Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991_02_26MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1991 A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the lower level committee meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia on February 26, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Robert E. Sevila, with the invocation given by Councilmember Donald A. Kimball and the Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Claxton E. Lovin. 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: Acting Town Manager Steven C. Brown, Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason, Planners Peter Stephenson and Marilee Weir, Traffic Engineer Calvin Grow, Public Information Officer Susan Farmer and Clerk of Council Dorothy B. Rosen. PUBLIC HEARING to consider Rezoning Application #ZM-124 by Brownell, Inc. Marilee Weir, addressed the Council stating that Brownell Incorporated has requested to rezone 19.8 acres in the Paxton Subdivision from R-4 to R-6 in order to create 80 dwelling lots comprised of 52 single-family detached and 28 duplex lots, at an overall density of 4 units per acre. Paxton Sections I through 4 were rezoned without proffers in 1985. Section I is currently built and occupied. Sections 2 through 4 have final plat approval for forty single-family lots. Section 5 was rezoned with proffers in 1988 and currently has preliminary plat approval for 26 single-family units. The Town Plan recommends this property for low density residential development. The residential, development standards identify low density residential as densities of up to three dwelling units per acre. The Land Use Policy Map identifies densities of up to four units per acre for low density residential. The Town Plan also speaks to residential densities on adjoining properties which calls for low and medium density residential. It also speaks to transportation and environmental concerns. The property is bounded to the north by the Paxton Child Development Center, bounded to the south by Exeter Hills, which is zoned R-6 - duplexes may be developed by-right, Exeter to the east - approved for townhouses, and Manors of Leesburg to the west - approved for single-family development. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this property on December 20, at which time a recommendation of denial was forwarded to the Council. The current proposal has significantly changed from the one acted upon by the Planning Commission. At the previous committee meeting, staff suggested a number of recommendations. First, that there be a clear distinction between the portion of the property that would contain the single-family lots and the portion of the property that would contain the duplex lots. Second, that residential development on Lot A be restricted to single- family and follow the R-4 regulations and Lot B comply with all R-6 regulations. Third, that the development be phased to address transportation and utility concerns and that there must be a consolidated proffer package. A proffer package has been received, however, I have not had the opportunity to review it. Mr. Mark Nelis, Vice President of Brownell, Inc., addressed the Council, confirming that the statutory notice and posting of property has been completed on this application. This was originally a 23 acre parcel planned for 66 units and is now contained in the 19.8 acres plus an additional 13 units. Brownell, Inc., purchased the property about four years ago from the Paxton Home. Paxton Home was responsible for the rezoning of Sections 2 through 4 and Brownell, Inc., rezoned Section 5. At the time, three years ago, our concept was that we would be able to move through construction approval of Section 1, build the public improvements and sell the lots to the homebuilder and as that was taking place we were hoping to be successful in getting construction drawings and final plat approval for Sections 2 through 4, and finally we hoped to get Section 5 rezoned for single-family uses only - 10,000 square foot lots. At that time, we had a contract with a homebuilder in Leesburg to build homes on all those lots - some things went wrong. First, we had regulatory delays, in that, we got bogged down with some very technical issues largely about the sewage pumping station. A review that we thought would take a couple of months, took a matter of years. With regard to this rezoning, we are asking for 80 units on 19.8 acres which is approximately 4 units per acre - 52 single-family dwelling units and 28 duplexes. Presently there are 66 lots and we are asking for an increase of 14 lots. We are also asking the Council to change the current housing mix so that we may respond to what we perceive as a market demand for duplex units in Leesburg. A consolidated proffer package was discussed at last weeks committee meeting. Section 5 of the rezoning had proffers and it was always our intention to have proffers for the duplex units. Mr. Nelis passed out the proffers. What the proffers state is that until there is another road connection to the property, other than through the Manors Subdivision, these 14 additional units will not be built and occupied. Furthermore, the additional 14 units cannot be built until adequate sewage is available. Lots 25 through 52 are the balance of Sections 2 through 4 of the subdivision, subject to a record plat approval and at this time have no proffers. We have a use restriction that states that those lots will only be used for single-family homes and that those lots will comply with the R-4 zoning district Minutes of February 26, 1991 regulations. Lots I through 24 are the balance of the lots contained in Section 5 of the Paxton Subdivision. Again there is a use restriction that those lots will only be used as single-family residences and will comply with the R-4 zoning district regulations. There is a fire and rescue contribution of $200.00 per dwelling unit. A park contribution of $150.00 per dwelling unit. A road improvement contribution of $1,04)0.00 per dwelling unit. Lots 53 through 80 are the lots that we are asking the Council to designate for duplex uses. There are road, park and fire and rescue contributions. We have approved construction drawings for the majority of this site. These drawings include a sewage pumping station that we are responsible for building and removing at such time as gravity sewer is available to handle the 66 homes. We will not build the additional 14 homes until a gravity sewer alternative is available. Likewise, an of the public roads in the subdivision are subject to construction drawing review, approval and bonding. In addition, we have provided cash contributions to the town for use on offsite roads. No additional traffic, other than the lots that are approved, will be on any of the public streets until a connection from either the Manors Subdivision or Catoctin Circle is available. I think that the Council has the responsibility to look at the