HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991_01_22MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL
JANUARY 22, 1991
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on January 22, 1991, in the lower
level meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called
to order by the Mayor.
INVOCATION was given by Councilmember Donald A. Kimball
SALUTE TO THE FLAG was led by Director of Planning Katherine Imhoff
ROLL CALL
Councilrnembers present
Georgia W. Bange
James E. Clem
Christine M. Forester
Donald A. Kimball
Claxton E. Lovin
William F. Webb
Mayor Robert E. Sevila
Staff members present
Acting Town Manager Steven C. Brown
Director of Planning, Zoning and Land Development Katherine Imhoff
Planner Peter Stephenson
Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson
Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh
Clerk of Council Dorothy B. Rosen
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, the regular meeting minutes of November 14, 1990
were approved as corrected by Mrs. Forester.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
PETITIONERS
Mr. Tom Galloway, representing Leesburg Renaissance, addressed the Council. He stated that Leesburg
Renaissance has operated as a committee of the Leesburg Business Association (LBA). This has led
to some confusion between LBA members and renaissance members. We are trying, by unanimous vote
of the Leesburg Renaissance Board, to establish Leesburg Renaissance as a corporation on its own.
Ms. Sue Webb addressed the Council. She stated that the LBA was created from the Downtown
Business Association (DBA) to be representative of all of Leesburg. The Leesburg Renaissance program
has taken off so well and has become very strong that the LBA and the renaissance both are not
needed to represent the town. The renaissance should represent the town and the LBA should reveler
back to just downtown merchants.
Mrs. Heidi Malacarne, a resident of Country Club Subdivision, addressed the Council representing the
parents and children of the Leesburg United Methodist Preschool. She stated that there was
established parking drop-off and pick up for the school on Wirt Street. The parents have now been told
to park on Market Street. This creates a safety problem while unloading the children. There are only
six spaces and 74 children. She suggested that the police parking be moved to Market Street and the
preschool pick-up and drop-off resume on Wirt Street.
Ms. Linda Peters representing the parents of the Leesburg United Methodist Preschool, addressed the
Council. She expressed her support in moving the parking spaces back to Wirt Street.
Ms. Linda Reeder., a resident of Mt. Gilead, addressed the Council as a parent of the Leesburg United
Methodist Preschool. She expressed her concern with the dangerous parking situation on Market Street
while loading and unloading the preschoolers.
Ms. Valerie Jackson, representing the preschool, addressed the Council expressing her concern and the
danger with the situation.
Ms. Dana Arnest, representing the preschool, addressed the Council expressing her concern and the
danger with the situation.
Ms. Linda Rothermel, Director of the Leesburg United Methodist Preschool, addressed the Council. She
wished to echo all of the concerns of the former speakers. She also reported that the parking situation
is a concern of the preschool board, in that, the parents that are considering registering at the preschool
next year may reconsider because of the parking situation.
Mr. Brown stated that the police need to be close by to respond to any emergency. He stated that staff
will look at the situation and agreed that a solution is needed right away. Mayor Sevila recommended
that the Chief of Police, Steve Brown and Mrs. Rothermel get together to resolve this issue and report
back to Council on February 5.
Mr. Kimball suggested having a police officer assist with the traffic control, during the hours of pick-
up and drop-off, on Market Street until this situation is resolved.
11. (a)
MOTION
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Ms. Bange, item ll(a) was considered at this time.
VOTE
Nay:
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
MOTION
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously
adopted.
91-15 - RESOLUTION - TO AUTHORIZE FUNDING OF LEESBURG RENAISSANCE PROGRAMS
AND TO ENDORSE THE ACTION OF THE LEESBURG RENAISSANCE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS TO ESTABLISH LEESBURG RENAISSANCE AS AN INDEPENDENT
CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Town Council on June 27, 1990, adopted Resolution No. 90-160,
which established conditions for funding the Leesburg Business Association's Leesburg Renaissance
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors has selected an executive director,
conducted the Leesburg Alive promotional program on Friday night's and solicited 58 members as of
January 16, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors requests Council to authorize their
long and short-term objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors voted on January 16, 1991, to seek
Council approval to establish Leesburg Renaissance as an independent organization with the same
conditions as outlined in the June 27, 1990, Council resolution in order to increase the efficiency of the
organization; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board pledges to continue to work closely with the town-
wide business community and the organizations representing local businesses to promote Leesburg
through advertisement, special events and other programs.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The Council hereby endorses the action of the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors to
increase their efficiency and effectiveness by establishing Leesburg Renaissance as an independent
corporation.
DISCUSSION
Mrs. Forester stated that the proposed legislation does not state how much funding the Council is
authorizing, what the Council is authorizing the funding for and it does not mention any matching
funds.
Mayor Sevila stated that the Council did pledge a certain amount of funding provided that certain
conditions were met. He asked that Leesburg Renaissance provide the Council with a report, on
February 5, showing that the conditions are being met.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Minutes of January 22, 1991
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. a. Joint public hearing to consider an amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance
regarding signs for gasoline stations
Planning Commission Chairman Mervin Jackson, addressed the Council stating that the following
Planning Commission members were present for the joint public hearing:. Councilmanic representative
Christine Forester, Mr. Williams, Mr. Vaughan and himself. He stated that the Planning Commission
has a motion to forward to the Council after the public heating if there is no negative comment.
Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson, addressed the Council presenting the staff report. He stated that
this item was initiated on December 12, 1990. The purpose is to provide greater flexibility for gasoline
stations, within the Town of Leesburg, to have signage that would address the needs. One major
change is that the signage itself would be limited to the single logo and single name of the service
station. The size is also limited to fifty square feet.
The Planning Commission convened outside the room. Further consideration on this item was deferred
until the Planning Commission's report.
6. b. To consider Rezoning Application #ZM-125 and Special Exception Application #SE-
90-05 by Hillcrest Joint Venture
Planner Peter Stephenson, addressed the Council presenting the staff report. He stated that the
rezoning request is from R-4 Single-family residential to RI-ID. The property is located in the H-1
Historic District Overlay. The neighborhood consists of large lots, single-family residences. The
Hillcrest property includes a large residence which is on the National Register of Historic Places and
four out-buildings. The Town Plan designates this parcel for low density residential development. The
rezoning request for RHD as well as the special exception approval is designed to provide an alternative
use for the residence. The intention, by special exception, is to allow a bed and breakfast use.
