HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990_10_24MINUTES OF THE REGULAR lVIEETINO OF THE LEESBURO TOWN COUNCIL
OCTOBER 24, 1990
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Loudoun County School Board
meeting room, 102 North Street, N.W., Leesburg, Virginia on October 24, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The
meeting was called to order by Mayor Robert E. Sevila, with the invocation given by Councilmember
Kimball and the Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Forester. Present were: Mayor Robert E.
Sevila, Councilmembers Georgia W. Bange, James E. Clem, Christine M. Forester, Donald A. Kimball,
Claxton E. Lovin and William F. Webb. Also present were: Town Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Assistant
Town Manager Steven C. Brown, Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason, Director
of Planning, Zoning and Development Katherine Imhoff, Director of Parks and Recreation Gary Huff,
Director of Finance Paul E. York, Capital Projects Coordinator Barry Thompson, Public Information
Officer Susan Farmer, Town Attorney George Martin and Deputy Clerk of Council Barbara Markland.
PETITIONERS
Mr. Tim Kirchner, 822 South Balls Bluff Road, addressed the Council with regard to basketball
courts being built in some of the resident's backyards. He expressed many concerns that the residents
have if the courts are to be built. We were able, with the help of Lee Phillips, to have Richmond
American stop work on the courts. A letter, written by the homeowners association, has been sent to
all residents to vote on the courts. This letter will be forwarded to the Council. Mr. Kirchner
submitted a petition to the Clerk which is made a part of the record. The Mayor noted that this
matter has been placed on the November 7, 1990, Administration and Public Works Committee agenda
for further discussion and consideration.
Mrs. Forester stated that this item was discussed briefly at last week's committee meeting
where it was forwarded to the next committee meeting for further discussion with direction to staff that
no further construction be done on the court. We are trying to find out if that recreation is needed
in order for Potomac Crossing to meet the planned development regulations under which it was
approved. If it is then we will try to get some kind of alternate form of contribution for recreation in
Potomac Crossing. This was approved in 1987 by the Planning Commission and Council.
Mr. Terry N. Jones, 805 Anne Street, S.W., addressed the Council with regard to the proposed
delay of the construction of sidewalk along Dry Mill Road. There is no place for a person to walk on
Dry Mill Road to avoid traffic. He explained that Mr. Chris Harvey, a blind person, has to walk this
way, twice a day, every day to get to work. The road has no shoulders, it has a small strip of gravel
and is very often covered with standing water. The town will see a bad pedestrian accident if the
sidewalks are not constructed. Mr. Jones feels that $52,000.00 for this sidewalk is a small price to pay
for someone's life and asked that the Council not defer this item any longer.
Mr. Lovin said that this is an item that he supports and hopes that the town can move forward
with it.
Mr. Ter .ry Titus, 805 Wage Drive, S.W., addressed the Council echoing Mr. Jones' comments.
He asked the Council to keep this sidewalk project in the budget.
Mr. Titus stated that he personally did not agree with the action that Mr. Minor's resignation
be accepted. He asked that the Council now go forward, don't look back to the past. He thanked Mr.
Minor for all his efforts for the many years and wished him luck.
Mr. Tom Muir, 1108 Bradfield Drive, S.W., addressed the Council stating that he was extremely
distressed by recent events regarding Mr. Minor's position as town manager. This is one of the worst
displays of performance versus process issues that he has ever seen. There has not been one
performance issue highlighted that would suggest that Mr. Minor submit his resignation. Mr. Minor
deserves some kind of explanation as to his non-performance. To simply say that he serves at our
pleasure and our pleasure is no more is totally inadequate. We owe him a better explanation after
fourteen years service to the Council. It was suggested that many of the electors had suggested to the
Council prior to the election that they wanted Mr. Minor to go. If that was the case why wasn't this
optic course shared with the elector prior to the election? Why has it only come up immediately after
the election. That suggests somewhat of a hidden agenda in some of the Councilmember's minds. If
that is a hidden agenda what other hidden agendas reside? What kind of qualified replacement are we
going to get for Mr. Minor. If ths. t is the kind of security that we offer to that position - we don't like
you today goodbye - what kind of qualified individual is going to come in and take the job. What are
you going to say when that perspective candidate asks why did the last town manager resign? Because
we didn't }ike him? That is totally inappropriate and it concerns me. It seems that some of the
Councflmem,e~-z are opemEng under a different platform now then the platform under which they were
elected. If that is the case I would call for the resignation of such councilmembers who apparently
changed their agenda since before the elections.
Mr. Jack Collins, owner of the Plaza Texaco, addressed the Council seeking relief for signage
on his service station. I have suffered a great monetary loss since the trees were planted near my
station. I have been to the town before and gone through all of the channels and have done everything
that has been asked of me. It has been eight years. Times are tough now and I need some help.
Mayor Sevila told Mr. Collins that staff is in the process of reviewing its sign ordinance and in
Minutes of October 24, 1990
recognition of some inconsistencies that have been brought to our attention about the existing sign
ordinance and in recognition of some _difficult business times we want to take a fresh look at the sign
ordinance. He suggested that this item be placed on the November 7, 1990, Administration and Public
Works Committee agenda and asked that members of the Council go by and visit the Texaco station
and come to the meeting with a view toward addressing and solving this problem. Mr. Collins
appreciated this and stated that he has the only Texaco service station in Northern Virginia that has
been denied a new canopy. If I don't get some help now I will be out of business in 90 days.
Mr. Kimball stated that he sympathizes and supports Mr. Collins' position. We should look to
accommodate Mr. Collins and transplant the trees at least for a trial period perhaps through the winter
months to see what develops. Mr. Collins stated that he still wants the signs.
Mr. Peter Dunning, with the Bluemont Concert Series, addressed the Council with regard to
the cancellation of the state grant funds and the urgency to consider this matter. He asked ff there
was any way to expedite this matter it would be appreciated. Mr. Dunning distributed a copy of a
letter to the Governor, from Mr. Lawrence Framme, Secretary of Economic Development, asking for
a state remedy. There is no remedy from the state level. Mr. Dunning reported that of the seven
communities involved in the summer program we have heard positively from four of the seven.
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Ms. Bange, this item will be taken up as a new business
item.
Nay:
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Councilmember Forester
Mrs. Patti Muir, 1108 Bradfield Drive, S.W., addressed the Council with regard to the
resignation of Mr. Minor. It seems that the people of the community feel that the Council has been
a bit hasty in its decision to accept Mr. Minor's resignation. Many people feel that he has done an
excellent job. An evaluation process was put together and a lot of time was put into this process to
evaluate -Mr. Minor's position, yet that process has not been allowed to come to fruition. To dismiss
Mr. Minor at this point is premature. In light of public opinion and the information that has come out
recently, and the fact that he has not been given a proper evaluation, I would like to see the Council
look into this again and perhaps this evening vote to allow that process.
Mr. William P. Mulokey, addressed the Council, echoing Mrs. Muir's comments. The public
would like to hear an explanation as to why the manager should be dismissed. An explanation more
detailed than - "he serves at my pleasure." It is true that Mr. Minor serves at the pleasure of the
Council but that does not mean that the Council does not have the responsibility to explain its actions
to the public since you serve for the benefit of the public. Mr. Mulokey said that Mr. Webb pointed
out that more than 50 percent of the people who voted for him suggested that Mr. Minor had to go.
I would like to put forth that 50 percent of the people who voted for Mr. Webb amount to
approximately 450 people and there are 18,000 residents in the Town of Leesburg.
Ms. Krista Umstattd, 353 Foxridge Drive, S.W., addressed the Council, stating that when the
elections took place in May there was an enormous amount of public sentiment in favor of a change
in the way things are done in this town. What I heard then and what I have heard since then is that
we need to clean up this town. If I were Mr. Minor, who I think is a very decent gentlemen, the last
thing I would want to face right now is having every single reason hung out in public as to why my
resignation had been accepted. I would want to go and go quietly with a very generous benefit package
much more generous then any of us who have served in either the federal government or the private
sector have ever had any hopes of getting. Mr. Minor has been treated very fairly in this matter. It
is time for a change. Ms. Bange, Mr. Clem, Mr. Kimball and Mr. Webb have the right idea and there
has been an overwhelming groundswell of opinion in favor of this group on the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PROPOSED EXETER
FIRE SUBSTATION
Mayor Sevila stated that this is the second public hearing on this item. The first hearing held
one month ago, it was discovered that a defect in the notice of the public hearing existed. A number
of citizens and members of the fire company were present at that public hearing and wanted to precede
with the presentation. Requirements of the state code provide that the hearing had to be advertised
properly for two successive weeks.
Mayor Sevila moved that the comments of the September 26, 1990 public hearing, received by
the Council, both for and against the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan be ~nade a part
of this public record.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Webb.
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Mrs. Vicki Smith, 101 Birch Street, N.E., addressed the Council. She hopes that this is the last
meeting about the proposed Exeter site. She wished to thank Mrs. Forester for all that she has done
in this matter. She expressed confusion as to Mr. Clem's position in this matter. Mrs. Smith said that
during this whole time Mr. Clem has told people that he does not care whether the fire house is put
Minutes of October 24, 1990
there or not. Because all the buildings are not completed in the northeast quadrant of town I don't
think that it is imperative that the volunteers need another fire house today, tomorrow or within a
year. We do have time to locate another suitable site and if it means buying a piece of land then we'll
just have to take the burden of the taxes. I would rather be paying taxes for a new fire house then
for another park facility site. Lastly, you know how our Planning Commission voted, you know how
the school board feels and you have heard from Mr. Whitmore, Principal of Leesburg Elementary and
you have heard from many concerned citizens. If you vote to have this facility built in Exeter what a
weight you all will bare if an accident occurs because there will be an accident. Listen to the many
concerned citizens and officials. Don't vote yes '%ecause there just isn't another site available." Do the
right thing and vote no.
Mrs. Smith asked the following questions:
Did anyone go by and check out the other schools on the list to see where the schools
were in conjunction with the fire houses?
2. Has the Council heard from the lawyer about Mr. Clem's ability to vote on this issue?
o
Have there been other possible sites made available since the last meeting that can be
looked into?