comprehensive plan. The designation on the map and the standards is low density residential. We have stayed within the four dwelling units per acre limitation. Another important point for the Council to consider in the comprehensive plan is providing a mix of housing. There is language in the comprehensive plan about protecting the environment and protecting existing neighborhoods. We have tried as much as possible to minimize the impact of the rezoning. In summary, after the Planning Commission recommendation and the staff review, we have revised this application considerably and believe that what we have before you is a reasonable request. The politically, expedient thing for the Council to do might be to move towards denying this application but if you look at the facts and the comprehensive plan and the provision of services - most importantly the adjoining land uses, the part that we are asking to be rezoned is a reasonable request. The location of the duplex units are a long way from the existing neighborhoods and none of the additional 14 units will come on line until we have a road connection and adequate sewer capacity. Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Nelis to describe how the residents throughout this rezoning area and the duplexes would access the property. Mr. Nelis stated that presently the connection of Oakcrest Drive and Route 15 is not completed. The 66 units that are essentially approved would use Wildman Street. As Manors Section 2 gets built and the last few 100 feet of Oakcrest Manor Drive are built, then the residents in the Pax~n Subdivision whether in the duplexes or single-family units are as likely to use Oakcrest Manor Drive and Route 15 as they are to use Wildman Drive. In the long run, as Exeter Sections 6 and 7 are built there will be a connection with Catoctin Circle to Battlefield Parkway. Mr. Jerry Tierney, a resident of 213 Wildman Street, addressed the Council. He stated that this rezoning has been changed three times since his involvement. As far as the Planning Commission, these revised changes did not go through them. He stated that his main concern is the traffic which funnels into Wildman Street. Wildman Street is about 35' wide and narrows to 30'. If you exit on Wildman Street onto North Street you have to make almost a 90 degree turn to a steep hill. There is a blind spot on the top of the hill - you cannot see going up or down and there are no sidewalks. If you exit on Harrison Street there are no sidewalks. If you take North Street to the east, Woodberry has no sidewalks, Prince Street has no sidewalks and at the point where North Street intersects Blueridge, it narrows so that two cars cannot pass. On Edwards Ferry Road turning east - no sidewalks. No sidewalks on Blueridge, Catoctin, Queen or Washington Streets. Safety is my main concern - the influx of traffic. The traffic study prepared for Paxton Home for traffic onto Wildman Street shows 897 vehicles. Wildman Street was built for about 400 vehicles per day - unless there are other roads built there will be about 2000 vehicles per day on Wildman Street. The least amount of housing that goes into this rezoning - I would feel better about. Construction equipment has not been addressed. How is this equipment going to get to the site. Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Tierney what his reaction to the Brownell phasing proffer is. The phasing proffer is designed to accommodate two things. One, the availability of utilities and to also prevent an of the traffic from going down Wildman Street. Mr. Tierney stated that this is something new in the rezoning and he has not had a chance to discuss it, though he is glad to hear it. Mrs. Pe~ov Forbes, a resident of 309 Wildman Street, addressed the Council reading three letters from residents unable to attend tonight's public hearing. The first letter is from Mrs. Symington of 301 North Street. Mrs. Symington's prepared statement is attached and made a part of the minutes. The second letter is from Mr. Mike Howell of 306 Wildman Street. Mr. Howell's prepared statement is attached and made a part of the minutes. The third letter is from Mr. David Tabor of 202 Cranbrook Drive. Mr. Tabor's prepared statement is attached and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Robert Belote, a resident of 311 Wildman Street, addressed the Council stating that "We all make decisions everyday some are easily changed if need be but some last a lifetime. I don't mean to sound as an alarmist but the decision you will make on this rezoning will affect an area large in Minutes of February 26, 1991 comparison to the land that is being developed. I would say the area encompasses from Route 15 north to the one day completed north Catoctin Circle through Edwards Ferry Road to the south. I have been to most of the meetings in regard to this rezoning and have yet to learn of anything that will be good for the residents of this particular area. The developer has given one reason for this rezoning and that is duplexes are more sellable. We in turn will possibly face devaluation of our properties and a worsening degree of traffic which will pose a hazard to our children and other residents. I don't believe that we should be penalized in order to allow a developer to reap higher profits. I further feel that if the town's master plan is changed, it should only be changed for the benefit of the residents and the Town of Leesburg. ff this rezoning is granted a precedent will have been set by the Town of Leesburg thereby creating a situation in which the town will be hard pressed to deny an application by Poretsky Company to rezone their land that abuts Paxton Subdivision. My wife and I purchased our home in Paxton Subdivision and moved in November 1988. We felt comfortable in the fact that this subdivision had been plated and was zoned for single-family detached homes. Now we are faced with a request for rezoning which changes the character of the neighborhood. Certainly this would not be a fair situation for the first owners in Paxton. The first purchasers in a subdivision should have some assurance that the neighborhood will be built as planned. We will have a traffic problem even if this rezoning does not take place but we will have to accept this Mr. Belote urged the Council to visit the area in question to get a look at the situation first hand. Mr. Gregory Adams, addressed the Council responding to some of Mr. Nelis' comments. Mr. Nelis' phasing program offers no guarantees. It will leave the neighborhood and town with something hanging over our heads indefinitely - until the project is complete. Mr. Adams requested a copy of the proffers. He resubmitted a petition with 148 signatures. The petition is attached and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Adams read excerpts of a letter from Mr. Bruce Brownell. The letter is attached and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Adams read excerpts of a letter