these amendments January 9, 1990; and
WHEREAS, an ad hoc citizen's committee was created by the Council on July 11, 1989 to
ensure that the citizen and business community idea's and viewpoints were adequately addressed by
the Council; and
WHEREAS, the ad hoc committee's recommendations were considered by the Council's
Planning and Zoning Committee on November 8, 21, and December 6, 1989; and
WHEREAS, a revised and consolidated zoning ordinance is necessary to better facilitate orderly
development in Leesburg, implement the Town Plan land use policies and fulfill the 1983 town/county
Annexation Agreement and court order; and
WHEREAS, these amendments to the zoning ordinance are necessary to promote public safety
and weffare, to facilitate the creation of a convenient~ attractive and harmonious community, and to
protect property values:
THEREFORE ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adopting new articles
entitled "Article 3: Residential Zoning District Regulations, Article 4: Commercial Zoning District
Regulations, Article 11: Special Exception Regulations, Article 14: Temporary Use Regulations, Article
15: Home Occupation Regulations, Article 18: Definitions" as contained in the text dated April 13, 1990.
Ail Articles and Sections are hereby renumbered and re-codified as shown in the aforementioned text,
pursuant to Section 15.1-37.3 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
SECTION ri. The Official Zoning District Map dated June 13, 1984 is hereby repealed and
the Zoning District Map dated April 20, 1990 is hereby adopted as the Official Zoning District Map.
SECTION III. Articles lA, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, 4B-5, 4C, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 15 and Sections 8-1-1, 8-1-
2 and 8-1-3, 8-2-11-8, 8-2-11-10, 8-2-11-11A, 9-9-6, 9-9-6(B), and 9-9-7ff of the 1959 Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance as amended, and the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance as adopted and administered by
the Town of Leesburg are hereby repealed, except for Section 740. Regulato .ry 100-year Flood Hazard
133
Minutes of April 24, 1990
District (1LLID) which shall continue to govern floodplains in the land annexed by the Town effective .
January 1, 1984.
SECTION IV. Where there is a land use which was previously approved by the town
pursuant to a rezoning application, which resulted in approval with proffers submitted pursuant to
Virginia statute (or a proffered zoning referred to in the 1983 county/town annexation agreement) or
for a special exception application which resulted in approval with conditions and there is a conflict
between Articles 3 or 4 of this ordinance and the proffered conditions or special exception conditions,
the latter conditions shall govern. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the development of land subject to
this provisions shall comply with any applicable subdivision and land development regulations,
architectural control regulations or any other applicable zoning or development regulations in effect at
the time of site plan or subdivision approval.
Any use which legally existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance and is classified as
a special exception use shall hereafter be considered as permissible use, which may not be structurally
altered or enlarged, or extended unless application for a special exception is filed and approved for the
proposed change in accordance with this ordinance. Notwithstanding the above, if the structure is
destroyed or damaged, the structure may be rebuilt under the same, similar or different design, without
a special exception application or approval under this ordinance, as long as the extent of non-conformity
is not increased as to the structure or the use beyond any existing at the time of adoption of this
ordinance. Other appropriate approvals under the subdivision and land development regulations and all
other development regulations shall be required.
SECTION V. Any new development for which the Town Land Development Official has
accepted for review a complete application for a final plat or final plan or minor subdivision plat or pre-
liminary/final plan prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be vested in the zoning regulations
of the Town effective at the time the aforementioned plat or plan was filed. Any redevelopment or new
construction, not proposed on the vested plat or plan shall be governed by the then current zoning
ordinance of the Town.
SECTION VI. Severability. If any portion of these amendments is declared invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the decision shall not affect the validity of amendments as a whole or any
remaining provision of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION VII. All prior ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed.
SECTION VIII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage.
Mr. Minor said this eliminates the County's Zoning District. We currently administer both the
town ordinance, within the corporate town limits and the county ordinance outside the corporate limits.
We are under court order to consolidate our zoning ordinance. We have a vesting and grandfathering
provision. Our grandfather/vesting provision is better from the point of the landowner than the one
adopted by the General Assembly, this year. Proffered rezonings are intact.
Mayor Sevila said that this ordinance adopts the text which is contained in the latest draft
dated April 20, 1990. The Planning Commission held its public hearing on April 6, 1989, referred it
to Council July 13, 1989, Council and Planning Commission conducted a public roundtable meeting on
June 24, 1989, and the Council public hearing was held on January 9, 1990. The Citizens Advisory
Committee met from July through October and the Council has held hearings at its Planning and
Zoning Committees on November 8, 21, and December 6.