4. When will the vote be on this issue and will it be public?
Mrs. Smith thanked Mr. Minor and wished he and his family luck.
Mr. Eric Nielsen, 227 North King Street, addressed the Council speaking in support of the fire
company itseff. Recently the volunteer fire company made two visits to our home due to a problem
with our fire alarm system. They were false alarms, nuisance calls - yet handled in a very professional
manner. It was necessary for the fire company to force entry in my home to verify that it was a false
alarm. I had visions of fire axes in the front door and quite a bit of damage but instead they went out
of their way to use a ladder, at some risk, to climb to the third floor and find an open window and
enter my home in that manner. The volunteers were very considerate and very professional in the
handling of this situation. These men and women give their time to serve and protect us. They are
volunteers and I don't believe that they have a hidden agenda. The professionalism that they displayed
deserves our support and if after careful study and consideration they feel that a particular site is best
suited to protect the community, then we should support their decision. I know it is not going into my
backyard so it is easy for me to support it. However, whether it were or not, I would be in support
of any decision that they would make. We must put our personal interests aside and look for the
common good. There have been some concerns about noise. Most of us who live in downtown
Leesburg already deal with the air raid siren downtown. I understand there will not be a siren at the
new facility. Screaming fire engines, to me, are comforting. There is some concern with regard to
danger to pedestrians around the school and community. I would imagine that there is more
pedestrian and vehicular traffic in downtown Leesburg that the fire company must pass by then there
would be in the specific areas on the northeast end of town. Also, being in a closer proximity to
present and future fire calls would cut down on the associated risk to pedestrians and the fire fighters
because they would not have to travel so far. There is a great deal of growth in the northeast
quadrant. The Leesburg fire company also supports Lucketts and the environs north of town - if they
were closer to that area they could service it better. I feel comfortable knowing that I have a volunteer
fire company just a few blocks away. Any fire company is a positive addition to the community. Not
just for emergency services but for education and safety programs. Fire fighters and other public
servants perform a selfless and often dangerous service to us. Everyone's concerns regarding this issue
are very important but isn't the common good of the community more so? Isn't helping these
volunteers to do a better, safer job more important? When was the last time a golf course, tot lot, etc.,
saved a life and protected property?
Martin Lovett, 801 Rust Drive, addressed the Council stating that Mr. Nielsen's comments were
great. The fire company is a good outfit. The concern that I have is the elementary school and the
pedestrians that walk. to school. Plaza Street will soon be opened and we will have more pedestrians
walking to and from the apartments and other areas of that development. This will be in the excess
of 350 children. Think about where these 350 children will be after school. The Council should find
a site that can be utilized the best.
Mr. Joseph P. Sullivan, 121 Morven Park Road, addressed the Council. I have listened, for the
past several months, to the emotional debate about the Leesburg Volunteer Fire Company's proposal
to locate a fire station on donated land in the Plaza Street area. A couple of points have been made
that need clarification. Driving a large motor vehicle such as a fire truck, that can weigh up to 35 tons,
is significantly different then driving a police car at a high speed. Recently a gentlemen told us that
a fire truck cannot be operated at high speeds - this is absolutely correct. Physics and mechanics
dictate that any large vehicle has to be operated at low speeds. The laws of the Commonwealth dictate
that fire apparatus, even in a response mode, must be operated within the public speed limit. A 20
ton fire truck, carefully driven at 25 MPH through town with heavy traffic, gives a perception of
moving at a much greater speed. I called the Fire Analysis and Research Division of the National Fire
Protection Association in Boston and asked a few questions.
1. Question - How many children are killed by fires annually in the United States?
Minutes of October 24, 1990
Response - Based on a 5 year study on an average of 916 children ages 0-
children ages 6-9, 34? children ages 10-19 were killed by fire each year.
This equates to 1514 each year.
5, 251
The age groups expected to be present at Leesburg Elementary School - 503 children per year
or in other terms, 1.3 children will die every day in fires in this country.
Question - What records do you have on children being injured, struck or killed by fire
emergency response?
Response - The research could only find evidence regarding fire fighter injuries and
fatalities. There was no record of any child being struck, injured or
killed. The research was quick to point out that it was possible that it
has happened but there is no significant data on which to base this on.
I confirmed my experiences with many people associated with both fire services and the
education business. Most of these people were from more densely populated portions of the country.
None of these people had any knowledge of any such incidents. I also discussed this with concerned
citizens in northeast Leesburg including the principal of the school in question. None of them could
state such an incident.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, you are public servants and have an enormous
responsibility. We the citizens of Leesburg ask and expect that you act on this issue not on emotion
of the heart but on the facts evaluated by the mind.
Mrs. Katie Neville, a resident of 120 Plaza Street, addressed the Council. She stated that she
has read with a great deal of interest the controversy over the fire station site. She has been a public
school employee for 20 years. She was an elementary school principal for 5 years before relocating to
Loudoun County. The issue of distractions that has been raised - I am sure that the fire calls per day
is probably not nearly as distracting as the PA announcements or the grass being mowed or the air
cleaners being changed or all the other distractions that we learn to deal with day in and day out in
every public school. Kids do adjust to those kinds of distractions and they go on about their business.
Another issue is the safety of children that I keep hearing about over and over again. I live
on Plaza Street and see approximately 30 school buses making two trips a day in and out of Plaza
Street. Some of them driving well above the posted speed limit. I cannot see how a fire truck with
a siren on can be any more dangerous then a school bus driving 15 miles per hour with no siren. I
have a four and a half year-old child who will go to Leesburg Elementary School so certainly that is
a concern to me but I think it is a concern that has been blown out of proportion. The general
population sometimes drives too fast on that street, the school buses drive too fast - I can't see where
fire trucks are going to make it any more dangerous then it already is. Obviously accidents happen.
All of these issues are a smoke screen for the real issue and that is that we don't want to hear
the fire siren in the middle of the night. I can't put in my mind that there are rational reasons for
not putting the fire station there. I teach Civics to eighth graders and one of the things that we try
to teach is the idea of civic virtue. No matter where you put the fire station it is going to
inconvenience people. It does not matter where you put it. The people who live close to it are going
to be inconvenienced and it will be noisy. There are times when you have to say to yourself - is that
the sacrifice I must make for doing something that is good for the Town of Leesburg. That is the job
that the Council is charged with. You are there to do what is right for Leesburg, not to do what is
particularly right for the people who live on Plaza Street.
I would also like to say that my four and a half year-old son has suggested our backyard as an
alternate site. My husband is not a fireman and I have never been associated with the Leesburg fire
company but they have made such an impression on my son through their education and open houses
that if this vote were to come in fourteen years when my son and his friends could vote I would think
that the firemen could probably put their fire station any where they wanted to. They have been
wonderful to the children. There programs are great. One of the reasons we bought our home in
Leesburg was so that we would have the security of knowing that we were dose to fire and rescue
services. I don't speak for everybody in Carrvale or on Plaza Street but I do speak for some of my
neighbors, in that, we are willing to put up with the inconvenience and the noise because we feel that
the fire company has studied this issue carefully and that is the place where they need to build their
new fire station.
Mrs. Denni Giovinazzo, a resident of 209 Plaza Street, addressed the Council. Until a few days
ago I was very convinced that this was not a good place for the fire company to have their building but
for the past few days I have been considering it. I know that the volunteer fire company does a
wonderful job. I have close friends who are volunteers in fire departments in other towns. I
understand the risk that they take and their care and concern for the citizens. There are still a few
doubts that I have. There are some things, were I sitting on a jury might constitute a reasonable
doubt for placing this fire station at that location.
One of the things that makes me uncomfortable and doubtful of this location is that other
available sites have been quickly dismissed. I wonder if the other available sites are really so
unsuitable. I am not totally convinced that there are not other available sites that can be just as
Minutes of October 24, 1990
suitable. There is a risk in putting a fire station in a residential neighborhood. However calculated,
however small, it is still a risk.
Another thing that makes me uncomfortable is that in the course of planning, Plaza Street has
already been cited as becoming a main thorough fare with tremendously increased traffic. There has
been no discussion of how to keep that tr~_ffic under control. There has been no discussion of how to
keep increased traffic safe from responding vehicles, to and from the station. There are many things
that could be done. There is the possibility of four-way stops at some of the intersections. Flashing
lights. Is this is a possibility? Could this decrease the risk to our children and drivers?
Another thing that bothers me and I would not like anyone to take this personally. I am
looking at this at a totally legal standpoint. Apparently there is no conflict of interest with Mr. Clem
being president of the fire department and a voting member of Council on this issue. It constitutes a
reasonable doubt to me that there may be a conflict of interest. Mr. Clem has made it quite clear that
he is in support of this issue. If there were to be a split vote, Mr. Clem's vote would be the deciding
factor. I am not a legal person and do not know the law but it seems that there are cases where
people have been denied a jury position and other types of positions because of a conflict of interest.
Mr. Carl Johnson, a resident of 109 Plaza Street, addressed the Council representing himself
and speaking against the proposed fire station site. He stated that he is grateful and appreciative of
the firemen. However, the fire company's arguments for the site in question show little merit and
their arguments were largely disapproved by their own testimony and by the testimony of the residents.
For instance, the location of County schools in respect to fire stations and the number of walking
students to each school is misstated by fire company officials and largely proven to be in error by
resident Doug Smith.
A few of my concerns are: the location is next to an elementary school which has a large walk-
ing student body. Mr. Whitmore, the principal, stated that there will be more than 800 walk-in
students when the area is built-out. Not only is there a concern for safety but there is a concern for
the psychological health of our children. Approximately 200 residents signed the petition opposing this
site. Any other petitions in favor of this site and using the whole town should be discounted. No
voluntary group, no matter how important, should have to great a control over the functions of
government. Last month I pleaded with you not to use this site for a fire station. Now I beg you not
to. Our children are just as precious to us as children in any other part of town are to their families.
We are not building for tomorrow but for the century. Time is not so critical that it has to be done
today or even tomorrow.
Mrs. Jean Johnson, a resident of 109 Plaza Street, addressed the Council. She wished to
reiterate her concern about the fire trucks and sirens so close to the school and the destructive
influence it will be for students and teachers. We like our volunteer firemen and we commend them
for a job well done. I do resent the implication that we are against our volunteer firemen. We think
there could be a better location in the northeast quadrant.