Planning Director Kat Imhoff, stated that staff received proffers at 5:00 p.m., this afternoon. Town staff
nor legal staff has had an opportunity to analyze them. It appears that some of the concerns may
have been addressed by the revised proffers. The revised proffers now exclude duplex development and
also excludes all residential and community services except for recreational projects. With regard to
the special exception, the proffers state that they would exclude the ability to have townhouse, single-
family attached dwellings. They would like to retain some type of special exception use for cluster
development.
Peter Stephenson stated that the special exception application is for the adaptive reuse of Hillcrest as
a bed and breakfast inn. The specific criteria, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, regarding bed and
breakfast inns as a special exception, have been met. There were concerns raised by the Planning
Commission regarding access to the property and intensity of the use proposed. The bed and breakfast
will accommodate five rooms and the applicant is proposing the possibility of seminars or business
meetings with attendance not to exceed 30 people, maximum five meetings a week. Thirty special
events per year with attendance limited to a maximum of 150 people. Regarding parking, the applicant
was asked to demonstrate that sight distance would be met. There is also quite a bit of parking that
is also required - a total of 44 spaces. The applicant has shown the possibility of 12 spaces on site and
satisfying the balance of the parking requirement with off-site parking. It is a concern of the neighbors
that uses be limited and also parking on the site. The conversion of the residence to a bed and
breakfast inn and meeting facility does follow historic practices as far as preservation of homes requiring
minimum changes to the building.
The Council may recommend conditions relative to this special exception request. For example, staff
would recommend that on-site parking and paving be limited as proposed by the applicant and that
special events may be limited to fewer then proposed. We suggest 2 a month - 24 a year.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 6, 1991. On January 10, 1991, the
Planning Commission recommended denial of both applications for the reasons that the potential bi-
right development in the RHD district were not amenable and not appropriate given the surrounding
neighborhood. And being inconsistent with the Town Plan which designates the property for low
density residential development. The Planning Commission felt that the applicant had not demonstrated
that further reasonable use of the property could be achieved under the existing zoning and that the
bed and breakfast use with the ancillary, executive meetings and special events as defined by the
applicant would be disruptive to the neighborhood given the intensity and frequency proposed. The
applicant did state their appreciation and their desire to work with Council on these items.
There has been a Zoning Administrator interpretation appeal as part of the bed and breakfast definition.
On February 11, the Board of Zoning Appeals will consider this interpretation, therefore, no Council
action should be taken on the special exception for the bed and breakfast until after the BZA's decision.
Staff would propose following the public hearing this evening that we report back to the Planning and
Zoning Committee meeting of February 19.
Mrs. Forester, on behalf of the Planning Commission, stated that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of item 10.(a) by a vote of 4-0.
MOTION
Minutes of January 22, 1991
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, action on lO.(a) is deferred until the legislation
portion of the agenda.
VOTE
Aye.'
Nay:
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
Mr. Eric Zimmerman, representing the applicant of Hillcrest, addressed the Council. He stated that
the staff report is very comprehensive. "We listened to what the residents and Planning Commission
said. We have hopefully answered those questions and have narrowed them down to basically three
issues, parking, density and intensity of the use. We are endeavoring to locate offsite facilities where
parking can occur, arrange for bus service to and from the site in order to provide the parking that is
necessary. The density issue has been addressed in the proffers. We are proffering out townhouses
and duplexes. With regard to the intensity of the use, we are proposing an explanation of what we
would interpret this type of rezoning and special exception to mean. Frequency with the bed and
breakfast would be on a daily basis. There is the possibility that on the third floor there are three
additional rooms that could conceivably be used in the future. Hours of operation would be 24 hours
and parking on-site. With regard to the executive meetings, our proposal is that these meetings would
be during weekdays only. We are not anticipating doing them on the weekends. The numbers of
persons would not exceed 30. Hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Parking
would be provided on-site. Special events cause a little more concern for the community and we
recognize that and want to be responsive to that concern. There would be no more then 30 special
events per year and not more then one per weekend. Maximum number of person would be 150.
Hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m. until midnight with the exception of Sunday with hours of 1:00
p.m. until 9:00 p.m. We will have a landscaping plan to maintain substantial landscaping along the
eastern edge of the property as a buffer to that property owner. With regard to noise, any outside
amplification of music would be restricted."
Mr. Zimmerman then read an excerpt from the 1986 Town Plan regarding the use of historic resources
in this town. "The town should support the efforts of private individuals, businesses and historic groups
in preserving and maintaining historic sites and structures and adaptive reuse of historic structures
should be encouraged when compatible with the historic character of the structure and the existing
character of the surrounding area."
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Zimmerman if the applicant was making the proffer statement contingent upon
approval of the special exception and rezoning? Mr. Zimmerman stated yes. Mayor Sevila stated that
if the Council imposes a single condition then arguable we haven't approved or acted on the application
as submitted and arguable the proffer statement is null and void as it states on its face. Mr.
Zimmerman stated that he hoped that the Mayor's concern would not be an issue when it comes to
a vote. Mayor Sevila asked that the town's legal staff review this and report back to the Council with
a recommendation.
Mr. Tom Jewell, one of the owners of Hillcrest, addressed the Council. He stated that next month will
be four years since the contract was put on Hillcrest and he started working with town staff on an
adaptive reuse of the property. "We have found ourselves in a legal and bureaucratic nightmare. We
have gone through a change in the Zoning Ordinance and have seen the property rezoned from one
category to another. We hope for a positive resolution. Immediately after purchasing the property we
began the process of placing it on the Virginia National Register. We recognize the fact that it is the
most distinctive turn of the century dwelling in Loudoun County. We knew there was a need in
Leesburg for more bed and breakfast rooms and meeting facilities not of the motel type. We have
attempted to make certain that whatever we did was appropriate to the general character of the area.
We were not well received when we came before the town to have the property placed in the H-1
district. However, within a year the rest of the neighbors, including those who opposed us, applied to
have their properties included in the H-I. The only reason for this application is for a bed and
breakfast inn combination meeting facility."
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Jewell to summarize, over the past four years, what some of the uses have
been, the frequency of those uses and the size of the attendees. Mr. Jewell stated that Hillcrest has
had up to 300 people on site including parking. Everything that we have done, so far, has been on site.