Mrs. Forester asked Mr. Minor to address the conditions and safeguards that we wrote into the
special exception area, to address~~ ~' the concerns of the development community so that we would not
be looking for proffers through special exceptions. Mr. Minor explained that unless it is a retail use
of over 250,000 feet or hotel/motel/office, then we cannot accept or request it. Mrs. Forester said, as
a member of the Planning Commission, that we worked in a lot of committee meetings; writing the
ordinance, addressing concerns, and were given the opportunity to open it up for further discussion
with citizen advisory committees and technical committees. The Planning Commission and the staff
has worked long and hard. This is certainly an improvement over what we now have and is the result
of great efforts on everyone's part.
Mr. Lovin said that as a member of the Planning and Zoning Committee we went through this
document line by line. He appreciates everyone's comments and input on this document.
Mr. Mulokey wanted to address Mr. Titus' concern regarding townhouses in the RH-D district.
Mr. Minor said that the townhouses, as a special exception, were a compromise. Maybe if someone
came in with a townhouse product where it was conditioned that the houses would be this way - the
density would be this - it would be all brick, etc., then the Council could look favorably on that. The
town's staff did not make this special exception. It was a permitted use for over a year.
Mr. Clem said it has been a long, rocky road. We have as good a document as we will have
this year. Most of his concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Tolbert asked if mini-warehouses were permissible in the I-1 district. Mayor Sevila
answered yes by special exception.
Mayor Sevila said that during his period of time on the Town Council there has not been a
single legislative item or event that has received so much public input, which is good. The level of
input and degree of public scrutiny, the number of meetings, etc., and through a long arduous process,
line by line review and revision reflects the view and attitudes of everybody. The Council has listened
Minutes of April 24, 1990
carefully to everything that has been said and tried to incorporate it in the final document. It is the
process that deserves our attention. It is the most significant thing that the Council has done in the
last two years. Mayor Sevila wished to acknowledge everyone who has played an important role to the
town with this document - Eric Zicht" Bill Fissel and Terry Titus who were the technical committee.
They took time from their own work and paying clients to work with the town on matters, in their
own professional opinions, were either inconsistent or incorrect. The Mayor thanked everyone who
spoke at the roundtable meeting in June. We took very seriously the work of the Citizens Advisory
Commission.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-72 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO MAP 4, COMMUNITY FACILITIES
POLICY OF THE LEESBURG TOWN PLAN
WHEREAS, the County of Loudoun is considering a consolidated government complex location
within the Town of Leesburg at Stratford; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg is supportive of this proposal, consistent with the adopted
Annexation Area Development Policies, to keep county government an integral part of the town's
economy; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg is the county seat of Loudoun and has been the location of
Loudoun County government for over 230 years; and
WHEREAS, the proposed County of Loudoun government complex at Stratford in Leesburg is
the best location for the county complex and is in keeping with good planning practice; and
WHEREAS, Map 4, Community Facilities Policy does not presently reflect a proposed location
for any county government offices outside of the Old and Historic District:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
An amendment to Map 4, Community Facilities Policy of the Town Plan to locate the proposed
Loudoun County government complex at the Stratford in Leesburg site is initiated. This amendment
is referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11,
Title 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
Mayor Sevila said that this resolution gives the Stratford site the equivalent of a Commission
Permit. which neither of the two site (Lansdowne and Ashburn) have.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-73 - RESOLUTION - ADOPTING THE 1991-1995 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-464 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes preparation and
annual review of a Capital Improvements Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, the Town Manager submitted a proposed Capital Improvements Program to the
Town Council and Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Council held public hearings on the CIP on
March 22, 1990 and March 27, 1990, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 1991-1995 CIP and recommends
adoption to the Council; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearings and Planning Commission review, the Council
proposed modifications to 'the CIP which have been incorporated into a final draft submitted to the
Council on April 20, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the CIP provides a long-term plan for the financing, acquisition and construction
of capital facilities, projects and equipment:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The proposed 1991-1995 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted.
Mr. Clem referenced the CIP regarding the stormwater management projects. He asked if the
projects for Monroe Street, Mosby Drive, Virginia Knolls and the Brandon area were not to be
completed until 1995. Mr. Minor thought that funds would be available for these projects in 1993.
13~5
Minutes of April 24, 1990
Mr. Minor said that the Turner-Harwood project could be moved back to 1995.
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mrs. Forester, item 28A in the CIP was changed to 1995
and 30A in the CIP was changed to 1993.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Tolbert~ the following resolution was proposed.
RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEXATION AREA
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES (AADP'S) AND REFERRING THE DRAFT
AMENDMENTS TO THE AADP JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Annexation Area Development Policies were adopted by the Town of Leesburg
and Loudoun County on November 15, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the AADP's are intended to implement and maintain a mutually supportive
relationship between the two governing bodies which assures that a full range of governmental services
will be addressed and provided for in the annexation area; and
WHEREAS, as adopted, joint review of these policies was required to commence prior to
December 31, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the AADP Joint Policy Committee together with Town of Leesburg and Loudoun
County staff prepared amendments to the 'adopted AADP document to reflect new information and
changes in growth patterns; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 1990 the AADP Joint Policy Committee recommended that the
draft amendments to the AADP's be forwarded to the Town Council and Board of Supervisors for
review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Committee of the Leesburg Town Council has reviewed
the draft amendments to the AADP's dated February 12, 1990:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION h The Leesburg Town Council hereby endorses the draft amendments to the
Annexation Area Development Policies dated February 12, 1990.
SECTION II: These draft amendments to the Annexation Area Development Policies are
referred back to the AADP Joint Policy Committee for formal recommendation.
Mayor Sevila said that the draft AADP's have been before the Joint Policy Committee and will
now go from this Council back to the joint committee to be recommended back to both bodies, the
County and the Town. There is a need for a public hearing on this document. Mr. Minor asked the
Council to consider conducting a public hearing now before it is sent back to the joint committee. The
Mayor concurred.
Mr. Minor said that the current AADP's since 1984, as well as the Town Plan, call for a 100
foot landscape setback along the by-pass. That is not the law. It is in the Town Plan and AADP's,
right now. We, at one time, had a zoning ordinance amendment to make it a requirement and that
was a proposal that the town staff and Council did not and does not support. In terms of this
provision, town staff proposed that it be deleted. The County's planning staff resisted that and that
is why it is in here and underlined.
Mrs. Fore.ster withdrew her original motion and made a substitute motion to refer this matter
to a public hearing on June 13, 1990. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clem..
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Minor to inform the County of the scheduled public hearing.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolutions were proposed as
consent items and unanimously adopted.
90-75 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AND REFERRING AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDMSION
AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO THE LEESBURG PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Design and Construction Standards Manual is scheduled for adoption
in May, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Design and Construction Standards Manual is incorporated into and
made a part of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations as authorized under Section
15.1.466 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
136
Minutes of April 24, 1990
WHEREAS, duplication or inconsistencies will exist between the Leesburg Design and.
Construction Standards Manual and the current Subdivision and Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments in conjunction with the Design and Construction
Standards Manual will insure a plan review process that is consistent with the Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, development plan requirements are proposed to be strengthened to correspond with
subdivision plat requirements:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The proposed revisions to the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations,
dated April 4, 1990, are hereby initiated and referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation
pursuant to Section 15.1.472 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
SECTION II. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed
regulations and report its recommendation to the Council within 30 days of this referral.
90-76 - RESOLUTION - GRANTING APPROVAL OF ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A HANDICAP RAMP TO BE LOCATED AT 9 CHURCH
STREET, N.E.
WHEREAS, the construction of the handicap ramp will facilitate entry into the District Court
Building for the disabled at 9 Church Street, N.E.; and
WHEREAS, the addition of the ramp will not detract from the character of the Historic
District; and
WHEREAS, the design was approved by the Board of Architectural Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposal has been reviewed by the Director of Engineering and Public Works
who found the new construction to be acceptable:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia, as follows:
SECTION I. The Town Manager is authorized to issue a revokable permit for a 6-foot and 9-
inch encroachment into the public right-of-way at 9 Church Street, N.E. for a handicap ramp as shown
on a plan prepared by the Department of General Services, Loudoun County in their application to the
Board of Architectural Review with the condition that the walkway be paved in brick to match the
existing sidewalk.
SECTION II. Council reserves the right to revoke this permit at its discretion at any time.
90-77 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION OF THE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE AND THE INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
BROOKMEADE CONDOMINIUMS
WHEREAS, the Lokey Construction Company, the developers of the Brookmeade Con-
dominiums have not completed all the required public improvements in accordance with the approved
construction drawings and town standards within the two year period agreed to in the contract for
public improvements; and
WHEREAS, all the condominium units in the development are completed; and
WHEREAS, the letter of credit from First American Bank, which guarantees the installation
of public improvements, in the amount of $98,682.00 will expire on May 6, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Lokey Construction Company has requested a time extension of 60 days and
provided a new letter of credit from First American Bank in the amount of $98,682.00 to guarantee
installation of the remaining public improvements for the Brookmeade Condominiums; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of
$98,682.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The letter of credit from First American Bank in the amount of $98,682.00 in a
form approved by the Town Attorney and an extension of 60 days for the installation of public
improvements are hereby approved.