Mr. John Yarborough, a resident of 802 Rust Drive, N.E., addressed the Council. Nothing has
been said tonight that has changed the original feeling that it is not a good idea to begin with. It has
not been made better by the additional exposure. It is indicative of the situation that was allowed to
exist because of lack of effort or performance on the part of the Town Manger or the Council itself
during the last 3 and a half years. There is not one of us that denies the outstanding job and services
that have been provided and will continue to be provided by our volunteer fire company. No one is
against, in any way, the requirement for a fire station location in the northeast sector. We have
known about this for the past five years and have come up with one piece of property that has been
donated for this effort. Therefore, the responsibility has not been met by the Town Council or
management and because of this we are placed at opposite sides of the contest - the community and
its fire department. The tragedy is we have developed bad feeling. A feeling of diversity that has to
be the responsibility accepted by the Town Council and town management. For those that have some
question as to why Mr. Minor has been terminated - there is an explanation. There is a lack of
sensitivity that has allowed this to continue for five years. The management should have been astute
enough to have avoided this war by producing acceptable alternate sites. Five years is time enough to
do it. Lets find a place and give the fire department exactly what they need. I ask that you not
approve this location.
Mayor Sevila stated that following the last public hearing on this matter he had a friendly
conversation with Mr. Yarborough during which they discussed how this item got back on the agenda.
It was on the agenda as a result of a specific request made by a member of Council and not as a result
of anything that the management or staff of this town had directed or requested us to do. That night,
I asked you to blame your anger on the members of the Council and not management. Mr. Minor has
paid a heavy price for the failure of the citizens to understand whose responsibility policy in this
community is. Mr. Minor's job is administration and ours is policy.
Mr. J. B. Anderson, representing the Leesburg Volunteer Fire Company, addressed the Council
responding to some of the comments made this evening. With regard to the siren. Sirens are a
constant reminder to citizens that this is a volunteer system and where your tax dollars, that you
would normally have to spend, are working for free. The siren issue not only reminds the people that
we are there but is also a safety device as well. There is concern about stop signs. The engineering
firm studying the site, recently sent us a letter stating that a concern was the traffic on Plaza Street -
not from the fire company's standpoint but from a routine travel standpoint. Their recommendation
Minutes of October 24, 1990
was to install stop signs, speed pumps or lights. With regard to other sites, Vicki Smith has done a
wonderful job in getting through to the media the letters requesting sites - to date nothing has come
forward.
Mr. Anderson then read a written statement that addresses the concerns raised by
Councilmember Forester at a previous meeting. The statement is attached and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Dave Hunt" Public Information Officer for the Leesburg Volunteer Fire Company, addressed
the Council. In an effort to gauge the reception of the community for the proposed fire substation in
Exeter, the fire company began an effort to circulate a petition, primarily in the northeast section of
Leesburg. The Leesburg Volunteer Fire Company is presenting to the Town Council tonight 808
signatures in support of the Exeter substation. Mr. Hunt read the petition. The petition is attached
and made a part of the minutes.
A vast majority of the signatures (677) are residents of the northeast section of Leesburg. The
area most affected by the decision we face. Fifty two of the signatures are Exeter and Carrvale
residents and over 200 signatures are residents of the Fieldstone Apartments. A previous speaker,
tonight, asked to disallow signatures outside the northeast quadrant. We ask that when you look at
the signatures presented on the petition opposing the substation, take a close look at those also. You
will find that most of those signatures are not in the northeast quadrant of town.
The fire company would like to thank all of the people who have spoke on this issue before the
Town Council and at the fire company's information sessions. Both those that support the fire
company and those that have come forward to share their concern. We appreciate the time that they
have taken to voice their opinions and those that have spent time with us looking for alternative sites.
Although the desire for an alternative site was voiced, no one has come forth with any concrete
proposals that would not be a tremendous burden to the taxpayers of Leesburg. However, should the
town approve this request and if within the near future an alternative site is located that better serves
the needs of the fire company and the residents of this community, the fire company would be willing
to come before the Town Council and ask that this site be placed as a recreational use for the area.
We are trying to make it clear that the members of the fire company are not trying to force a fire
substation on the people living in Exeter. We are only trying to better serve the needs of all the
residents and businesses of Leesburg and the surrounding areas that we serve. That is the only benefit
that the members receive. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mrs. Elizabeth Steele, a resident of 404 Appletree Drive, N.E., addressed the Council. Mrs.
Steele said that she finds the petition being submitted by the fire company to be somewhat suspect.
Because of the way I spoke, last time, I was quoted in a couple of the newspapers and because of that
I have had several people call me up and rehem me up one side and down the other. Several residents
have been approached by fire department members and were asked to sign the petition and did so.
I am not objecting to the fire station - I am objecting putting it next to the elementary school. A lot
of people did not know that the fire station was going to be located next to the school and that should
have been put in the petition. I am opposed to putting the fire station next to the elementary school.
Mrs. Pat McMahan, a resident of Campbell Cour~ N.E., addressed the Council, stating that she
agrees that an elementary school is not a good location for a fire station, however, the northeast
quadrant of Leesburg does need a fire station. It is quite a bit of time between when the fire siren
goes off and when a fire truck arrives in Potomac Crossing. The last time we timed a call it was
between 10 and 12 minutes before we saw a truck arrive. A lot of burning can get done during that
time. Plaza Street will eventually be opened up to a thoroughfare and when that happens the children
will no longer be able to play on Plaza Street. She urged Council to find a location and if we have to
take the proffered site - sometimes we have to do what is for the common good.
Mr. Gus Glickus, a resident of 308 Appletree Drive, N.E., addressed the Council. I live directly
across from 307 Appletree Drive, the house that burnt down. During the time that the house was
burning I wanted to know why it took so long for the fire department to get there. Every minute
seemed like an hour. The issue in question is not the fire station it is the location. If it were up to
me it would be in my backyard. I don't see a problem. Being close to a school is not an issue to me.
I went to an elementary school located right next to a fire house. We did not have any problems. The
sirens are to alert children to stay off the street. Streets are not a place for children to play. If the
children are on the streets or walking to and from school they need to take the same precautions at
any other time while walking the streets. It is up to the parents, the school children, our leaders, to
"teach this to the children. The fire house is a good idea. I support the fire department and the
location.
Mr. Robert Steele, a resident of 404 Appletree Drive, N.E., addressed the Council stating that
the biggest problem is the lack of planning for safety. Safety should be a comprehensive approach for
the entire town - not piece meal. The location of a fire station should not be determined by availability
of free land. It should be based upon minimizing response time.
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. Webb, seconded by Mr. Lovin, this matter was
referred to the Planning and Zoning Committee on November 7, 1990.
Mr. Clem addressed Mrs. Smith stating that the last public involvement that he has had with
Minutes of October 24, 1990
this station was at her house. After that night, I elected to appoint Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hunt and Mr.
McGuire to handle the whole thing. I have been totally silent on this issue. I have divorced myself
from this. The attorney will make a ruling as to whether or not I can vote.
If I owe anyone an apology it is the citizens of Leesburg and the firemen themselves because
I have not been able to participate in anything they are doing. My can response is down tremendously.
If I don't recertify between now and December I will go back from a fire fighter 3 to nothing. There
are too many hours that I will have to go through to be recertified. I Am hoping that I can take this
written test and pass it. If I don't then I _sm out. I understand your concerns. That station won't
have an effect on me, in that, I will respond to the station on Loudoun Street. The impact that any
station building will have on me is that presently and until December 30, I am the President of the fire
company and it is the job of the president and his officers to raise this money.
Nay:
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
Councilmember's comments
Mr. Webb reported that he and Mr. Clem attended the Saturday Listening Session.
The Cable Commission reported that the installation of cable in the Woodlea Subdivision has
been completed. Beauregard Estates will be serviceable by December 15 and service will be connected
to Loudoun House by the end of this month.
Mr. Lovin reported that he and Mrs. Forester attended the Loudoun Restoration and
Preservation Society meeting on Sunday at Carrodoc Hall. We accepted on behalf of that orgo_n~zation
a nicely framed Grays Map of Leesburg.
With regard to Mr. Minor, I have lived in the Town of Leesburg for six years and have known
Mr. Minor for those six years. I have had the opportunity to serve this Council for the past 2 years
and have worked with Mr. Minor. I think Mr. Minor is the best town manager that I have seen. I
represent the Town of Leesburg with the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC)
and do see other elected officials who have all expressed a high regard for Mr. Minor's competence.
Over a year ago I went with Mr. Minor and other members of Council and staff to Richmond
to make a presentation before the State Water Control Board (SWCB) to try to get relief from the
Dulles Area Watershed Policy (DAWP) which would have required the Town of Leesburg to build a
wastewater treatment plant to standards of the DAWP which would mean a facility in excess of $50
million. Mr. Minor put the presentation together, along with Mr. Shoemaker, and the town was
successful in turning the SWCB in favor of a standard put forth by the NVPDC that saved this town
millions of dollars. As a citizen and member of Council it saved me a lot of money on my water and
sewer bill.
The town's bond rating. I went to New York with Mr. Minor and other members of staff and
sat in on presentations with Standard and Poor - Moodys on Wall Street - the organizations that give
municipalities bond ratings. The Town of Leesburg had their bond rating raised as a result of those
meetings. Leesburg enjoys one of the highest ratings for municipal bonds in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. These are independent brokers basing it on the Town Plan, budget, CIP - all the things that
don't get a lot of attention from people in the audience but the kind of things that Mr. Minor and staff
work on day-in and day-out. When you look for leadership and management, to me that says
something. I hope that Mr. Minor will stay in municipal/government work. He certainly has the
talent and competence to be a benefit to any municipality. I am sorry that Leesburg's loss is another
municipalities gain. I hope, Jeff, that a future town or city council that you serve might afford you a
degree of fairness that four of the members of this council did not. My sincere wishes to you and your
family for your future endeavor.
Mr. Clem reported on the Listening Session and noted that those citizens appeared tonight as
petitioners concerning the basketball court in Potomac Crossing.
On Monday, a Leesburg Renaissance meeting was held where I met Mr. Michael Tringale, the
new Executive Director. He is a very ambitious young man and I am sure he will take this program
and run with it.