Mrs. Judy Ferguson, a resident of Leesburg, addressed the Council on behalf of Muncey Fergnson a
regional advertising agency. Wqe specialize in regional and national advertisers who tend to have fairly
large budgets and demands. We have very small meeting facilities and as a company we make use of
Hillcrest for some off site meetings with clients. It would be an advantage that we don't have in
Leesburg other then the motels with the standard level of meeting facilities. Maintaining the historic
flavor of the home is also very important. We should encourage people who want to maintain the
historic atmosphere within Leesburg. Our business strongly supports the Hillcrest application.
Mrs. Ferguson stated that she is also representing the Bluemont Concert Series, on behalf of Peter
Dunning. She read the following letter:
This letter is written in reference to the Hillcrest property on West Market Street owned by Mr.
Thomas Jewell and Mr. Kevin Goehler. Many organizations have reason to be greatful to Mr. Jewell
and Mr Goehler for kindly allowing them to use Hillcrest for a variety of cultural and community
events. Tom Jewell who has served on the Board of the Bluemont Concert Series for the past five
Minutes of January 22, 1991
years is one of the most energetic and philanthropic business men in Loudoun County. His generosity
and commitment to the people to the community work is known throughout the county. He has been
a genuine friend in deed to countless organizations throughout Loudoun County. Mr. Jewell has helped
Bluemont expand its business and artist education program which last year served more then 90
schools in our community, our outreach program which brings benefit programs to local nursing homes,
hospitals and senior centers.
As to the Hillcrest property Bluemont held its first board meeting there in 1978 and will undoubtedly
continue to use it if it is still available for community use. Since 1978 we have been involved in
helping plan and present cultural events at Hillcrest including Mrs. Vinton Pickens' ninetieth birthday
celebration, the Springwood's Spring Gala and a business for Bluemont Benefit.
We are greatful to Mr. Jewell and Mr. Goehler for allowing us to use I-Iillcrest over the years.
Ms. Sue Webb, 9A Catoctin Circle, S.W., addressed the Council. She stated, as a member of the
business community, there is a need in Leesburg to have a facility such as Hillcrest.
Mr. Peter Chopivsky, 306 West Market Street, addressed the Council. He stated that he has reviewed
the submitted proposals, the letters of support and protest. He has listened to verbal petitions at the
Planning Commission. He has heard concerns raised about subdivision into smaller lots and residential
units of the property and the negative effect that subdivision would have not only on the historic value
of Hillcrest but also the real value of the neighbors properties. Concern about the owner holding
special events without time limits creating potential for inappropriate and unacceptable levels of noise
and volumes of traffic in what is a family neighborhood. Concern about the problem of parking for
attendees of the special events to be held at I-Iillcrest. If the changes sought are granted what effects
will it have on the surrounding historic neighborhood? A neighborhood rich in beauty and timelessness.
A neighborhood who's current and inherent value and appeal to the Town of Leesburg was recognized
some time ago when it was included in the Old and Historic District. Implicit in the application has
always been the specter that if the zoning change and special exception is not granted Hillcrest will
somehow deteriorate or self destruct. What really would happen to Hillcrest if the status quo were
preserved? The reality is that sooner or later a buyer will be found for Hillcrest who will be sincerely
interested in preserving the inherent calm beauty and character of the building and surrounding
property. By granting the changes and exceptions requested we will not be preserving Hillcrest. In
deed it will radically change. As the Council considers the applicant's request remember and fulfill
what should be a greater obligation and responsibility to preserve Leesburg's Old and Historic District
and to maintain the single-family residential character of our neighborhood.
Mrs. Betty Poehlman, 18 Morven Park Road, N.W., addressed the Council. She stated that the
neighbors would be opposed to anything that suggests that there would be a decrease in lot size and
increase in density to below 10,000 square feet presently required in the R-4 district. She read the
following letter.
I am writing to oppose the rezoning and special exception applications for the Hillcrest property. As
proposed the rezoning would allow for high density, single and multi-unit development of the property.
This is not in keeping with the surrounding residential neighborhood and the Town Plan. This special
exception request for a bed and breakfast inn, meeting and special events facility is not a designated
special exception use as defined by RHD zoning and special exception usage. The meeting and special
events facility has been arbitrarily added to the designated special exception uses by the applicant and
is not justified by the Zoning Ordinance and Town Plan.
1. The property rezoned from R-4 to RHD. In order the achieve the owners request for conversion
of the Hillcrest property to a bed and breakfast inn is necessary to rezone the property to RHD. Under
their present zoning, R-4, a bed and breakfast is not allowable. However, once rezoned the owners also
require the right to further develop the property with decreased lot size and increased density. In
contrast R-4 zoning maintains a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and restricts development to
single-family detached dwellings. RI-ID allows for minimum lot sizes of 4,000 square feet and in
addition to single-family detached dwellings the right to duplexes. The applicant is fully aware of these
increased development rights but is unwilling to proffer to the level of the surrounding residential
neighborhood. This acquired bi-right development potential is not in accordance with the Town Plan
which designates all property west of Ayr Street for single-family residential usage. Furthermore, this
high density development right would not be in keeping with any of the surrounding properties in one
of the truly older and more gracious neighborhoods in Leesburg which consists all of single-family
dwellings on large private lots.
2. The special exception for use as a bed and breakfast inn, meeting and special events facility.
The applicants have in a singular manner expanded the list of special exception uses for RHD Section
3(f) 3, Subsection 2 from Bed and Breakfast Inn to Bed and Breakfast Inn Meeting and Special Events
Facility. This is not the town's Zoning Ordinance definition of a bed and breakfast inn. The ordinance
reads that a bed and breakfast inn is a private residence in which lodging and food are provided by the
owner or operator for profit to one or more non-resident guest. Bed and breakfast should not include
more then eight guest rooms. The owner or operator shall be a resident of the inn. The zoning
interpretation of this additional usage was made by Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson, stating an
opinion in favor of the extended usage. Mr. Johnson, however, used as his point of reference in the
interpretation as outlined in R-6 not the surrounding R-4 and he ignored the residential limitations
outlined for R-4 by the Town Plan. His opinion is under appeal and will be heard by the Board of
Zoning Appeals on the llth of February.