SECTION II. In the event the public improvements in the Brookmeade Condominiums are not
satisfactorily completed, as determined by the Director of Engineering and Public Works, prior to June
27, 1990, the Town Manager is hereby authorized to declare the developer in default of his contract
and the manager is authorized to request payment pursuant to the letter of credit from First American
Bank.
90-78 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN TAVISTOCK FARMS SECTION I
WHEREAS, the town's Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the public
137
Minutes of April 24, 1990
improvements installed to date in Tavistock Farms Section 1 and certified that the value of the work '
performed exceeds $720,000.00; and
WHEREAS, a letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank FSB in the amount of $900,000.00
has been provided by the developer and approved by the Council to guarantee installation of public
improvements for Tavistock Farms Section 1; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 90-21 adopted February 13, 1990, which reduced the letter of credit,
incorrectly listed the letter of credit amount and value of work completed:
THEREFORE, resolved by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank FSB in the amount of
$900,000.00 is reduced to $180,000.00.
SECTION II. Resolution No. 90-21 is hereby repealed.
SECTION HI. The Town Manager shall notify the developer that liability for the letter of
credit has been reduced as outlined in Section I of this resolution and that this reduction does not
constitute acceptance of public improvements by the town or relieve the developer of responsibilities
outlined in the contract for public improvements for Tavistock Farms Section 1.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimball
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded'by Mr. Clem, the following resolutions were proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-79 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION OF THE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE AND THE INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION lB2
WHEREAS, Richmond American, the developers of the Potomac Crossing Section lB2 have not
completed all the required public improvements in accordance with the approved construction drawings
and town standards within the two year period agreed to in the contract for public improvements; and
WHEREAS, all the housing units in the subdivision have not been sold by the builder; and
WHEREAS, the corporate surety bond from Reliance Insurance Company, which guarantees the
installation of public improvements, in the amount of $79,000.00 expires on April 8, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Richmond American has requested a one year time extension and provided a new
corporate surety bond from Reliance Insurance Company in the amount of $79,000.00 to guarantee
installation of the remaining public improvements for Potomac Crossing Section lB2; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of
$79,000.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The corporate surety bond from Reliance Insurance Company in the amount of $79,000.00 in
a form approved by the Town Attorney and an extension of 4 months for the installation of public
improvements in Potomac Crossing Section 1B2 are hereby approved.
90-80 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION OF THE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE AND THE INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION lC
WHEREAS, the Grimm Company, the developers of Potomac Crossing Section lC have not
completed all the required public improvements in accordance with the approved construction drawings
and town standards and final punchlist within the initial two year period and the one year time
extension previously authorized by the council; and
WHEREAS, the letter of credit from United Savings Bank, which guarantees the installation
of public improvements, in the amount of $385,740.00 will expire on May 6, 1990; and
WHEREAS, The Grimm Company has requested a one year time extension and provided a new
letter of credit from United Savings Bank in the amount of $385,740.00 to guarantee installation of
the remaining public improvements for Potomac Crossing Section lC; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of
$385,740.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The letter of credit from United Savings Bank in the amount of $385,740.00 in
a form approved by the Town Attorney and an extension of 90 days for the installation of public
improvements in Potomac Crossing Section lC are hereby approved.
Minutes of April 24, 1990
SECTION II. In the event the public improvements in Potomac Crossing Section lC are not
satisfactorily completed, as determined by the Director of Engineering and Public Works, prior to July
25, 1990, the Town Manager is hereby authorized to declare the developer in default of his contract
and the manager is authorized to request payment pursuant to the letter of credit from United Savings
Bank.
90-81 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION OF THE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE AND THE INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION IF
WHEREAS, the Grimm Company, the developers of Potomac Crossing Section 1F have not
completed ail the required public improvements in accordance with the approved construction drawings
and town standards within the two year period agreed to in the contract for public improvements; and
WHEREAS, ail the housing units in the subdivision have not been sold by the builder; and
WHEREAS, the letter of credit from United Savings Bank, which guarantees the installation
of public improvements, in the amount of $84,200.00 will expire on May 12, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Grimm Company has requested a one-year time extension and provided a new
letter of credit from United Savings Bank in the amount of $84,200.00 to guarantee installation of the
remaining public improvements for Potomac Crossing Section 1F; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of
$84,200.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The letter of credit from United Savings Bank in the amount of $84,200.00 in a form approved
by the Town Attorney and an extension of 4 months for the installation of public improvements in
Potomac Crossing Section 1F are hereby approved.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Absent: Kimbail
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Mulokey, the meeting was adjourned.
Rbbert E. Se~l~, Ma'y~r
Clerk of Cou/~cil - /