On Monday, I attended the EAC meeting. They are waiting for Council's actions regarding
their goals and objectives. The Commission is getting ready to explore smoking regulations, is in the
process of reviewing the recycling report and are planning to make a recommendation to the town and
citizens in the near future. The Commission is also looking into the Greenway Master Plan and a
Christmas program. On December 17, we will tour Leesburg to select one home and one business that
stands out with Christmas Decorations. The Commission win then present that home and business
with an award.
Mr. Kimball wished to encourage everyone to participate and support the United Way
Campaign.
Mrs. Forester had the opportunity to fly on the Lufthansa Unker. It was a great day to take
a flight.
Minutes of October 24, 1990
Myself along with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Tolbert attended the groundbreaking for the
Leesburg Library at Ida Lee Park. We look forward to the ribbon cutting next year. This has been
a long time coming and I am glad that the Board of Supervisors found a way to keep the Leesburg
library in their current funding and to go forth with this project.
I also wish to echo Mr. Lovin's sentiments with regard to Mr. Minor. I have served with Mr.
Minor as a member of Council and have also worked with Mr. Minor as a citizen of the town. I have
found he and his staff to be very responsive. Our loss is going to be someone else's gain. I wish Mr.
Minor and his family the best. I am sorry that this Council did not see fit to keep him here where he
belongs.
Ms. Bange stated that for the past two days she has met with several groups from the
Leesburg Renaissance and First Night. I also feel that Mike Tringale, the new director, is going to lead
the business people into an active business life. They have many things planned to revitalize
downWwn Leesburg. Plans for First Night are underway and has become quite a tradition in
Leesburg. First Night Leesburg is looking for volunteers who would like to help work at the different
sites. If you are interested, please call either myself or Sue Webb.
Manager's Report
Mr. Minor noted that the Council did receive a written copy of the Activity Report on Monday.
He then made the following speech:
I wish to thank Mayor Sevila, Claxton Lovin and Christine Forester and also Bill Mulokey and
John Tolbert and yes even Charles Williams and Brian Kelley for all these people gave me the
opportunity to participate in the management of Leesburg during such an exciting period full of
opportunities and challenge. For the record though, I think that we need to reference permanently
in the records of the town some of the accomplishments that we have all achieved together. I think
that is important to say - we achieved together with a marvelous staff over this six year period.
Foremost is our $42 million General Fund and Utility Fund Capital Program. Forty Two
million that saw Leesburg address decades old problems of downtown parking, town office space
requirements, parks and recreation needs as well as msjor storm drainage and water pressure projects.
The water pressure project, for example, which consists of the first phase of our Western Pressure zone
was actually activated last week and has already dramatically improved water pressures in the Foxridge
and Normandy Village area. This was in conjunction with the million dollar standpipe that was built
in the Country Club area less then a year ago.
Creation of Leesburg's Parks and Recreation Department and development of Loudoun's first
indoor public swimming pool will long be a treasured memory of mine. Working with the Hughes
Group, working with the first parks commission, writing the ordinance, developing and preparing,
myself, the RFP for the selection of the architect and seeing that facility from the first spade of dirt
until its completion is something that few managers in this business over a lifetime will ever have an
opportunity to experience. Many of the things that I have been presented with the opportunity to
experience, many managers will journey through many jobs and never experience things that we have
had an opportunity to do.
Our initiative to save the Automated Flight Service Station at Leesburg Airport and the ninety
jobs it saved deserves to be remembered. This work led to the extension of the sewer line and lift
station and ultimately the extension of the waterline and water pumping station which opened the
Sycolin Road corridor to some of the finest development in Leesburg. Including the Ward Airpark,
Tavistock Farms, the Jet Center and all the other excellent work that Jim Haynes and the Airport
Commission have accomplished at Leesburg Airport. None of that could have been done without the
Automated Flight Service Station and the utilities that it brought at little cost to the Town.
I am proud of the four years out of six years that we won the Virginia Municipal League
Achievement Awards for our 1984 Annexstion, for Market Station, for our Downtown Municipal Center
Design Competition and lastly, just one month ago, the top Planning Award in Virginia for our H-2
Corridor Design Program. We only won four of six years, in my belief, because we did not apply for
the other two.
The Government Finance Office Association has honored Leesburg for four consecutive years
for Distinguished Budget Presentation and Distinguished Financial Report Preparation. Neither of
which these awards has the town ever received until 1985. While other communities in Virginia were
receiving these awards of similar population, Leesburg had not received it until 1985.
We won countless national awards for the Lamplighter, our Citizens Guide and our Annual
Report.
The last six years have indeed been a period of tremendous challenge.
We were challenged in 1985 when our wastewater plant construction bids came in over budget.
We met the challenge and I personally negotiated a million dollar reduction in the cost of the project
with the contractor and secured another $1.5 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Less than four years later we overcame an even greater challenge when we convinced the State Water
Control Board to remit Leesburg's next plant expansion to exclude advanced waste treatment design
that would have added $30 million, at least, to the capital cost of our next plant expansion.
We have implemented for the first time, in our administration, Virginia's proffered process.
We, in fact, had the law written through the annexation process which saw Leesburg secure over $20
million in cash contributions and offsite infrastructure. Twenty million dollars in cash contributions
and offsite infrastructure. If we had not negotiated those funds and that infrastructure who would
have paid for it. You know. We completed perhaps the most comprehensive Design and Construction
Standards Manual in the Commonwealth. A project Leesburg sought to complete for well over a
Minutes of October 24, 1990
decade. We were the first to advance the Leesburg terminus for the new Dulles toll road extension
and successfully rebuffed powerful forces who sought to stop this important link to Washington, D.C.,
east of Goose Creek. We have remained a constant and productive advocate for what will be the most
important transportation project for many decades in the future.
Finally, our financial rating was upgraded. In 1987 and in 1989 by both Standard and Poor's
and Moody's in New York City which demonstrates and documents investor confidence in our town.
Finally, for the first time in six years and only the second time in the past decade, the Town
Council cut the tax rate leaving Leesburg with the third lowest tax rate of Virginia's ten largest towns.
It is important to juxtapose that the third lowest tax rate of Virginia's ten largest towns balance that
with a $42 million capital program.
During my six years as manager you have never seen a tax rate increase or a utility charge
rate increase. No group or person alone can claim responsibility for these successes. A shared vision
of what the future will hold and a Council committed to such spec/ftc goals as well as a unified
professional st~ff committed to the Council management form of Government was what was largely
responsible for this success. Leesburg must renew this commitment in a form of government founded
in Virginia and embraced by virtually every city and town in this Commonwealth. There are hundreds
of cities across this nation that seek progressive and responsible leadership and a manager not content
to service the present but one intent on shaping the future. I hope to find such a community.
Thank you.
Mayor's Report
Mayor Sevila thanked Mr. Minor for not only a "nostalgic walk down memory lane" but also
for reminding all of us of the numerous accomplishments that Mr. Minor, as manager and we as a
Council have been able to accomplish during these last six years. They are impressive. Comments
made earlier tonight by several members of the public suggest that this public is in fact greafful to you
for the skillful manner that you've carried the duties of your office.
Mayor Sevila commented on a couple of letters that he received from the Board of Supervisors
this week. One is a request for some support from the town on a committee which is being formed
to restore the bell tower on the County Courthouse. I advised Mr. Bos that I would be happy to serve
on this committee.
The second letter is from Supervisor Bos regarding the gasoline tax confirmation that
$200,000.00 is the county's contribution from the gas tax and has been paid to the Wwn. It was
suggested that the remaining $200,000.00 be released when the project is ready for contract award.
In the letter there is a request that the Wwn document the cost of Phase H and the type of assistance
that will be needed to complete the four-laning of the bypass and work with the County as they move
forward in the fiscal year 1992 budget preparation. This matter was placed on the appropriate
committee agenda for further consideration.
Mr. Minor and myself attended the annual conference of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation in Charleston, last week. We were invited by the National Trust to make a presentation.
I would like to thank Ms. Imhoff for an excellent collection of slides of our town and the guidelines
themselves. These photographs were excellent in demonstrating the need for the H-2 overlay district
and what we have been able to accomplish to date with it.
I would also like to say to Jeff that I will miss him at these meetings not just as a person but
I will miss the competence and the level of managerial support that we all as a Council have grown use
to and have, in many respects, been spoiled by. During the last several weeks I have had an
opportunity to thank Jeff publicly and also privately for what I think his contributions to this
community have been. I join with my colleagues, Christine Forester and Claxton Lovin, with some
regret that this could not have been handled a little cleaner and with a little more dignity. It has not
been a happy process to be involved in but those are the realities. I know that the very first meeting
of this Council in July I, brought what I thought was a friendly gesture and a conciliatory gesture,
some advice to this Council which apparently has gone unheeded. I will not allow a comment that was
made tonight go unrebutted because it is the ultimate in unfairness in what has been rather
unpleasant and that is the comment that the Council is some how doing Mr. Minor a favor by not
bringing up reasons that it may have for letting him go. I have been at four executive sessions since
July 1 with Mr. Minor present and five including one when he was not present and this subject could
have come up and any reason that existed for his termination could have been freely aired in the
confidence of an executive session. I have heard none and to leave a vague implication on the record
that there exists some such reasons is in my view absolutely unfair and uncalled for and I think
detracted from what would other wise have been a rather quiet departure and final meeting for Mr.
Minor. I hope it has not further tainted the proceSs for you Mr. Minor and I hope that the public and
media will receive it in its proper light as nothing more than a "cheap shot." I sincerely thank you Jeff
for everything that you have done, not for me as your Mayor and employer but for this town. You
have made the difference.
Le~slation
Ms. Imhoff presented a brief staff report on the following ordinance.