from the Poretsky Building Group. The letter is attached and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Adams read the following from the Town Plan. "The major purpose of the Town Plan is to promote the interest of citizens at large rather than those of individuals or special groups. The comprehensive plan is becoming increasingly important as a legal basis for making land use decisions. A well developed plan with specific standards and policies encourages consistency in town land use decisions making them more legally defensible With regard to environment/problem soils. "Soils that pose serious limitations to development are classified by the Loudoun County Soils Scientist as Class IV Soils. Limestone conglomerate areas are not recommended for high density development. Paxton Sections 1 through 5 are all on limestone. Sensitive area policies - policies recommended below addressed areas with problem soils and limestone formation. Development in problem soil and limestone areas should be subjec~t, to appropriate performance standards in order to minimize potential health and safety regulations. ~' Land Use. "The land use element is a major component of the Town Plan provided with physical representation of the town's goals and objectives. It draws upon existing land use patterns, environmental features, for future population and employment forecast to recommend a rational organization of land uses which will protect the town's existing character and allow the orderly, economic vision of public services. The land use element is intended to treat lands which are similarly situated in like manner with reasonable consideration for such factors as the existing land use character. In designating the use of each land area, this element attempts to encourage the most use of land throughout the town by accomplishing the following broad guidelines: To reduce and prevent congestion in public streets and to facilitate the convenience, attractive and harmonious community Land Use Goals and Objectives. "To maintain and encourage efficient land use patterns which integrate residential, commercial, public and employment uses in planned neighborhoods designed to reflect Leesburg's existing character. Objective is to maintain the existing town scale and character in future development .~' General Land Use Policies. "The town should ensure that zonings are in conformance with the Town Plan to the greatest extent possible. The town should consider the cost for providing educational services for making land use decisions. Residential land use policies listed below are designed to encourage the creation of stable and attractive neighborhoods in keeping with Leesburg's unique historic character. Policies - the town should encourage the provision of quiet, stable neighborhoods with sufficient home ownership opportunities for persons who wish to make Leesburg a permanent home. The town should encourage the use of loop and cul-de-sac streets in residential developments to reduce through traffic providing additional safety and privacies for residents while minimizing adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods. The integrity of established neighborhoods should be protected from intrusion of conflicting land uses and through traffic where possible. This plan specifically encourages developers of large tracts to develop under the planned development regulations in order to best meet the town's land goals, objectives and policies." Planned Development Regulations. mits purpose is to promote harmonious mixture of land uses and housing type which will allow people to work and shop in the neighborhood in which they live. Minutes of February 26, 1991 To promote good transportation design. To minimize new traffic generation and separate pedestrian, bicycle, local residential and through motor traffic." Mr. Adams read from Section 6A-9 Criteria for Approval of Planned Development Regulations. "It is in conformity with the Town Plan. It is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mitigates conflicts of use with adverse impact on existing and planned development. Adequately accommodates anticipated motor vehicle traffic volumes including emergency vehicle access. Cul-de-sacs and loop streets should be used where appropriate to discourage through traffic. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems should be included to insure its safe and convenient access between properties within the neighborhood." Mayor Sevila pointed out to Mr. Adams that he was reading from the Planned Development District Regulations and asked if it was Mr. Adams' position that this application should have come under those regulations rather than standard R-6. Mr. Ad,ms stated "no, not at all - I strictly bring this to the Council's and audience's attention because the Town Plan specifically encourages developers of a large tract to develop under the planned guidelines." "19.8 acres, to me, is a large tract. Granted, it is not 300/400/500 acres, but when its downtown Leesburg - it is a large tract." "Non-residential uses should be located on arterial or collector streets without creating through traffic in residential areas. Paxton Home is a non-residential use and creates a tremendous volume of traffic." "Reverse frontage design incorporating attractive buffers and setbacks should be required in residential development adjacent to major and minor arterials and limited access highways. I don't believe that Mr. Brownell has addressed that situation." From the addendum to the Town Plan - November 1988. "It appears to me that throughout this ordeal, Brownell, Inc., has made a subtle attempt at playing with numbers. Adjacent land uses Brownell shows Exeter Hills as MDR R-6 when in fact the Town Plan addendum recommends changing existing Exeter Hills R-6 to LDR. Exeter Sections 6 and 7 are not developed. Land Use Police Map 9 has not been updated per this addendum to reflect the changes. Additionally, Land Use Policy Map 9 shows the actual density of Exeter Hills as 3.5 units per acre. The actual density at Paxton Section 1 is 3.3 units per acre. If Exeter Hills is 3.5, how in the world can 4.0 dua's be considered LDR." "Soils are a critical issue. Paxton Sections 1 through 5 - the entire parcel includes Class IV soils. The soils have poor to very poor potential for general development on central sewer. Sink holes, rock outcrops, slowly permeable subsoils and potential groundwater solution are major problems in this association. For a proposed rezoning or subdivision utilizing central water and sewer facilities - a site with mostly Class IV soils should have a preliminary subsurface investigation conducted to determine the extent of problem areas, followed by a geotechnical investigation. A geotechnical investigation has been an engineering requirement for Brownell and he has continually refused to have one done. Class IV soils are very poor potential for development on central sewer and water. Severe