Minutes of January 22, 1991
3. Further development density of special exception uses of RHD. In their request the applicants
have further asked for a special exception that the property may be eligible for any special exception
uses listed in Section 3(fl 3. Additional uses listed in 3(0 3 besides bed and breakfast are dwelling
accessory, dwelling single-family attached townhouse. The applicant would, if the request for special
exception is granted, now receive the right to even further development density. Single-family attached
townhouses in RI-ID requires only 2000 square feet per unit. Thus allowing townhouses in the center
of a residential neighborhood. A very unattractive proposal.
In summary, I am not opposed to a bed and breakfast inn as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. But
this is not what the applicant is requesting. The applicant under the guise of a bed and breakfast is
actually requesting the right to run a commercial entertainment center in the heart of a residential
neighborhood. A center that could be used 30 times per year representing the equivalent of every
weekday from May through August and would allow for traffic, noise and confusion of 150 people per
event with no restriction on hours. Furthermore the applicants if granted the rezoning and special
exception as written would acquire the right to high density development for their property. Specifically
townhouses on 2000, duplexes on 3000 or single-family dwellings on 4000 square feet. All in the
center of a residential neighborhood R-4 which has 10,000 square feet as its minimum lot.
You should be aware that this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission and denied
unanimously on the 10th and I ask that you likewise deny this application for the same reasons. We
are all in favor of preservation but preservation should not apply to a single dwelling but rather should
apply to an entire neighborhood. If this rezoning and exception are granted there will be a loss of a
whole neighborhood for the sole benefit of a single property owner. This would not represent
conscionable town leadership.
Mayor Sevila asked Mrs. Poehlman what the impacts are from some of the activities that have been
conducted at Hillcrest over the last four years. Mrs. Poehlman stated that with the exception of being
aware that events are taking place because of the disruption of the routine in the neighborhood, we are
not affected where we live. She expressed concern with the possibility of lighted tennis courts and
swimming pool. We are not impacted by traffic on Market Street although if off-site parking is
necessary some of it may spill over to Morven Park Road.
Mrs. Poehlman referenced a letter written by Mr. Donald Shea, a resident of Market Street, which
states that he is in opposition to the rezoning and special exception application.
The letter reads:
We believe your approval of this application would be counter to the residential character of the
neighborhood adjacent to the applicant's property and would place the singular interest of one property
owner above that of his neighbor. The operative Town Plan designates all property West of Ayr Street
as single-family residential usage. This application if granted would allow the establishment of a
commercial enterprise in the midst of an established single-family residential neighborhood while
concurrently granting authority for greater density usage of this property then envisioned in the
aforesaid Town Plan. The impact upon current properties would be devastating and limited of any
beneficial value to the town. While a bed and breakfast inn properly administered with the owner
residing on the premises comport with the letter and spirit of the Town Plan this application does not
limit itself to that singular use. This is what causes me considerable concern. The possibility of higher
density development, increased traffic, noise and other features associated with a special events facility
are not in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the Town Plan or the surrounding properties.
We would not oppose the applicant's request if it were specifically limited to the operation of a bed and
breakfast as defined under RHD Section 3(fl3 Subsection 2. However, the applicant's request must be
interpreted to go well behind the specific intent to include the probability of a conference center,
meetings and special events and increased development. This would drastically alter the character of
the town west of Ayr Street. We would remind you that the Planning Commission unanimously denied
this application similarly we ask you to deny it as well.
Donald B. Shea and Victoria L. Shea.
Mr. Mike Banzhaf, a resident of 102 Morven Park Road, addressed the Council on behalf of Mr. Mike
Clemmer a resident of Route I Box 72 Paeonian Springs. Mr. Clemmer owns property that abuts
the Hillcrest property. Mr. Banzhaf read the following letter written by Mr. Clemmer who was unable
to attend tonight's meeting.
Relative to Rezoning #ZM-125 and concurrent #SE90-05. I am the owner of the property located at
14 Morven Park Road together with other contiguous property owners we are likely to be the most
adversely affected by approval of the cited applications. My property abuts the back of the Hillcrest
property. This is the area most subject to special exception development if the rezoning application is
approved. The rear entrance to my house is within 30 feet of the common property line. Any potential
development of the current open-space behind Hillcrest to support either a bed and breakfast inn and
conference center or what would become a possibility if a rezoning application were approved the
construction of townhouses would have a direct and adverse affect on my property. At the current time
the Hillcrest property is occasionally used for open houses and various social functions. The impact
of multiple cars being parked behind the mansion house and directly adjacent to my property has
created significant noise and disruptions to the usual tranquil nature of the open setting. To allow
greater and more frequent use of this area under the requested special exception would place my home
Minutes of January 22, 1991
adjacent to a parking lot subject to slamming of car doors, exhaust fumes, horns honking, etc. On
several occasions trash has been deposited on my property evidently by individuals attending functions
at Hillcrest. While the incidents have not been frequent they have been annoyance. Increased use of
this property would surely increase this problem. To approve without appropriate safeguard a bed and
breakfast inn conference facility would most likely lead to the construction of various amenities at the
rear of the property. Such amenities as a swimming pool, tennis court and public facilities would
increase the use of this area during both daylight and evening hours. Installation of lights, increased
noise at all hours and a general disruption of the peaceful setting of single-family homes would surely
occur. It is my understanding that if a rezoning application is approved from an R-4 to RI-ID a
subsequent special exception could be sought to allow the construction of townhouses on the back
portion of this property. While I applaud the efforts being pursued to define some proper and
acceptable use of this historic property I do oppose the approval of this pending rezoning application
since it would permit the current and future owners to seek special zoning exceptions that are not
available or desired by the adjacent property owners. A situation that would have an adverse affect on
the tranquility of our homes. ! ask that the Leesburg Town Council accept the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and deny this application as submitted. To allow the Planning Commission to
work with the current applicants to find a way to resubmit an application that offers the necessary,
protection to the adjacent property owners relative to the potential development of this prope~y.
Leesburg is a wonderful family environment and the historic district is a national treasure. We cannot
let it be lost. It must be protected.
Sincerely,
R. Michael Clemmer
Mr. Banzhafs letter of appeal is attached and made a part of the official record. He stated that the
application is inconsistent with the Town Plan. The Town Plan calls for low density residential uses
west of Ayr Street. The application is more like multi-family density or commercial use. It is spot
zoning. Spot zoning, in this situation, is a commercial use in an otherwise residential neighborhood.