On motion of Mr. Lovin, seconded by Mrs. Forester, the following ordinance was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
Minutes of October 24, 1990
90-0-33 - ORDINANCE - APPROVING THE REZONING APPLICATION AND AMENDING THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND TOWN PLAN FOR #ZM-101 AT,T,M..~T FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
WHEREAS, an application for rezoning approval and an amendment of the Town Plan was
submitted by the Allman FAmily Limited Partnership on January 28, 1988 for 8.05 acres of land located
on the west side of Route 15 and bounded on the north, south and west by the Greenway Farm
Planned Development; and
WHEREAS, this application was received and referred to Planning Commission on February
10, 1988; and
WHEREAS, this application proposed an amendment of the zoning district map to rezone the
parcel from County R-1 single-family to PD-CH; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on April 7,
1988; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on April 21, 1988 recommended to Council approval of
the application subject to the draft proffers submitted by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on the application on June 8, 1988 to
consider this application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant deferred action on this application until February, 1990, at which time
the Town Council consideration was re-activated; and
WHEREAS, the existing zoning district designation and the proposed zoning district designation
were respectively changed with the comprehensive zoning revisions adopted April 24, 1990 to R-1 single-
family residential and B-1 downtown mixed uses districts with proffers; and
WHEREAS, an additional Town Council public hearing was held on September 26, 1990 to
consider rezoning the property from R-1 residential to B-1 downtown mixed use district with proffers
to permit a maximum gross floor area of 59,000 square feet of specialty retail and commercial uses and
an inn; and
WHEREAS, this rezoning request is in the interest of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practice:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as fonows:
SECTION I. The rezoning application/concept plan and Town Plan amendment #ZM-101 by
the Allman Family Limited Partnership is hereby approved and the Leesburg Zoning District Map is
amended to change from R-1 to B-1 as proffered, approximately 8.05 acres of land located on the west
side of Route 15, identified as Loudoun County Tax Map #47, Parcel 23, as shown on the Concept Plan
drawn by Land Services Group Limited dated May 2, 1990 and revised October 15, 1990, subject to the
following conditions proffered in writing by the property owner on October 19, 1990, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 15.1-149(a) of the 1950 Code of Virginia as amended:
Permitted Uses. The following uses listed in the use category "Residential Use" shall
not be used or located on this property: Multi-family. The following uses listed in the
use category "Institutional and Community Service Uses" shall not be used or located
on this property: Fire and/or rescue facility; Recreation facility, unless a part of the
hotel/motel complex; and Parking structure, public. The following uses listed in the use
category "Commercial Uses" shall not be used or located on this property: Theater,
indoor; Lawn and garden supply store; Video rental store; Emergency care facility;
Convenience food store; Service station; and Veterinary hospital.
Site Access. Access to the property from South King Street (Route 15) shall be
provided as generally shown on the Concept Plan. The Applicant or its successors-in-
interest agrees to construct the connection between Mead Boulevard and the subject
property generally as shown on the Concept Plan in accordance with Town standards.
All entrances shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Town and VDOT
standards. The Applicant or its successors-in-interest acknowledges that no median
crossover will be permitted if the mid-point access is approved, as shown on the Concept
Plan.
Inclusion of Church Site in the H-2 Historic Corridor Overlay District.
Applicant or its successors-in-interest agrees to inclusion of the six-acre Church site
shown on the Concept Plan within the H-2 Historic Corridor Overlay District.
Road Improvements. Applicant or its successors-in-interest shall contribute to the
Town of Leesburg the estimated cost of adding one additional travel lane to Route 15
along the frontage of the subject property. The cost estimate shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town of Leesburg. In addition, Applicant or its successors-in-interest
shall contribute $39,000.00 to the Town of Leesburg to be used for off-site transportation
Minutes of October 24, 1990
improvements. These contributions shall be made on a pro-rata basis
of $0.66 per square foot of building area prior to receipt of zoning
permits for development of the subject property. Any turn lanes
required by the Town or VDOT are in addition to the travel lane
proffered herein.
Concept Plan. The Applicant or its successors-in-interest shall develop the property
in substantial conformance with the Greenway Manor-Concept Plan prepared by Land
Service Group, Ltd. dated May 2, 1990 and revised October 15, 1990.
Rezoning concept plan approval is tentative, and the final plans and construction
drawings are subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable subdivision and
zoning ordinances as well as town engineering and construction standards. Also,
rezoning concept plan approval does not express or imply any waiver or modification
of the requirements set forth except as specifically cited by ordinance section and
paragraph in the motion for approval of this rezoning. Finally, density may be
decreased below the maximum approved if necessary to provide, in the general locations
indicated, all public facilities and proffered items to the appropriate town standards.
Public Safety. Applicant or its successors-in-interest shall pay to the Town of
Leesburg the sum of $0.30 per square foot of total building area as a non-refundable
contribution to the Leesburg fire and rescue companies, pr/or to the issuance of the first
zoning permit. This contribution shall be made on a building by building basis.
Inclusion of Site in H-1 Historic Overlay District. The Applicant or its
successors-in-interest shall not oppose Town Council designation of the site as an
HisWric Landmark under the provisions of Section 5A of the Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance, The area to be so designated shall be as shown on the Concept Plan and
contains approximately 8.0 acres.
Pedestrian Connection with Greenway and Linden Hill. In lieu of a standard
sidewAlk~ Applicant or its successors-in-interest shall construct a six-foot wide asphalt
pedestrian walkway varying in distance from the right-of-way within the 100 foot buffer
area along the South King Street (Route 15) property frontage. Construction of the
walkway shall be bonded prior to approval of the first final site plan for this property
and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Town standards.
Preservation of Existing Trees near Manor House/Open Space Buffer. The
Applicant or its successors-in-interest shall, during the site development process,
designate and preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the "Tree Preservation Area" in
front of the manor house as designated on the Existing Conditions Plan prepared by
Land Services Group, dated May 2, 1990.
10.
Installation of a Traffic Signal at the Northern Greenway Entrance. The
Applicant or its successors-in-interest shall contribute to the Town 25 percent of the
cost of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenway Drive and South King
Street. This contribution shall be made prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for
development of the subject property or when the traffic signal is warranted by VDOT,
whichever comes first.
11.
Architectural Character. The general architectural character, scale and materials
anticipated for this project shall be as shown in the photographs included on the
Concept Plan.
12.
Escalator Clause. All monetary contributions stated in these proffers shall be subject
to adjustment at a rate equal to any fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.)
from the date of final rezoning approval.
SECTION H. The Town Plan land use policy map is hereby amended as follows: the above
reference property designation shall change from low density residential to corridor commercial use to
reflect this rezoning approval.
SECTION III. The Leesburg Zoning District Map is further amended to change this 8.05 acres
of land (Loudoun County Tax Map #47, Parcel 23) from the H-2 Corridor Overlay District to the H-
I Historic Overlay District designation.
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
Mr. Lovin thanked the applicant for addressing the issues on buffering and for also voluntarily
agreeing to hisWric preservation of Greenway Manor.
Mayor Sevila concurred with Mr. Lovin's comments and stated that he will support this project.
The applicant has done an excellent job of making the negotiated review process work.
Aye:
Nay:
Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
Minutes of October 24, 1990
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following ordinance was proposed and
adopted.
90-0-34 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING
DISTRICT MAP TO EXPAND THE H-l, HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE.
WHEREAS, the property 311 Loudoun Street, S.W. (Tax Map 48, Lot 46) is being considered
for inclusion in the H-l, Historic District Overlay zone under Article 5, Section 5A-8, item I which
states that a property may be eligible if it has significant character, interest or value, as part of the
town's development or heritage; and
WHEREAS, this proposal was initiated by the property owner of the historic house located at
Rock Spring, who is a partial owner of this property known as the "meadow"; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 1990, the Board of Architectural Review recommended approval of this
proposal; and
and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal;
WHEREAS, the expansion of the H-l, Historic District Overlay zone will not affect the
boundaries of the town's National Register Historic District; and
WHEREAS, approval of the proposed H-l, Historic District Overlay zone expansion is in the
best interest and 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 5A-3, rifled Historic District Created, Established of the Leesburg Zoning
ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows:
A historic conservation district is hereby created within the town as an overlay on the
official zoning map under authority of Section 15.1-503.2 of the State Code to be known
as the H-1 Historic District with original boundaries shown on a map designated "Gray's
New Map of Leesburg" drawn from the special surveys in the year 1878 as hereby
amended and described as follows:
"Beginning on the east at the intersection of Loudoun and Market
Streets and running northeast parallel to Church Street to the
intersection of a line in projection of North Street; thence northwest in
a straight line to and along North Street to the intersection of Church
Street; thence northeast in a straight line parallel to King Street to the
intersection of a line in projection of Union Street; thence in a straight
line northwest to and along Union Street to the intersection of a line
in extension of Liberty Street; thence southwest in a straight line to the
intersection of Liberty and North Streets; thence northwest in a straight
line in extension of North Street until intersecting a line in projection
of Ayr Street; thence southwest to and along Ayr Street to a point on
the east right-of-way of Dry Mill Road; thence right along the curb of
said right-of-way having a radius of 225.43 feet to the center of the
Town Branch; thence along the Town Branch S 41° 10' 41" E to the
projection of Ayr Street. thence southwest along the projection of Ayr
Street 100 feet; thence in a straight line in extension of South Street
southeast to Town Branch; thence S 36° 10' 42" E along Town Branch
to the Washington and Old Dominion Trail; thence paralleling the trail
and Town Branch 594.12 feet along a curve to the right having a radius
of 3646.36 feet to the extension of the western right-of-way of Liberty
Street; thence N 220 45' 00" E to the intersection of a projection of
South Street; thence in a straight line in extension of South Street
southeast to a point 200 feet west of King Street, still on an extension
of South Street; thence in a straight line southwest parallel to King
Street to a point 500 feet south of the railroad; thence east across King
Street in a straight line parallel to South Street for 1700 feet; thence
northeast in a straight line parallel to King Street to the intersection
of Loudoun and Market Streets, to also include properties at 406
through 414 South King Street and 416, 418, 420, 422, 424 and 426
South King Street; 305 through 430 West Market Street; 6 Wilson
Avenue, N.W., 10, 14, 18, and 102 Morven Park Road, N.W. and 9 and
21 Ayr Street, N.W., and 302-334 Loudoun Street, S.W. (inclusive of
even numbered addresses only), 106 Morven Park Road, N.W. and 311
Loudoun Street, S.W.