problems, some not correctable and others requiring extensive and costly engineering solutions which may be unsatisfactory. Rock outcrops and sink holes - we have sink holes currently active in Paxton. These are highly subject to solution weathering forming caverns and channels. Often these voids are bridged by a thin zone of oil or rock until the soils are overloaded by a tractor, too many cows or a structure." Limestone Conglomerate - "Solution weathering may be accelerated and/or collapse and may occur with the introduction of additional water by means of a drain field and/or utility line excavation. Blasting may greatly affect the potential for sink hole development as well. Increases or decreases in over burdened soil and rock weight by cutting or filling earthwork operations, stockpiling fill or topsoil, construction of buildings and equipment may trigger collapse. There are many short circuits from the surface to the groundwater supply. Sewer lines ruptured by collapse may dump tremendous volumes of raw sewage into the groundwater supply." "Field evidence should be provided by geotechnical study. Of the four soil groups in Paxton, all are labeled 4G. General Development on Central Water and Sewer - the remarks are very poor, solution weathering, potential groundwater pollution by sinkholes and rock outcrops. The area proposed for the duplexes is 91C - its prime selected use is forestry and wildlife. The majority of the Paxton property sits on top of an underground lake. The additional demand placed upon the water system creates a lower water table and proportionately increases the risk of additional sinkholes and/or catastrophic collapse of buildings and/or sewer and water line collapse. A portion of the geo-structure at Paxton is hydraulically supported." "Mr. Nelis stated at the committee level that if Brownell, Inc., had to resubmit construction drawings it did not make sense to go through the rezoning process. The citizens here tonight ask that the construction drawings be made a requirement, that no special considerations are allowed and that construction drawings follow under the geotechnical, traffic and blasting guidelines as required by the Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM). Specifically Article 9 Section 9 through 100 through 9600 and Article 7 Section 7100 through 7900." Subdivision and Land Development Regulations Article 7 Section 7 - traffic. "Mr. Brownell has continually resisted in Section 5, the right-of-way from 52 feet to 60 feet. I believe that the 52' ROW was a point of contention in the law suit against the town. Streets - proposed streets shall be coordinated as to provide adequate circulation. Street patterns shall discourage through traffic in the Minutes of February 26, 1991 interior of a residential subdivision. Streets shall have at a minimum the widths of ROW specified for the appropriate functional street classification in Leesburg's DCSM. Section 13-78 Street, Curb and Gutter - Item A - Streets shall be built for the full width as prescribed by the required specifications including the standards for the DCSM. Mr. Nelis has previously stated that houses are not selling - that is his intent for building duplexes. There have been no duplexes selling in the greater Leesburg area. There have been 16 single-family homes to sell - the average price $195,144.00. Only three townhomes have sold in the $150,000 to $200,000 range. It is important to remember the adjoining land use, Exeter Hills is recommended LDR in the Town Plan addendum. The property to the north is zoned R-1 - one dwelling unit per acre. The approximate density for existing Exeter Hills is 2.8 units per acre. To the east - shows the density at approximately 7.8 units per acre. The average, overall PRN for Exeter is 3 dwelling units per acre. That being the case - the average should be taken for Paxton at 4 dua. If you isolate the duplexes - the dua is 8 in an LDR district." "I have a concern that if Brownell goes with Lot A and Lot B, as staff has recommended - that even though the entire parcel is zoned R-6 - we have reason to believe that they do not intend to build on the property if they are in finandal difficulty and that this will make a more marketable property for them. In that event - if they sell this property to another developer and he comes along with better proffers o he already has the R-6 in place for the entire package. What is to stop them from getting a higher amount of duplexes. The R-6 is not in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan nor does it meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the zoning districts." "It is interesting to note that when this whole process started, Mr. Nelis said that this was their last subdivision in Leesburg and they wanted to do it right. He went so far as to provide pictures of the proposed duplexes. However, in recent conversations with Mr. Nelis, he has stated that they were in no position to build and that there was no guarantee as to what would be built. That being the case, phasing doesn't add up to anything. He went on to say that we just want the flexibility. On February 19, he stated we have four employees - we are not in any position to build single-family or duplexes. Banks aren't giving us any money. We have no immediate plans to build - it will be at least 3 to 5 years down the road. He further went on to say that the purpose of the R-6 was to increase the marketability of the property. If R-6 is granted, it sets a precedent for Poretsky to request the same. What is to prevent him from selling the property to another builder who wants 100 duplexes when the zoning is already in place. If he gets the R-6, he can go from 10,000 square foot lots to 8,000 square foot lots. We have his word that he won't do that but we don't have the word of the buyer of the property. This property has already been rezoned once from 1 dua to 4 dua which is a big jump by any standards and one that would make most people conclude, as we have done, that the rezoning of this property was complete. To rezone this property from R-1 to R-6 in such a short period of time would be both unconscionable and irresponsible of Council. The only way Mr. Brownell can get 4 dua is to include the entire property. In accordance, the entire property must be subject to proffers. The only way Mr. Brownell can get an R-6 zoning district is if this Council approves it. The Town Plan, zoning criteria, land development regulations leave no doubt that you are justified in any court in denying this rezoning. I hope that any fears that you may have regarding a law suit will not compromise your purpose." 