It is not saved by the adaptive re-use language in the Town Plan. That language says that it is a great
idea to preserve something that is going to be a historic property and a benefit to the community. It
goes on to say that the adaptive re-use must take into account the surrounding properties, traffic
generated, noise, glare, etc. This is a concern to those residences that abut the Hillcrest prope~,. The
increased density permitted in the RHD zone is inconsistent with the surrounding properties. In
response to the concerns about clustering and increased uses, the applicant has responded by stating
he will not change that and not proffer those uses out. The applicant states that he wants to retain
the opportunity to duster which is not permitted in the RHD zone. The traffic generated from the
special exception - the Town Plan states you have to take cognisance even if your doing an adaptive
re-use. The applicant has had a vail threat saying if you don't like my off-site parking proposal I'll just
park all the cars on-site. According to the town's parking regulations - off-site parking must have
pedestrian access available within 500 feet for non-residential use and 300 feet for residential uses
measured from the nearest entrance to the building to the nearest point of the parking area. With
respect to how many cars can be put on-site, the ordinance states that if you have an existing driveway
in the H-1 overlay district you can only park so many cars if you only have one entrance. If you have
two entrances you can park more cars. If you have a single access you can only park ten cars. The
applicant is proposing 13 cars.
Mr. Fred Williams, a resident of 21 Wirt Street, N.W., addressed the Council stating that he is speaking
as a citizen not as a member of the Leesburg Planning Commission. He stated that he was speaking
against Hillcrest. He has problems with the application, both from a conceptual overall point of view
as well as for some specific elements. From the zoning and planning concept, Leesburg has never
created a single, small lot zone of more intense usage. Where you have taken a type of zoning that was
more intense then everything else around it and put it down on one single lot. The rezoning that has
been requested which would create a commercial meeting center in the middle of a stable residential
neighborhood is not good planning. The Zoning Ordinance specifically excluded bed and breakfast inns
from the R-4 zone. This application is trying to go around what the town's stated policy is. The
special exception provision provides that the town can place any restrictions that they want to on the
property. The applicant has said that they would have daily meetings of up to 30 people a day and
anything above that would be called a special exception. When the applicant was asked how this would
be enforced, his answer was simply trust me. If I go over 30 I will tell you. You may be able to trust
the current applicant but the problem is that the property is for sale. You cannot allow a condition
to be placed on the property and on the use simply as the enforcement mechanism "trust me" this will
lead to problems. Another concern is the effect of creeping commercialism. Commercialization of
residential areas. Once you get commercialization into a residential neighborhood it tends to act as a
wedge and this is why we don't take single zones and put them into residential neighborhoods.
Hillcrest is a grand house and it is not a valid reason for rezoning to look at the expensive upkeep of
a house. This is a stable residential neighborhood.
Mrs. Patricia Friedman a resident of Mosby Drive, addressed the Council. "The owners, tonight, have
addressed parking, density and frequency of usage. Identification of the special functions is a concern.
What are the activities that will be occurring during these events? If an owner of a building receives
a rezoning he has an intent to change the usage of the structure and an intent to increase the
occupancy load and that fact invokes a portion of the Virginia Code. The citizen would go to Loudoun
County to obtain a form. On that form he would have to declare very specifically what he intends to
do, what functions he intends to have occurring in that structure. This is invoking that system of
building classification. The state of Virginia provides a very specific definition of functions that are
Minutes of January 22, 1991
going on in buildings. In delineating these classifications that will be assigned to buildings there is a
feature that says if three things are occurring within a building, music, alcohol and space for dancing,
this is defined as an A2-night club. Therefore, when you get into those usages of buildings and you
have the lack of clarity of usage, we would like to know what would be occurring. Many of the citizens
would say that this is an improper function of a building that is in the heart of a family residential
neighborhood."
Regarding the parking, staff made a suggestion to the owner that the owner enter into a contract to
put all excess parking into a parking lot of a nearby church. This is introducing a parking lot on a
much more frequent basis then what the neighbors are experiencing now.
Mr. Julian Shrink, treasurer of the Waterford Foundation, addressed the Council on behalf of Catherine
Ladd, Executive Director, in support of the application. The Waterford Foundation has had some
experience in adaptive re-use dealing with both commercial and private interests in a small area. There
are three bed and breakfast inns in the Waterford village. Adaptive use is a commonly used tool to
permit preservation of historic properties to bring them into the modern world on an economically
viable basis. We have had a good deal of success living with the basic conflict that has been presented
tonight. We have addressed all of these problems and there is a resolution to them.
Mayor Sevila closed the public hearing stating that the record would be kept open until February 19,
1992, to receive additional written comment concerning the public hearing.
Mr. Lovin stated that he received 7 phone calls and letters regarding this application. He was a
resident of Hillcrest from June 1989 until October 1989. Several people have asked him to abstain from
voting on this issue citing a conflict of interest with leasing the property as a resident. He does not
find it to be a conflict of interest and will vote on the issue.
Mayor Sevila read the following letter written by Mrs. Steven Hawk Adams a resident of 711 Anne
Street:
As an adjoining property owner I have some concerns. When I first heard about this rezoning it was
my understanding that the house would be used for a bed and breakfast. I thought those plans were
fine. But now it is my understanding that the RHD rezoning could allow increased density up to one
house per 2000 square feet. I am opposed to that. My concerns are heightened because the property
has not proffered out the high density uses. The traffic impact that a commercial conference facility
in a residential area concerns me. It seems to me that if this commercial zoning were to be approved
we would have spot zoning.
Ethel L. Adams
Mayor Sevila assured the public that the Council would give full consideration of the concerns raised
by the citizens.
MOTION
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, this matter was referred to the February 19, 1991
Planning and Zoning Committee meeting for further discussion and consideration.
VOTE
Aye'
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Sevila read the following proclamation:
JAYCEE WEEK
WHEREAS, the Greater Leesburg Jaycees has become a vital part of the development of young
leaders for our community; and
WHEREAS, the Greater Leesburg Jaycees has contributed to the betterment of the community
through involvement in such programs as "Santa at Market Station", "Bellwood Commons Santa", Cup
of Cheer" and the "Loudoun County Animal Program Trust Fund"; and
WHEREAS, the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce and its affiliated state and local
organization in 1920:
THEREFORE, I, Robert E. Sevila, the Mayor of the Town of Leesburg, proclaim the week of
January 20 to 26, 1991 as JAYCEE WEEK and urge all citizens of our community to give full regard
to the past and continuing service of the Greater Leesburg Jaycees.