SECTION II. The Zoning District Map is hereby amended to incorporate the H-l, Historic
District Overlay zone as described in Section I above.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
Minutes of October 24, 1990
Nay:
Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Kimball
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following ordinance was proposed and
defeated by a vote of 2 to 5.
Item 9(c) - AN ORDINANCE: AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING
DISTRICT MAP TO EXPAND THE H-I, HISTORIC DISTRICT
OVERLAY ZONE
Aye: Councilmembers Forester, Lovin
Nay: Bange, Clem, Kimball, Webb and Mayor Sevila
On motion of Mr. Webb, seconded by Ms. Bange, the following ordinance was
Item 9(d)- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-50 OF THE TOWN CODE TO WAIVE
THE TOWN AND LICENSE FEE FOR VEHICLES OWNED BY THE
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY AND RESCUE SQUAD AND THEIR
ACTIVE MEMBERS
Mr. Lovin calculated the number of volunteers to be about 120 people which averages out to
be $2,400.00. That is not a lot of money but certainly money that would have an affect on the down
economic times. A call has been made for this Council to be more fiscal responsible to the town
budget. I certainly hold no disrespect for the fire company or the volunteers but I don't think
members of that company, whether it be the fire or rescue company, would abandon the company over
$20.00. There are other volunteer organizations in town. In five years when we do the CIP, that
represents $12,500.00 - in ten years it represents $25,000.00. I will not support the ordinance mainly
because it is coming out of this year's budget. My support could come at a later time.
Mr. Clem pointed out that this would apply to only those individuals whose vehicles are in
their name. I will not be voting on this issue because I am a firefighter and would receive this benefit.
Mr. Kimball asked if there was a possiblity of the General Assembly extending this to include
police officers? Mayor Sevila said that the legislation made no reference to police officers. Mr. Kimball
said that Mr. Lovin made a good point with regard to other worthy organizations within the
community that would benefit from this type of legislation. It might be beneficial to assess all of these
organizations rather than single out one or two.
Mrs. Forester expressed similar concerns. From a legal standpoint, if this were challenged as
being discrminiatory would we be legally obligated to rebate money to other volunteer organizations?
Also, in tight times and in the outcry of our citizens to be more fiscally responsible, I would like for
us to handle these kinds of revenue ideas in terms of the overall budget. We had $400,000.00 worth
of cuts being proposed at last weeks committee meeting. At this time I would have to vote against
this.
Mrs. Bange stated that she is active in a lot of volunteer organizations and does a lot of
volunteer work. I don't believe that we can put our fire and rescue in the same category as we do
other volunteers. First of all, the service that they give to this community, if we had to pay for it
would probably double our tax rate. I believe in the value of volunteerism and certainly would not
expect to get a decal for that. I believe this is a small price to pay and we don't necessarily have to
put this into effect in 1991. It could become effective in 1992 and include this in our budget for the
new year. We get a lot more for our money from this group of people than from other volunteer
organizations. Not that any volunteer project is not valuable.
Mayor Sevila agreed with the comments made about the value of volunteer fire and rescue in
our community. I would shutter at the thought of having to pay the expense of those services out of
our general fund - it is something that we could not do. The fire and rescue volunteers provide us
with a service that we, as a community, could not afford to do if we had to right now without making
some drastic changes in our spending and priorities. But I also have a serious concern about
tampering with our revenues during the coming year. This is something that should come up during
the budget process. I concur with the State legislation - it is an appropriate device to use for
recruitment and it is a nice small community pay back for the work and dedication that they do. I
support considering this in the spring during our budget considerations. If we can afford this in the
spring then I win be joining the rest of the Council in voting in favor of this.
Mr. Webb stated the Council's comments are well taken but this is something that he believes
the town can do to show our appreciation for their services.
Ms. Bange withdrew her original motion and Mr. Webb withdrew his second.
On motion of Mr. Kimball, seconded by Mr. Clem, this matter was referred to the
Administration and Public Works Committee for further consideration.
Mr. Clem agreed with Council's action to send this matter back to committee for further
discussion.
Minutes of October 24, 1990
Aye: Councilmembers, Bange, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Abstain: Mr. Clem
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following resolutions were proposed as
consent items and unanimously adopted.
90-264 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE
CREATING AN AIRPORT SAFETY OVERLAY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Title 15.1-491.02 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended requires the governing
body of local municipalities in whose jurisdiction a licensed airport is located, to adopt by July 1, 1991
an ordinance which regulates the height of structures and natural growth for the purpose of protecting
the safety of air navigation; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg derives economic development and enhanced interstate
commerce from the Leesburg Municipal Airport; and
WHEREAS, the concern for public safety dictates that the Leesburg Municipal Airport be
protected by the highest possible safety standards:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. An amendment to Article 5 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby initiated,
said amendment to read as follows:
SECTION 5D - AIRPORT SAFETY OVERLAY DISTRICT
Section 5D-1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of the Airport Safety Overlay District is to regulate and restrict the height
of structures, objects or natural growth, and otherwise regulate the use of property in
the vicinity of the Leesburg Municipal Airport by creating the appropriate zones and
establishing the boundaries thereof; providing for changes in the restrictions and
boundaries of such zones; defining certain terms used herein; providing for enforcement;
and imposing penalties. Accordingly, it is declared:
(1)
That in the interest of the public health, safety, and general
welfare, prevention of obstructions that are hazards to air
navigation is necessary;
(2)
That the creation or establishment of an obstruction has the
potential for being a public nuisance and may injure the area
served by the airport;
(3)
(4)
That the Town of Leesburg derives economic development and
enhanced interstate commerce from the Leesburg Municipal
Airport which are held strictly to the highest possible safety
standards; and
That the prevention of these obstructions should be accomplished, to the
extent legally possible, by the exercise of the police power without
compensation.
Section 5D-2 APPLICABILITY
This Article shall apply to all zones designated on the Airport Safety District Map
within the Corporate limits of the Town of Leesburg where it is found that obstructions
as defined by this Article have the potential for endangering the lives and property of
users of the airport and residents in the Town of Leesburg; and that an obstruction may
impact the areas available for landing, takeoff, and maneuvering of aircraft, thus
impairing the safety and utility of the airport and adversely affecting the substantial
public investment in the airport.
Section 5D-3 DEFINITIONS
As used in this ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings respectively
ascribed to them, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(1)
"Administrator": The official charged with enforcement of this ordinance.
He or she shall be the Town of Leesburg~s Zoning Administrator.
(2) "Airport": Leesburg Municipal Airport.
(3)
"Airport Elevation": The highest point on any usable landing surface
expressed in feet above mean sea level.
Minutes of October 24, 1990
(4)
"Approach Surface": A surface longitudinally centered on the extended
runway centerline, extending outward and upward from the end of the
primary surface, and at the same slope as the approach zone height
limitation slope set forth in Section 5D-5. In plan, the perimeter of the
approach surface coincides with the perimeter of the approach zone.
(5)
"Approach, transitional, horizontal, and conical zones": The airspace
zones as set forth in Section 5D-4 of this ordinance.
(6)
"Board of Zoning Appeals": Refers to the Board of Zoning Appeals of
the Town of Leesburg.
(7)
"Conical Surface": A surface extending horizontally twenty feet for every
foot vertically from the periphery of the horizontal surface.
(8)
"Hazard to Air Navigation": An obstruction determined by the Virginia
Department of Aviation or the Federal Aviation Administration to have
substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient u~li=ation of navigable
airspace in the Commonwealth.
(9)
"Height": For the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones
set forth in this ordinance and shown on the Airport Safety District
Map, the datum shall be mean sea level (M.S.L.) elevation unless
otherwise specified.
(10)
"Horizontal Surface": A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established
airport elevation, the perimeter of which in plan coincides with the
perimeter of the horizontal zone.
(11)
"Leesburg Airport Commission": An advisory commission appointed by
the Leesburg Town Council whose responsibilities include, but is not
limited to land acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance and
operation of the Leesburg Municipal Airport.
(12)
"Nonconforming Use": Any existing or new structure, or object of
natural growth which is inconsistent with the provisions of this
ordinance or any amendment to this ordinance.
(13)
"Obstruction": Any structure, growth, or other object, including a mobile
object, which exceeds a limiting height, or penetrates any surface or
zone floor, set forth in Section 5D-5.
(14)
"Person": Any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, joint stock association, or governmental entity. The term
includes a trustee, a receiver, an assignee, or a similar representative
of any of them.
(15)
"Primary Surface": A surface, with a specified width as provided in
Section 5D-4, longitudinally centered on a runway. When the runway
has a specifically prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200
feet beyond each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the
primary surface is the s~me as the elevation of the nearest point on the
runway centerline.
(16)
"Runway": A specified area on an airport prepared for landing and
takeoff of aircraft.
(17)
"Structure": Any object, including a mobile object, constructed or
installed by any person, including but not limited to buildings, towers,
cranes, smokestacks, earth formations, towers, poles and electric lines
of overhead transmission routes, flag poles, and ship masts.
(18)
"Transitional Surfaces": Surfaces which extend outward perpendicular
to the runway centerline extended at a slope of seven feet horizontally
for each foot vertically from the sides of the primary and approach
surfaces to where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces.
(19) 'Vegetation": Any object of natural and/or planted growth.
(2O)
"Zone": Ail areas provided for in Section 5D-4, generally described in
three dimensions by reference to ground elevation, vertical distances
from the ground elevation, horizontal distances from the runway
centerline and the primary and horizontal surfaces, with the zone floor
set a specific vertical limits by the surfaces found in Section 5D-5.
(21) "Zoning Permit": A document issued by Town of Leesburg allowing an
Minutes of October 24, 1990
activity which may result in structures or vegetation which exceed the
height limitations provided for in this ordinance.
Section 5D-4. AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES
In order to implement the provisions of this ordinance, certain zones are established
which include the area and airspace of the Town of Leesburg lying equal to and above
the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, and conical surfaces as
they apply to Leesburg Municipal Airport. These zones are established as overlay zones,
superimposed over the existing zoning districts, being more specifically zones of airspace
that do not affect the uses and activities of the zoning district except as provided for in
Section 5D-6. An area located in more than one of the following zones is considered
to be only in the zone with the most restrictive height limitation. These zones are as
follows:
(1)
"Airport Zone": A zone that is centered about the runway and primary
surface, with the floor set by the horizontal surface.