'I have in my possession a confidential memo that I need not embarrass you or the town by making the contents of this memo public. My personal interpretation of this memo - it appears that the town has in fact sold us out as citizens. Even though the Wwn was not at fault or wrong in its dealings with Mr. Brownell, it is my understanding from my interpretation that it was settled solely to save face and lose of town credibility. It is my sincere desire as well as those present in this chamber tonight that in the face of another potential lawsuit - if Mr. Brownell looses, that you as our elected, appointed officials do not compromise your moral integrity nor fear doing that which you have every legally, defensive right to do. At the last public hearing, Kat Imhoff stated that this rezoning is "critical to the Wwn". She went on to say that the designation of this property is 1 to 3 dua's, not 4 as reported by staff. To quote Sally Vecchio, "the town will begin a comprehensive amendment to the Town Plan this year which will create an opportunity to reevaluate all elements of the Town Plan including land use policies as they relate to the Wwn's goals and objectives for land development in the 1990's and beyond. A major amendment to the Town Plan at this time will preamp this comprehensive analysis and may prematurely set the tone for land use development.' Mr. Brownell stated at the last public hearing that he could not guarantee the wisdom of our investment. Mr. Brownell's investment, unfortunately, has turned out to be a bad one for him and for us. He has an unmarketable piece of property - a large part due to the soils." "Mr. Brownell is a builder, the Council, however, are the architects of our community and is charged with the vision to maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods and the Town Plan. As appointed and elected officials you have the responsibility to fairly and justly represent the citizens of the Town of Leesburg rather than individuals or special interest groups. These issues discussed tonight cannot be ignored. It would be irresponsible of Council to do so. We as citizens need to know that you are responsive to our needs and to the direction of the Town Plan. All of the land in Sections 2 to 5 are identified as Class IV problem soils. Current problems in Section 1 include sinking driveways, cracking brick due to blasting, high water table. My sump pump continually runs and I have fluctuating water pressure. The citizens request that a geotechnical survey type II be required, that construction drawings be resubmitted, blasting assurances in writing, sediment and erosion control assurances, to be notified in writing of all geotechnical reports including findings and recommendations, to be notified by confirmation letter of any and all staff meetings regarding Brownell and/or said property and in the event that Council sees fit to approve this rezoning, we request that Wildman Street be restricted by siguage to local residents only.~ Minutes of February 26, 1991 "On May 11, 1988, your Honor signed an ordinance changing Paxton Section 5 zoning district boundaries from County R-1 to town R-I. That ordinance states in part that "this rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare and convenience in good zoning practice". That may be a standard phrase but non-the-less it is in there and you have signed it. I therefore ask you and this Council, ff R-4 is in our best interest - how in the world can R-6 be?" Mr. Andy East, a resident of 206 Wildman Street, addressed the Council. "I have a vested interest in my neighborhood and would like to see it remain as it is. You are the ones making the decisions on how Leesburg is going to look for years to come - it shouldn't be taken lightly - it is a great responsibility. What ever you do during your tenure will be an indelible mark on our town - give it a lot of thought. Mr. Nelis threw us a curve bail. I was prepared to meet this meeting with a lot more opposition. I am still not for it. The proposed density will devalue, somewhat, our neighborhood. The increase in traffic is very real considering that I have small children. If I were a smart businessman I would get the Council to reconsider the density rating and then sell the property to someone else who could build on it. Lets just consider a deal a deal, a permit a permit and leave it at that. We will all prosper with that." Mr. Keith Halderman, a resident of 212 Wildman Street, addressed the Council. "First, I am impressed with how my neighbors have turned out, and the amount of research and effort that has gone into many of the presentations. It has been detailed and comprehensive. We should get to the fundamentals of the issue. Four years ago Brownell, Inc., bought a piece of property to develop and submitted a drawing plan with what he was going to build. It was R-4 - everyone was happy. Then the market goes a little bad and Brownell says no - lets make it R-6 because it is more profitable. He comes back with another plan - we are not happy with. He wants to push this plan on the Council and the citizens - and do you know why he wants to push this plan, aside from the fact that it is profitable? Because he does not care about the soils - it will be someone else's problem. He does not care about the traffic density - that is not his problem either. He does not care about the water, sewage, traffic patterns. He does not care. It is not his problem. It is our problem. He gets an added bonus out of this in that not only is it not his problem but we are going to pay for it. The additional tax burden to repair the roads, the double utilities to these duplexes, the additional burden on the county's and town's taxes are not coming out of his pocket - they are coming out of our pocket. We are paying him to make these changes. We are making it profitable for him to over burden our systems. This is just one small section. If it doesn't sell, he will hold on to the land or sell it. But either he or someone else is going to be back here, later this year or next year and will say that we thought about putting in 5 or 10 homes here but why not 20. We thought about 15 homes here but why not 30. The next developer will have the same advantages and same basic objectives. They are going to make a profit and we will pay for it. We will pay with an increased tax burden and with a reduced property tax base. The next step - he will come to you and say - I am trying to build low cost, high density housing, so I want you to cut back your property assessments. I want you to lower the property assessments so that I can lower the cost of my homes. The next developer - Poretsky will see that this is a good deal - we can build anything we want. We can build as many as we want and we don't have to explain or justify it to anyone. The Council said it was ok for this guy why not for me. If you approve this - someone else will be standing right here saying why not. If you open this door, you will never close it and this town and county and voters of this town and county will suffer for it." Mr. Standish Kuegler, a resident of 1303 Campbell Court, addressed the Council speaking on behalf of his mother who lives on Wildman Street. He has worked for 23 years with Fairfax County Department of Environmental