Mayor Sevila announced that this was Ms. Imhoff's last Council meeting. He stated, on behalf of the
town, Ms. Imhoff has served the town professionally and courageously. Ms. Imhoff was the planning
director charged with completing the draft Zoning Ordinance and getting it through the process. The
Minutes of January 22, 1991
Council and town owe Ms. Imhoff a debt of gratitude and wish her well as she takes on her new job.
MANAGER'S REPORT
Mr. Brown noted that the Council did receive a copy of the written Activity Report.
He expressed his appreciation for Ms. Imhoffs tenure with the town and wished her luck in the future.
LEGISLATION
10. (b)
MOTION
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following ordinance and resolutions were proposed
as consent items and unanimously adopted.
91-0-8 - ORDINANCE - REAl)OPTING SECTION 10-97 OF THE TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN
CODE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 18.2-266 et. Seq. OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, a recent ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court requires the town to annually update
its local ordinance on Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that the town continues to collect revenue from the fines issued under
this ordinance, Section 10-97 of the Town Code must be readopted.
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
Sec. 10-97. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; adoption of current state
law.
Article 2, Chapter 7, of Title 18.2, Sections 18.2-266 et seq., of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, is hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as fully as thought set out herein, and
specifically, but not exclusively, Sections 18.2-266; 18.2-267; 18.2-268; 18.2-269 and 18.2-271.1 of the said
Code of Virginia.
91-16 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE OPERATIONS
OF SHENANIGANS IRISH PUB UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL MEALS TAXES DUE
TO THE TOWN ARE PAID
WHEREAS, Cavalier Investments Inc. trading as Shenanigans Irish Pub is delinquent in
payment of meals taxes to the Town of Leesburg for quarters ending March 30, 1990, June 30, 1990
and September 30, 1990 for the estimated amount of $3,067.81; and
WHEREAS, other normal legal channels have proven to be unsuccessful in an attempt to collect
these taxes:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia that the
Director of Finance and Deputy Town Attorney, are authorized to file a suit in the name of the Town
of Leesburg pursuant to Sections 58.1-3953 and 58.1-3954 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended to
enforce the collection of the said taxes by obtaining an injunction prohibiting the defendant, its agents
or employees from conduct of its business, as a restaurant, until such time as all past due meals tax
liabilities are satisfied.
91-17 RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR A PICNIC SHELTER AND
PLAYGROUND AT IDA LEE PARK
WHEREAS, in December 1990, Mr. William F. Rust donated $50,000 to the Town of Leesburg
for the development of a picnic shelter and playground at Ida Lee Park; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Rust requested that the construction of these facilities be completed as soon
as possible; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission desire to construct the facilities in fiscal year 1991:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
Appropriations are authorized to the following Capital Project Fund Accounts:
900-9007-700-010
900-9007-700-020
Construction $30,000
Equipment $20,000
91-18 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AMENDMENTS FOR AQUATIC AND RECREATION CLASS
BUDGETS AND AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE AQUATIC CLASS BUDGET
Minutes of January 22, 1991
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg Parks and Recreation Department offers aquatic, recreation,
sports, special events, and special services/projects programs funded from collected user fees; and
WHEREAS, program instructors have to date been paid on a contractual basis; and
WHEREAS, Internal Revenue Service regulations require that these instructors are to be paid
as regular town employees; and
WHEREAS, aquatic class revenues and expenditures have exceeded estimates requiring
additional revenue and expenditure appropriations:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. Aquatic class reimbursable budget is amended to include Part-time Salaries, FICA
and Worker's Compensation line items and appropriations of $40,000 to the aquatic class budget and
revenue account are hereby authorized to the general fund budget for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1991.
Aquatic Classes
Description Amount General Fund Account
Revenue: $40,000 200-2403-030-000
Expenditures:
Part-time Salaries $30,000
FICA $ 2,295
Worker's Compensation $ 675
Contractual Services $5,925
Materials and Supplies $1,105
Equipment No change
SECTION II. Recreation class
FICA and Worker's Compensation line
Description
Expenditures:
Part-time Salaries
FICA
Workman's Compensation
Contractual Services
Materials and Supplies
Equipment
200-7109-100-030
200-7109-200-011
200-7109-200-110
200-7109-300-010
200-7109-540-010
200-7109-700-010
reimbursable budget is amended to include Part-time Salaries,
items.
Recreation Classes
Amount
General Fund Account
$5,550 200-7111-100-030
$ 425 200-7111-200-010
$ 125 200-7111-200-110
($4,125) 200-7111-300-010
($1,975) 200-7111-540-010
No change 200-7111-700-010
91-19 - RESOLUTION - COMMENTING ON THE VIRGINIA TOLL ROAD PRELIMINARY PLANS
AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE
STAFF REVIEW ON FURTHER PLAN SUBMISSION
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg remains in strong support of the Dulles Toll Road Extension
from Route 28 to Dulles Airport to the Town of Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, town staff has reviewed the preliminaw plans and final environmental report
within the town; and
WHEREAS, consistent with previous policy, staff comments to date have been reviewed and
endorsed by the Town Council prior to distribution; and
WHEREAS, in the future, plan review will be subject only to administrative staff review so that
the agreed to 45 day initial review and 30 day review commitments can be met.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The Leesburg Town Council hereby endorses the attached Dulles Toll Road
Extension staff review comments, dated January 11, 1991, on the project's preliminary plans and final
environmental report.
SECTION II. Further Dulles Toll Road Extension detailed engineering and design plans will
be subject only to administrative staff review.
91-20 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE SPRING CONFERENCE
Minutes of January 22, 1991
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg is committed to historic preservation and proudly promotes
its Old and Historic neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Town provides an example for other jurisdictions similarly concerned with
retaining their historic character and sense of place; and
WHEREAS, the Preservation Alliance of Virginia is a non-profit statewide consortium of 135
local and regional preservation and conservation organizations, including the Town of Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, the Alliance has honored the town by choosing Leesburg as the site of its Twelfth
Annual Conference scheduled for April 5 and 6, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Loudoun Restoration and Preservation Society will be a co-sponsor for this
conference along with the State Department of Historic Resources and participation in this annual event
is expected from across the State:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia, as follows:
The Town of Leesburg hereby heartily welcomes the Preservation Alliance of Virginia, and in
support of this annual conference the Council authorizes the use of the new municipal building
conference rooms for meetings to be held on Friday, April 5th and Saturday, April 6th.