(2)
"Approach Zone": A zone that extends away from the runway ends along
the extended runway centerline, with the floor set by the approach
surfaces.
(3)
"Transitional Zone": A zone that fans away perpendicular to the runway
centerline and approach surfaces, with the floor set by the transitional
surfaces.
(4)
"Conical Zone": A zone that circles around the periphery of and outward
from the horizontal surface, with the floor set by the conical surface.
Section 5D-5. AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS
(1)
Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, in any zone created by
this ordinance no structure shall be erected, altered, or maintained, and
no vegetation shall be allowed to grow to a height so as to penetrate any
referenced surface, known as the floor, of any zone provided for in
Section 5D-4 at any point.
(2)
The specific geometric standards, height restrictions, or floors, for the
individual zones shall be those planes delineated as surfaces in Part
77.25, Subchapter E (Airspace), of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, or in successor federal regulations. The official map which
depicts the Airport Safety Zones height restrictions shall be maintained
by the administrator.
Section 5D-6 USE RESTRICTIONS
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, and within the area below the
horizontal limits of any zone established by this ordinance, no use may be made of land
or water in such a manner as to:
(1) Create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio
communication between the airport and airborne aircraft;
(2)
Diminish the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lights and
other lights;
(3) Result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport;
(4) Impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport;
(5) Create the potential for bird strike hazards; or
(6)
Otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the landing, takeoff,
or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the airport.
Section 5D-7. NONCONFORM~G USES
(1)
Except as provided in Section 5D-7(2), the regulations prescribed by this
ordinance shall not require the removal, lowering, or other change or
alteration of any structure or vegetation not conforming to the
regulations as of the effective date of this ordinance, or otherwise
interfere with the continuance of a nonconforming use. Nothing
contained in this ordinance shall require the removal, lowering, or other
change or alteration of any structure which construction was begun
prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and is in the process of
being diligently pursued toward completion.
Minutes of October 24, 1990
Notwithstsnding the provision Section 5D-7(1), the owner of any existing
nonconforming structure or vegetation is hereby required to permit the
installation, operation, and maintenance thereon of whatever markers
and lights deemed necessary by the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Virginia Department of Aviation, the Leesburg Airport Commi_~on, or
the administrator to indicate to operators of aircraft the presence of that
airport obstruction. These markers and lights shall be installed,
operated, and maintained at the expense of the airport owners, and not
the owner of the nonconforming structure in question.
Section 5D-8. ZONING PERMITS
(1)
Except as provided in Sections 5D-$(1), 5D-$(2), and 5D-$(3), no
structure shall be erected or otherwise established in any zone created
by this ordinance unless a zoning permit issued by the administrator
shall have been applied for and granted. Each application for a zoning
permit shall indicate the purpose for which desired, and provide
sufficient geometric specificity to determine if the structure will conform
to the regulations prescribed in this ordinance. No zoning permit for
a structure inconsistent with this ordinance shall be granted unless a
variance has been approved as provided in Section 5D-8(4).
(2)
No zoning permit shall be granted that would allow the establishment
or creation of an obstruction or permit a nonconforming use or structure
to become a greater hazard to air navigation than it was on the effective
date of this ordinance or any amendments thereto other than with relief
as provided for in Section 5D-8(4).
(3)
Whenever the administrator determines that a nonconforming structure
has been abandoned or more than fifty percent destroyed, physically
deteriorated, or decayed, no zoning permit shall be granted that would
enable such structure to be rebuilt, reconstructed, or otherwise
refurbished so as to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise
deviate from the zoning regulations contained in this ordinance, except
with the relief as provided for in Section 5D-8(4).
(4)
Any person desiring to erect or increase the height or size of any
structure not in conformance with the regulations of this ordinance may
apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals if accompanied
with a recommendation from the Leesburg Airport Commission. The
Commission shall consider the effect of the proposal on the operation
of air navigation facilities, and determine whether the safe and efficient
use of navigable airspace is impeded. Such variances shall only be
allowed where it is duly found that a literal application or enforcement
of the regulations will result in unnecessary hardship and relief granted
will not be contrary to the public interest, will not create a hazard to
air navigation, will do substantial justice, and will be in accordance with
the spirit of this ordinance. The issuance of zoning permits by the
administrator may be subject to a final determination from the Virginia
Department of Aviation that the safety of the airport is not impaired.
(5)
Any zoning permit or variance granted may, if such action is deemed
advisable to effectuate the purpose of this ordinance and be reasonable
in the circumstances, be so conditioned as to require the owner of the
structure in question to install, operate, and maintain, at the owner's
expense, such markings and lights as may be deemed necessary by the
Federal Aviation Administration, the Virginia Department of Aviation,
Leesburg Airport Commission, or the administrator. If deemed proper
with reasonable cause by the Board of Zoning Appeals, this condition
may be modified to require the owner of the structure in question to
permit the airport owner, at his own expense to install, operate, and
maintain the necessary markings and lights.
Section 5D-9. ENFORCEMENT
(1)
The administrator shall enforce the regulations prescribed in this
ordinance and be vested with the police power incumbent to carry out
and effectuate this ordinance, including the action of injunction,
prosecution and other available means through the appropriate Circuit
Court. Applications for zoning permits and variances shall be made to
the administrator on a form provided for that purpose.
Section 5D-10. APPEALS
(1) Any person aggrieved, or any officer, department, board, or bureau
Minutes of October 24, 1990
affected by a decision of the administrator may appeal such decision to
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Section 5D-11. JUDICIAL REVIEW
(1)
Any person aggrieved or any taxpayer adversely affected by any decision
of the Board of Zoning Appeals may appeal the decision to the
appropriate Circuit Court.
Section 5D-12. PENALTIES
(1)
Each violation of this ordinance or of any regulation, order, or ruling
promulgated under this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and
be punishable by a fine of no more than five hundred dollars. Each
day on which a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
Section 5D-13. CONFLICTING REGULATIONS
(1)
Where there exists a conflict between any of the regulations or
limitations prescribed in this ordinance and any other regulations
applicable to the same subject, where the conflict is with respect to the
height of structures or vegetation and the use of land, or any other
matter, the more stringent limitation or requirement shall govern.
Section 5D-14. SEVERABILITY
(1)
Should any portion or provision of this ordinance be held by any court
to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the
validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part of the ordinance other
than the part held to be unconstitutional or invalid.
SECTION II. The Leesburg Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on this
legislation, pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and report its
recommendation to the Town Council within 90 days of the hearing date.
90-265 - RESOLUTION - RECEIVING AND REFERRING THE APPLICATION OF HILLCREST
JOINT VENTURE FOR A REVISION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER CHAPTER 11, TITLE
15.12 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA~ AS AMENDED
RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
Rezoning application #ZM-125 by Hillcrest Joint Venture to allow a rezoning from R-4 to R-
HD with proffers for the property located at 330 West Market Street, is hereby received and referred
to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11, Title 15.12 of
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
90-266 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENTS
TO THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING CONDOMINIUMS
WHEREAS, the Council initiated and referred amendments to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance
regarding condominiums and condominium conversions to the Planning Commission on June 27, 1990;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on this amendment was held on August 9, 1990 by the Planning
Commission and was recommended for approval at their October 4, 1990 meeting, and
Wt~REAS, Sections 55-79.94(e) and (fl of the Code of Virginia, as amended, permit localities
to adopt condominium regulations; and
WHEREAS, these amendments are necessary to promote the public health, safety, general
welfare and to facilitate the creation of a harmonious community:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia, as follows:
A notice of public hearing to consider amending the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to add Sections
7A-12 and 7A-13 Condominium Development shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on
November 28, 1990 and December 5, 1990 for public hearing Wednesday, December 12, 1990 at 7:30
p.m. in the Loudoun County School Board Annex, located at 102 North Street, N.W. in Leesburg.
Pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, this shall be a public hearing
of the Town Council.
90-267
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, RET.F. ASING THE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION lA
Minutes of October 24, 1990
WHE~, the Potomac Crossing Corporation, the developer of Potomac Crossing Section IA,
has completed the public improvements in accordance with approved plans and town standards, and
these have been inspected and approved.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The irrevocable letter of credit from United Federal Savings B~nk in the
amount of $32,125.00 is released, and a new letter of credit from United Federal Savings Bank in a
form approved by the town attorney for a maintenance guarantee in the amount of $1,606.00 is
approved, and shall be in effect for a period of one year from this date.
SECTION II. This release is contingent upon delivery of a properly executed instrument
conveying unto the town ail such improvements and easements free of any liens or charges.
90-268 - RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASING THE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION 1C
WKEREAS, the Potomac Crossing Corporation, the developer of Potomac Crossing Section 1C,
has completed the public improvements in accordance with approved plans and town standards, and
these have been inspected and approved.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The irrevocable letter of credit from United Federal Savings Bank in the
amount of $385,740.00 is released, and a new letter of credit from United Federal Savings Bank in a
form approved by the town attorney for a maintenance guarantee in the amount of $94,848.00 is
approved, and shall be in effect for a period of one year from this date.
SECTION II. This release is contingent upon delivery of a properly executed instrument
conveying unto the town all such improvements and easements free of any liens or charges.
90-269 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, REI,EASING THE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION ID
WHEREAS, Richmond American, the developer of Potomac Crossing Section 1D, has completed
the public improvements in accordance with approved plans and town standards, and these have been
inspected and approved.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The corporate surety bond from Reliance Insurance Company in the amount of
$54,055.00 is released, and a new surety in a form approved by the town attorney for a maintenance
guarantee in the amount of $9,499.00 is approved, and shall be in effect for a period of one year from
this date.
SECTION H. This release is contingent upon delivery of a properly executed instrument
conveying unto the town all such improvements and easements free of
90-270 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASING THE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION 1G
WHE~, the Potomac Crossing Corporation, the developer of Potomac Crossing Section 1G,
has completed the public improvements in accordance with approved plans and town standards, and
these have been inspected and approved except for the storm drainage improvements along the
pedestrian and bike trail; and
WHE~, the Potomac Crossing Corporation will provide a letter of credit from United
Savings Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 to guarantee completion of the storm drainage
improvements along the pedestrian and bike trail.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The irrevocable letter of credit from United Federal Savings Bank in the amount
of $84,621.00 is released, and a new letter of credit in a form approved by the town attorney for a
maintenance guarantee int he amount of $9,316.00 is approved, and shall be in effect for a period of
one year from this date.