91-21 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION
11-81 "REGULATIONS FOR USE OF PARKS" OF THE TOWN CODE
WHEREAS, the opening of Ida Lee Park, existing, and future parks will increase citizen
participation in public area~ and
WHEREAS, Town Council desires to maintain the security and promote the health, safety and
general welfare of ail persons within these public areas; and
WHEREAS, Town Council also desires to increase protection of public properties; and
WHEREAS, the existing Article V, Section 11-81 Regulations for Use of Parks of the Town Code
needs further definition:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
A notice of public hearing to consider amending this section of the Town Code shall be
published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on January 23, and January 30, 1991, for a public hearing on
February 12, 1991 at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg.
91-22 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING APPLICATION #ZM-
124 BROWNELL, INC.
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
A notice of public hearing to consider rezoning application #ZM-124 by Brownell, Inc., shall be
published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on February 6, 1991 and February 13, 1991 for public hearing
on February 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m., in the lower level Council Committee meeting room, 25 West
Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia.
91-23 RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING PLAN
AMENDMENT, SIGN PACKAGE, EXETER PRN #ZM-126
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
A notice of public heating to consider rezoning plan amendment application, Exeter PRN, #ZM-
126 shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror. The notice shall be published on January 23,
1991 and January 30, 1991 for the public hearing on February 12, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the lower level
meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia.
VOTE
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
10. (a)
Ms. Imhoff stated that this is a section of the Zoning Ordinance that was not updated when the rest
of the Zoning Ordinance was updated. An old definition is being used. The previous Zoning Ordinance
used gasoline stations and automobile gasoline stations. Now they are referred in the Zoning Ordinance
as service stations.
MOTION
Minutes of January 22, 1991
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, the following ordinance was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
91-0-7 ORDINANCE - APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEESBURG ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTION 10A-14 (5) REGARDING SIGNS FOR GASOLINE STATIONS
WHEREAS, on January 22, 1991 the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia during a
Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance Section 10A-14 (5) regarding signs for gasoline stations; and
and
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions are narrow in scope and applicable to only gasoline stations;
WHEREAS, these amendments will promote greater visibility for gasoline stations without an
appreciable impact on the existing sign regulations:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. An amendment to Section 10A-14(5) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby
approved which will delete the current text in its entirety and replace as shown below:
; ..... +~ .... ;-+~r-v~a~+ ^? +~ monu:r, cnt $;~..~.. mn~
aro
10A-14(5)
Signs for Gasoline Stations. Automobile gasoline stations may erect signs as
follows:
a_. Maximum Number of Signs. Three.
Types of Signs Permitted. Wall, ground mounted (Monument
Style), awning, canopy or marquee.
c_. Maximum Size of Signs:
Wall and Marquee. Same as individual businesses
(Section 10A-14(2).
Ground mounted (Monument Style). Same as for
individual businesses (Section 10A-14(2), but may
include within the allowable square footage a provision
for changeable fuel price sign. The location of the
ground mounted (Monument Style) sign must be
demonstrated as not interfering with entrance sight
distances.
Canopy or Awning. One square foot per linear foot of
the canopy or awning, with signage comprising a single
reference to the name of the gasoline station and/or
identification logo, up to a maximum of fifty square feet
of signage per side of canopy.
Gas Pump Signs. Each gas pump shall be permitted a
total of two square foot of sign area to identify the
product dispensed.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
10. (c)
Minutes of January 22, 1991
MOTION
On motion of Mr. Webb, seconded by Ms. Bange, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
91-24 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1991
WHEREAS, the town recently concluded operations for the second quarter of fiscal year 1991;
and
WHEREAS, an evaluation of the town's financial performance has been made in a
memorandum to Council dated January 14, 1991, for the conclusion of the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, due to the present economic climate facing Leesburg today as well as a
continuance of this economic condition into the future, it is recommended that the General Fund
budget be amended to incorporate changes identified in the attached Fund Balance Projection; and
WHEREAS, Council will continue to review the town's budget on a monthly basis:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The budget for the General Fund is hereby amended to provide for the elimination of the
amounts identified on the attached Fund Balance Projection.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
10. (e)
MOTION
On motion of Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted.
91-25 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE OPERATIONS
OF ELECTRIC VENTURES, INC. T/A EASY STREET UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL
MEALS TAXES DUE TO THE TOWN ARE PAID
WHEREAS, Electric Ventures, Inc. trading as Easy Street is delinquent in payment of meals
taxes to the Town of Leesburg for quarters ending March 30, 1990, June 30, 1990 and September 30,
1990 for the estimated amount of $6,024.67; and
WHEREAS, other normal legal channels have proven to be unsuccessful in an attempt to
collect these taxes:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia that the
Director of Finance and Deputy Town Attorney, are authorized to file a suit in the name of the Town
of Leesburg pursuant to Sections 58.1-3953 and 58.1-3954 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended to
enforce the collection of the said taxes by obtaining an injunction prohibiting the defendant, its agents
or employees from conduct of its business, as a restaurant, until such time as all past due meals tax
liabilities are satisfied.
Mayor Sevila stated that his law firm has done some work for Electric Ventures, Inc., and may be
currently representing them. Because of that it would be a conflict of interest for the Mayor to vote
in favor of this resolution. Therefore, Mayor Sevila will refrain from participating in the vote.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin and Webb
Nay: None
Abstain: Mayor Sevila
lO.
Ms. Imhoff addressed the Council briefly summarizing the proposed resolution.
MOTION
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Kimball, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
91-26 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AND REFERRING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 11,
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGULATIONS OF THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE
Minutes of January 22, 1991
WHEREAS, since the adoption of the special exception regulations were approved in April
1990, the town has accepted eight applications and of those, four have been filed jointly with rezoning
applications; and
WHEREAS, in the instance of these joint applications, the rezoning application process has
been abbreviated to meet the requirements of the special exception process; and
WHEREAS, past experience in handling concurrent applications have shown that it would be
beneficial to the review process to allow the special exception application and the rezoning process to
proceed under the same time frames:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. An amendment to Article 11. Special Exceptions of the Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance by inserting a new section to Section 11-A-4(9) as shown below, is hereby received and
referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11, Title
15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
Section 1 LA-4. APPLICATION, REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Pre-Application Conference. Prior to fding an application for a special exception, the
applicant may confer with the Planning, Zoning and Development Department to discuss
the requirements of this Article and the nature of the special exception use proposed. For
the p~wposes of this conference the applicant may provide a sketch plan of the proposed use
drawn to scale, showing the general layout of the special use and its relationship to the
surrounding ares.
(2)
Who May A~olv. An application for a special exception may be fried with the Planning,
Zoning and Development Department by a property owner, board or bureau of any
government or their agent, or other parties provided by law.
(3)
Submission Requirements. All applications for special exception uses shall be accompanied
by the following items:
An application on a form provided by the town, completed and signed by the
applicant and owner of the property.
Written statement with supporting evidence cegaL'd;~g com[,liance with l.h~.. General
Review Criteria and Specific Review Criteria, if applicable.
Disclosure statement, on forms provided by the town which lists the names and
addresses of all "real parties in interest" in the property.
do
Fi/teen copies of a concept plan, drawn to a scale of i inch = 100 feet, or a scale
agreed to by the town, containing the following information:
1. Boundaries of the entire property.
2. Total area of the property in square feet and acres.
3. Location of all existing and proposed structures, (including, but not limited
to lighting, signs and buildings).
4. Location and distance of all off-site structures within fifty (50) feet of the
property, (including, but not limited to lighting, signs and buildings).
5. All required minimum yards and the distances of all existing and proposed
structures to the lot lines.
6. Public right(s)-of-way, indicating names, route numbers, and width.
7. Proposed means of ingress and egress to the property from a public street.
8. Parking spaces, existing and/or proposed, indicating minimum distance from
the nearest property line(s).
9. Where applicable, seating capacity, usable outdoor recreation area, emergency
access, fencing, limits of clearing, landscaping and screening, outside lighting,
loudspeakers, required and/or proposed improvements to public right(s)-of-
way.
10. Existing zoning designation and use of subject and adjacent properties.
Minutes of January 22, 1991
Written statement describing
information:
1.
2.
3.
the proposed use and providing the following
Type of operation(s).
Hours of operation.
Estimate of traffic impact of the proposed use, including the maximum
expected trip generation and the distribution of such trips by mode and
time of day based on current ITE Manual.
(4)
Request for Waivers or Modifications. Any submission requirements of this Article may
be waived by the Land Development Official. The applicant must clearly indicate by section
and paragraph numbers in the application, or in a letter attached to the application, which
modification or waiver is requested, together with the justification for review.
(5)
Planning, Zoning and Development Department Review. Upon receipt of the application,
the Land Development Official shall acknowledge acceptance or rejection of the application
within five (5) working days of submission and forward it to the Planning Commission and
all appropriate reviewing agencies.
(6)
Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission shall forward the
proposed special exception to the Council, together with its recommendation(s) and a
statement fully setting forth its reasons for such recommendation(s) prior to the Town
Council public hearing.
(7)
Public Hearing by Town Council. A public hearing by the Town Council shall be held
within ninety days of receipt of a complete application.
(8)
Town Council Action. The Town Council shall take action to approve, approve with
conditions or deny the application within sixty days after the public hearing.
(9)
Jointly Filed Applications. The review process set forth in Sections llA-5 through ll-
A(8) herein shall not aoolv to_. special exception, applications fried concurrently with a
rezoning application affecting the same parcel of land or fried while a rezoning is being
considered. Instead, jointly filed applications as described herein shall be considered
by the Planning Commission and Town Council concurrently in accordance with Section
15.1-493 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,. as .amended and Sections 13-A(8) through 13-
A(12) of this Zoning Ordinance.
(910)
Reapplication. No application for a special exception use which had been denied wholly or
in part by the Town Council shall be resubmitted until the expiration of one year or more
from the date of such denial, except on grounds of newly discovered evidence or proof of
changed conditions found to be sufficient by Town Council to justify consideration by the
Town Council.
(~011)
Amendment. An amendment is a request for any enlargement, expansion, increase in
intensity, or relocation of any previously approved and currently valid special exception use
or condition thereof. The application and review process for an amendment of a special
exception shall be the same as specified for the approval of the original exception. The Land
Development Official may waive any submission reqtfirement deemed not necessary for an
adequate review of the proposed amendment.
(-1-~:1_~) Termination. A special exception use shall be deemed terminated upon the occurrence of
any of the following conditions:
ao
Non-Use. If the special exception use approved by the Town Council has not
commenced within five years of the approval date, the approval shall become null
and void.
Cessation. If a special exception use should cease for any reason for a continuous
period of two years, the special exception use shall automatically terminate.
SECTION II. The Planning Commission shall reports its recommendation to the Town Council on
the proposed amendment pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 15.1-431 o~' the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended.
Minutes of January 22, 1991
DISCUSSION
Mayor Sevila stated that it makes good sense that the time limitations imposed by the ordinance now
apply to special exceptions that are jointly filed. It may also make sense to include within the waiver,
the time limitations on any special exceptions that are filed while a zoning application is pending on
a particular piece of property.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
MOTION
Mrs. Forester 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 convene in Executive Session. The authority for this executive session is
found in Section 2.1-344(a), Subsections (1) and (7) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The
purposes for this executive session are to discuss litigation pending styled as Mike's Madness versus
Thomas A. Mason and other and Georgelas and Sons, Inc., versus the Town of Leesburg and Howard
Savings Bank and AGLR II Corporation versus the County of Loudoun and the Town of Leesburg and
personnel issues related to the Town Manager selection process.
The acting Town Manager, Deputy Town Attorney and Special Counsel Bob Corish are requested to
remain for the meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Clem.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
MOTION
Mrs. Forester 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.
VOTE
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
MOTION
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Ms. Bange,the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
91-27 - RESOLUTION - CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF JANUARY 22, 1992
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.
VOTE
Aye:
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
MOTION
On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned.
Clerk of Council
Robert E. Sevila, Mayor