SECTION II. A letter of credit from United Federal Savings Bank in a form approved by the
town attorney in the amount of $10,000.00 is approved as surety to guarantee completion of the
drainage improvements along the pedestrian and bike trail. The letter of credit shall be in effect until
November 30, 1990.
SECTION M. In the event the storm drainage improvements along the pedestrian and bike
Minutes of October 24, 1990
trail in Potomac Crossing Section 1G are not satisfactorily completed by November 30, 1990, as
determined by the Driector of Engineering and Public Works, the Town Manager is hereby authorized
to declare the developer in default of its contract and the Manager is authorized to request payment
pursuant to the letter of credit or other perofrmance guarnatee, and to enforce all terms of the contract
for publc imporovements.
SECTION IV. This release is contingent upon delivery of a properly executed instrument
conveying unto the town all such improvements and easements free of
90-271 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, RET.EASING THE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION 1H
WHEREAS, Richmond American, the developer of Potomac Crossing Section 1H, has completed
the public improvements in accordance with approved plans and town standards, and these have been
inspected and approved.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The corporate surety bond from Reliance Insurance Companies in the amount
of $54,000.00 is released, and a new surety in a form approved by the town attorney for a maintenance
guarantee in the amount of $12,812.00 is approved, and shall be in effect for a period of one year from
this date.
SECTION II. This release is contingent upon delivery of a properly executed instrument
conveying unto the town all such improvements and easements free of any liens or charges.
90-272 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR EXETER SECTION 12
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The manager shall execute the contract for public improvements for the
improvements shown on the plans approved by the Director of Engineering and Public Works for
Exeter Section 12.
SECTION II. An irrevocable bank letter of credit in a form approved by the town attorney
from the First American Bank in the amount of $141,775.00 is approved as security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements shown on plans approved by the Director of Engineering and
Public Works for Exeter Section 12.
90-273
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, REI.EASING THE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT POTOMAC CROSSING SECTION 1F
WHEREAS, the Potomac Crossing Corporation, the developer of Potomac Crossing Section iF,
has completed the public improvements in accordance with approved plans and town standards, and
these have been inspected and approved except for the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Campbell
Court;
WHEREAS, the Potomac Crossing Corporation will provide a letter of credit from United
Federal Savings Bank in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee installation of the temporary cul-de-sac
on Campbell Court.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The irrevocable letter of credit from United Federal Savings Bank in the
amount of $84,200.00 is released, and a new letter of credit from United Savings Bank in a form
approved by the town attorney for a maintenance guarantee in the amount of $20,439.00 is approved,
and shall be in effect for a period of one year from this date.
SECTION H. A letter of credit from United Federal Savings Bank in a form approved by the
town attorney in the amount of $5,000.00 is approved as surety to guarantee installation of the
Campbell Court temporary cul-de-sac. The letter of credit shall be in effect for a two year period. In
the event the final plat and construction drawings for the extension of Campbell Court are not
approved and the road extension bonded before the end of the two year period, then the temporary
cul-de-sac shall be constructed unless a time extension is authorized by the Council.
SECTION IH. This release is contingent upon delivery of a properly executed instrument
conveying unto the town all such improvements and easements free of any liens or charges.
Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
Minutes of October 24, 1990
New Business
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Ms. Bange, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-274 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON VACATION OF BOUNDARY LINES ON SECTION 4A LOTS 1 AND 2, PHASE
2B LOTS 6B AND 7 AND PHASE 1 LOTS 8, 9B, 9C, GATEWAY SUBDMSION
WHEREAS, the recorded subdivision plats of Gateway Subdivision, Phase 1, 2B and Section
4A, as recorded in the land records of Loudoun County, show boundary lines separating Section 4A
lots I and 2, Phase 2B lots 6B and 7, and Phase I lots 8, 9B and 9C; and
WHEREAS, the owner of these lots desires that the boundary lines separating Section 4A lots
i and 2, Phase 2B lots 6B and 7, and Phase I lot 8 be vacated to create a single lot and the boundary
lines separating PHase I lots 9b and 9C be vacated to create a single lot that both conform with the
Leesburg Zoning Ordinance:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
A notice of public hearing to consider the vacation of boundary lines on Section 4A lots 1 and
2, Phase 2B lots 6B and 7, and Phase I lots 8, 9B, and 9C, Gateway Subdivision, as provided for in
Section 15.1-482 of the State Code, as amended, shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on
October 31, 1990 and November 7, 1990 for public hearing on November 14, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the
Loudoun County School Board Annex, 102 North Street, N.W., Leesburg, Virginia.
Aye: Councilmembers, Bangs, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Ms. Bange, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-275 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR THE BLUEMONT CONCERT SERIES TO
REPLACE THE $5,000.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHAIJ.P. NGE GRANT
WITHHELD BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The Leesburg Town Council authorizes the use of the General Fund Balance to replace the
$5,000.00 cut in the Local Government Challenge Grant to the benefit of the Bluemont Concert Series.
Mr. Webb asked if the town could afford this and if Mr. Dunning would be willing to accept
this as partial payment for the 1991 budget.
Mayor Sevila stated that the town would be facing some tough decisions in the spring and one
of those decisions is going to be whether or not all the municipalities give the same amount in 1992
as they gave in 1991.
Mr. Minor stated that the report he and Mr. York prepared a week ago indicates that we do
need to cut expenditures substantially and that revenues will not be as projected. We have a projected
fund balance that can accommodate $5,000.00 if all the other things that we have projected in terms
of revenues come about. It is a policy decision of the Council.
Mr. Lovin supports the $5,000.00 request to the Bluemont Concert Series.
Mr. Kimball asked Mr. Dunning what other "internal belt tightening" was planned. Mr.
Dunning explained that the whole operation is presently under close scrutiny and further detailed how
other cut backs were taking place. Mr. Kimball stated that he could support fifty percent of this
request and perhaps view it again in the spring. Mr. Dunning explained that these are services that
have already been provided - money that has been Spent.
Mayor Sevila stated that the justification here is that this is a service that we have already
received. This is a service that the Bluemont Concert Series planned a year in advance. We had an
excellent program throughout the summer and August Court Days. We are paying for something that
we got. The state is the culprit here in their revenue shortfalls. I have to support the request.
Aye: Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Ms. Bange, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-276 - RESOLUTION - CANCELLING THE COUNCIL'S PIANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
AND ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COM/VI/TTEE MEETINGS OF
NOVEMBER 21, 1990, AND CANCEI.I.ING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
Minutes of October 24, 1990
WHEREAS, the Council's Planning and Zoning Committee and Administration and Public
Works Committee are scheduled to meet on November 21, 1990; and
WHEREAS, a regular Town Council meeting is scheduled for November 28, 1990; and
WHEREAS, these meetings will interfere with the observation and celebration of the
ThAnk.~giving holidays.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The Planning and Zoning and Administration and Public Works Committee meetings scheduled
for November 21, 1990 and the Town Council meeting scheduled for November 28, 1990 are cancelled.
Aye: Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevfla
Nay: None
Mayor Sevila received the application for Innovations in State and Local Governments and
passed this information to Mr. Minor to be given to the appropriate person for consideration.
Mr. Webb made the following motion:
Pursuant to Section 2.1-344 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, I move that the Town
Council of the Town of Leesburg go into Executive Session. The authority for this Executive Session
is found in Section 2.1-344 (1) of the 1950 Cede of Virginia, as amended. The purpose for this
Executive Session is to consider the appointment of an Acting Town Manager.
Mr. Brown is requested to remain for the meeting.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Bange.
Nay:
Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
Mr. Webb made the following motion:
I move that the Executive Session be adjourned, that the Town Council of the Town of
Leesburg reconvene its public meeting and that the minutes of the public meeting reflect that no
formal action was taken in the Executive Session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Bange.
Nay:
Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
The meeting was reconvened at 11:58 p.m.
On motion of Ms. Bange, seconded by Mrs. Forester, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-277 - RESOLUTION - CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF OCTOBER 24, 1990
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg has this day convened in Executive
Session in accordance with an affirmative recorded vote of the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg
and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg does
hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, 1) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information ACt were discussed in
the Executive Session to which this certification applies; and 2) only such public business matters as
were identified in the Motion by which the said Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed
or considered by the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg.
Nay:
Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Ms. Bange the fonowing resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-278 - RESOLUTION - APPOINTING AN ACTING TOWN MANAGER AND INITIATING A
RECRUITMENT TO FILL THE POSITION OF TOWN MANAGER
WHEREAS, this Council has accepted the resignation of Jeffrey H. Minor as Town Manager
of Leesburg effective October 31, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Steven C. Brown presently serves as Assistant Town Manager of the Town of
Minutes of October 24, 1990
Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to appoint an acting manager during the interim period
between Mr. Minor's resignation and appointment of a town manager.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. Effective November 1, 1990 Steven C. Brown is appointed to the position of
acting Town Manager as outlined in the Town Charter and Town Code.
SECTION II. During the period Steven C. Brown serves as acting Town Manager, his salary
shall be increased by $1,500.00 per month until an appointment is made and all current employment
benefits shall remain the same.
SECTION 11I. The acting Town Manager shall receive a $2,000 lump sum performance
increase on January 1, 1991 in accordance with Sec. 12.1-17.3 of the Personnel Manual.
SECTION IV. The acting Town Manager is directed to prepare an advertisement for the
approval of the Council for the position of Town Manager to appear in the International City
Management Association newsletter and any other appropriate publication.
SECTION V. During service as acting Town Manager, Steven C. Brown shall retain the
additional title of Assistant Town Manager and shall be offered this position at a salary not less than
his approved salary effective October 31, 1990 and with those duties and responsibilities defined for
that position effective that date in the event he is not appointed Town Manager.
Aye: Councilmembers, Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned.
Robert E. Sevila, Mayor
Barbara Markland
Deputy Clerk of Council
(This page intentionally left blank)