Management Design Review. "The arterial traffic load in question is the main concern for my mother. In Fairfax, one of the critical things that we look at when a subdivision plan comes in for consideration is the maximum traffic load or adequate access availability. If that adequate access does not exist, the plan is not approved until it does. Therefore, if Mr. Brownell wants to develop in that area, they can simply provide the access. I like to look at something like this and render it down as to the motives involved. The motives to the town are profit - tax base increase. The motives to Mr. Brownell are profits. The motivation of the people before you, your friends and neighbors and constituents is a concern for quality of life, safety of their children. To triple or quadruple the load on that size street is unreasonable. It would be irresponsible for this body to approve such a thing or to open the gate as indicated, until the access is provided. If you do go through with a thing like that, on the timing that has been proposed by the developer, you don't have any business sitting in those chairs." A letter was received on February 26, 1991, from Mrs. Louise M. Huller of 228 North Street, N.E., this letter is attached and made a part of the minutes. A letter was received on March 5, 1991, from Mr. Don Lowers of 302 Lounsbury Court, N.E., this letter is attached and made a part of the minutes. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Sevila said the Council will receive public comment in writing until the weekend before the Council meeting at which time action will be taken. On motion of Mr. Lovin, seconded by Mr. Clem, this matter was referred to the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting of March 5, 1991. Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None Minutes of February 26, 1991 COUNCILMEMBER'S COMMENTS Mr. Webb had no comment. Mr. Lovin stated that hopefully the next time the Council meets the conflict in the Persian Gulf will be decided. He wished to thank the many citizens in Leesburg and Loudoun County who have displayed their American flags and yellow ribbons. There has been a great support for the men and women in the Middle East. .Mr. Clem reported on the EAC meeting. There is a heavy emphasis being put on having the Leesburg Renaissance organi~.ation visit us and give a rundown on what they are doing. They are very interested in having the Farmers' Market and will be working on this project. Recycling is a big issue with the FAC. Congratulations to Country Club for the good response that we are receiving. There is a lot being planned for the Arbor Day celebration. I had the opportunity to visit and tour the operations at the Vo tech school. The school has a lot to offer in Leesburg and Loudoun County. Mr. Kimball had no comment. Mrs. Forester reported on Saturday's Listening Session where she and Mr. Clem were present. A resident of the South Street community came in and expressed concern with things that were happening in his neighborhood. I have been in touch with Mr. Brown who will be handling this. The Planning Commission has tentatively scheduled March 14 for the continuation of the Town Plan workshop. We will continue to review the current Town Plan and discuss the process for the upcoming Town Plan review. Ms. Bange stated that she attended an all day update meeting of the Parks and Recreation long range plan. It was a very productive meeting and I am very excited about all of the things that are going on at Ida Lee and all the park areas in town. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Sevila reported on the applications and selection process for the town manager's position and stated that Jay Lambert and Julian Hirst will be retained to assist in reviewing the applications and reducing them down to a workable number. They have both indicated a willingness to work for the town and a desire to work together jointly in this process. Mr. Lambert and Mr. Hirst will appear before the Council on March 12, 1991 to make a brief presentation which will contain a schedule for the Council. They have asked that the Council send them your comments. MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Brown reported that the Council did receive a written copy of the Activity Report. The dedication of the municipal government center is scheduled for March 15. LEGISLATION On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following ordinance was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-0-10 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF CONDOMINIUM REGUI~TIONS WHEREAS, the Council initiated and referred amendments to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance regarding 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 WHEREAS, Sections 55-79.94(e) and (f) 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, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. Article 7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended with the addition of Section 7A-12 as shown below. Section 7A-12 CONDOMINIUM, GENERALLY Minutes of February 26, 1991 Residential C0ndomlni,,m~ General~. The condominium regulations of S. ection 7A- 12 shall only appl~ to residential developments. All such condominium developments shall comply with the density limitations and other provisions of the zoning district in which it is located. ~x)ndominium Conversions. For the purpose of this section, "elderly" means a person not less than 62 years old. The term "disabled", refers to a person suffering from a severe, chronic physical or mental impairment which results in substantial functional limitations. Residential condominium conversions shall provide an offer of lease to elderly and disabled tenants as follows: Information Filing Required. The de~ls~mt of a condominium conversion shall fde concurrently with the Zonir~ Administrator, the general notice of conversion required .by subsection 55-79.94(b) of the Code of Virginia, .as amended. The declarant of a condominium conversion shall provide any existing tenant~ a copy of the general notice of conversion required by. subsection 55-79.94(b) of the Code of Vir~inia~ as amended. An offer shall be provided to the elderly and disabled tenants leases or extensions of leases, or the provision of other units of equal size and overall quality shall be afforded. Offers of leases~ or extensions of leases required by this section shall include no more than twen.ty percent (20%) of the apartments or units in the proposed condominium conversion~ and shall be offered for a term of up to three (3) years from the date the general notice of conversion is served. The terms and conditions thereof ~ be as agreed upon by the lessor and the lessee. Such offers of leases or extensions of leases shall not apply to apartments or units which will, in the course of conversion, be substantially altered in the physical layout, restricted exclusively to nonresidential use, or rendered legally uninhabitable because of renovations or rehabilitation which the declarant intends to perform in good faith. SECTION II. All prior ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION III. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the decision shall not affect the validity of the Article as a whole or of any remaining provisions of the Article. SECTION IV. This Ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Mr. Clem stated that a lot of work has gone into this ordinance and is badly needed. A lot of people have had to work out some type of agreement with a new purchaser in order to remain in their homes or have had to move elsewhere. This legislation will provide for a more stable community and better protect the elderly. Mr. Webb concurred with Mr. Clem. Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila None On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, the following ordinance was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-0-11 - ORDINANCE - AMF. NDING ARTICLE V SECTION 11-81 OF THE TOWN CODE general within "REGULATIONS FOR USE OF PARKS" WHEREAS, Town Council desires to maintain the security and promote the health, safety and welfare of all persons within public park areas; and WHEREAS, Town Council also desires to increase protection of facilities, wildlife and flora these public properties: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. Section 11-81 of the Town Cede is amended to read as follows: Sec. 11-81 Regulations for Use of Parks 11.81-1. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance1 the following ~rms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the contex~ words used .in the present tense include the future, words used in the plural number include the sin~dar number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. A._: "TOWN" is the Town of Leesbur~. B._~. "DIRECTOR" means the Director of Parks and Recreation, and includes any person whom the Director designates to a~t for the Director hereunder; C__. "PARK" those areas,, now or in th.e future operated and maintained by the Town of Leesburg Department of Parks and Recreation, are defined to mean parks, oublic lands, olaygrounds, recreation fields, museums, buildings, lakes, bays, streams, canals, channels, lagoons, waterways, water areas, submerged lands, therein and all public, service facilities located on or in grounds, waters, buildings and structures in the Town of Leesburg which are under the control of or assigned for upkeep, maintena, nce or operation by the Town of Leesburg, Department of Parks and Recreation; D. "PERSON" is any person, firm, partnership, associations, corporation, comoany or organization of any kind; "VEHICLE" means eve~ device in, upon or by which any person or propet~Y may be transported upon a highway, except devices other than bicycles moved by human poweq "PERMIT" is any written license issued by or under the authority of the Director of Parks and Recreation, p~rmitting the performance of a specified act or acts; G. "PARKING" means th~ standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not. H_: "DEPARTMENT" when used hereinafter, is defined as the Department of Parks and Recreation for the Town of Leesburg.. 11.81-2. Park Property. No person in a park shall: I_. PROPERTY: Disfiguration and Removal. Willfully mark, deface, disfigure, iniure, tamper with or displace or remove any building, bridges, tables, benches, fireplace, railings, signs, tree guards, paving' or paving material, public utilities or parts or appurtenances thereof, signs, notices or placards whether tempora .fy or permanent, monuments, stakes, posts or other bounda.ry marks, or other structures or equipmenlh facilities or park property or appurtenances whatsoever, either rea! or personal. Restrooms and Washrooms. Fail to cooperate in maintaining restrooms and washrooms in as neat and sanita .ry condition, as prior to personal use, nor shall any person over the age of six (6) years use the restrooms and washrooms designated for the opposite sex. Removal of Natural Resources. Di~ or remove any sand, soil, rock, stones, water, ..trees, shrubs, flowers or plants, downed timber or other wood or materials, or make any excavation by tool, eauioment, blasting or other means or agency. l~rection of Structures. Construct or erect any building structure or utility service of whatever kind, whether permanent or temporary in character in any park except by special written p~rmit issued hereunder. E. Paint or Spray Paint. Have on or in their possession paint or spray paint of any t~e. 2_. TREES, SHRUBBERY, LAV~rNS: Injury and Removal. Damage, cut~ carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark, or pick the flowers or seeds of any tree or plant; nor attach any rope, wire, or other contrivance to any tree or plant; or dig in otherwise distributed grass areas, or in any other way injure or impair the natural be{tuW, or usefulness of ~nv area. Climbing Trees, Etc. Climb any ~ree or wallq stand, sit or attach any rope or cable or.other contrivance upon monuments, vases,., fountains, railings, fences, buildings or upon any other property not desiznated or customarily used for such purposes. 3_. WILD ANIMALS, BIRDS, ETC.: Hunting.. Hunt~ molest~ frighten, kill, trap, chase, tease, shoot~ or throw projectiles at any animal, reptile or bird; nor shall any person remove or have in his possession the young of any wild animal, or the e~,s or nest. of any reptile, bird or other animal. B.~. Feeding. Give or offer, or attempt to give to any animal or bird any tobacco, alcohol, other known noxious substances. 11.81-3. Sdnltation. No person in a park shall: POLLUTION OF WATERS. Throw, discharge, or otherwise place or cause to be placed in the waters of any fountain, pond, lake, stream, or other body of water in or adjacent to any park or any tributary, stream, storm sewer, or drain flowing into such waters, any substance, matter or thing, liquid or solid, which will or may result in the pollution or littering of said waters. RUBBISH AND REFUSE MATTER. Have brought in or shall dumn. lay. cast, drop~ discharge, deposit or leave any bottles, rubbish, waste, garbage or refuse, or any other trash. No such refuse or trash shall be placed in any water in or contiguous to any park, or left anywhere on the grounds thereof, but shall be placed in the proper receptacles where these are provided; where receptacles are not so provided, all such rubbish or waste shall be carried away from the park by the person responsible for its presence and properly disposed of. 11.81-4. Traffic. No person in a park shall: MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS APPLY. Fall to comply with all applicable provisions of the State and town motor vehicle traffic laws in regard to equipment and operation of vehicles together with such regulations as are contained in this and other ordinances. ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS. Fail to obey all police officers and park attendants, such persons hereby being authorized and instructed to direct traffic whenever and wherever needed in the parks and on the highways, streets or roads immediately adjacent thereto in accordance with the provisions of these regulations and such supplementary regulations as may be issued subsequently by the Director. OBEY TRAFFIC SIGNS. Fail to observe all traffic signs indicating sveed, direction, caution, stowing or oarking and all others posted for proper control and to safeguard life and property. SPEED OF VEHICLES. Ride or drive a vehicle at a rate of speed exceeding 25 miles per hour, except upon such park roads as the town may designate, by posted signs for other speed limits. OPERATION CONFINED TO ROADS. Drive any vehicle on any area except the paved park roads or parking areas, or such other areas as may on occasion be specifically designated as temporary parking areas by the Director. ._$. SNOWMOBILES, ETC. Operate in any park or recreation area snowmobiles, mini- bikes, motorcycles, go-carts, ATVs, mopeds, or any other vehicle except in areas sp~cifiq~lly desiznate~l'by th~ Dir~A~tor for such use. TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. Shall operate in or through any park, any trucks or commercial vehicles with a aTOSS weight in excess of five (5) tons, except for the delivery of the load thereon for use in such parks as expressly aooroved by the Director. 8_. PARKING, Desie-nated Areas. Park a vehicle in other than an established or designated parking area, ,and such use shall be in accordance with the posted directions and with the instru¢ions of any Dark attendant or police officer who may be present. B_~. Prohibited Activities. Park a vehicle in a park for the expressed purpose of washinz repairing or maintaining the same. C.~. Double Parking. Double park any vehicle on any road or parkway unless directed by a park attendant or police officer. .,BICYCLES. Ao Confined to Roads. Ride a bicycle on other than a vehicular road or path designated for that purpose. A bicyclist shall be permitted to wheel or push .a bi.cycle by hand over any grass area or wooded trail or any paved area reserved for pedestrian use, 10__~. .SKATEBOARD, ROLi~RSKATE, ETC. A. Confined to Specific Areas. Ride a skateboard or rollerskate on or in an area not. designated specifically for skateboarding or rollerskating~ B. Hard-Surfaced Areas. Ride a skateboard or rollerskate on sidewalks, basketball courts, volleyball courts, tennis courts or other hard-surfaced areas. 11.81-5. Prohibited uses of parks. No person in a park shall: DISTRIBUTE OR DISPLAY. Post" paint" affix~ distribute, hand out" deliver, place, cast, or leave about any bill, billboard, placard, ticket~ handbill, circular, or advertisement; display any flag. banner, transparency, .target" sign,, placard or any other matter for advertising purposes; operate any musical instrument for advertising purposes or for the purpose of attracting attention to any exhibit" show, performance, or other display unless expressly authorized through permit by the Director. CONTRIBUTIONS. Solicit contributions for any purpose without written approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 3_. BATHING AND SWIMMING. Designated Are.as. Swim, bathe, wade in any waters or waterways in any park, except in such waters and in such places as are provided therefore, and in compliance with such regulations as are herein set forth or may be hereinafter adopted. Nor shall any person frequent any waters or places customarily designated for the purpose, of swimming or bathing, or coneTegate when such activity is prohibited by the Director upon a finding that such use of the water would be dangerous to public health or welfare. B_~. Bath Houses. Dress or undress in any vehicle, toilet or other place, except in such bathing houses or structures a~ may be provided for that purpose. 4_. FISHING. Designated Areas. Fish in any park waters, whether by the use of hook and line, net trap. spear, eiz or other device, except in such waters thereof as are or may be desi~ated by the Dir~or for that use and under such regulations and restrictions as have been or may be prescribed by said Department. HUNTING AND F~$, Hunt, trap or pursue wildlife aS any time. No person shall within a Dark use. carry or vo~sess fir~rms of any description, or air rifles, sprin~ guns. bow and arrows, slin~s or any other forms of weapons potentially dangerous to wildlife and to human safetw or ~ny instrument that can be 10ad~d with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. Discharging firearms inW park areas from beyond Bark property boundaries is forbidden. 6__. PICNIC AREAS AND USE. Regulated. Picnic in a place other than tho. se designated for that purpose. Park attendants shall have the authority to rew. qate the activities in such areas when necessary to prevent congestion and to secure the maximum use for the comfort and convenience of all. Visitors shall comply with any directions given by park attendants to achieve this end. B~ Availability.. Violate the regulation that use of .tb.e individual grills together with tables and benches follows generally the rul~ of "firs~ come, fi~t served." Non-e.x.clusive.. Use any portion of the park areas or any of the buildings or structures therein without a permit issued by the Director, for the purpose of holding activities to the exclusion of other persons, nor shall any person use such area and facilities for an unreasonable time if the facilities are crowded. Reservations. Reservations for shelters only may be obtained by paying a fee, as determined by the Department of Parks and Recreation for exclusive use during said time period. Permits will be issued upon payment of fee and must be in the possession of users to. be valid. E. Du.ty of Picnicker. Leave a picnic area before the fire is completely. extinguished and before all trash in the nature of boxes, papers, cans, bottles, garbage and other refuse is.. placed in the disposal receptacles where provided. If no such trash receptacles.are available, then refuse and trash shall be carried away from the park area to. be properly disposed of. CAMPING. Without a permit.from the Director, set up tents, shacks, or any other temporary shelter for the purpose of camping, nor shall any person leave after closing hours any equipment, structure or vehicle to be used or that could be used for such purposes, such as house trailer, camp trailer, camp wagon or the like. GAMES. Take part or abet any recreational activity or the playing of any games except in areas set apart therefor. .H. ORSEBACK RIDING, ETC. Ride, drive, or. lea..d a horse ex.cept on park drives or tro. ils. ~s designated bY the DirectgL ..Where permitted, l~9rses shsJl b~ thor0ugh~y broken and properly restrained, and ridden with due care, and shall not be allowed to graze or go unattended, nor be hitched to any rock, tree and shrub. No hoofed animals will be allowed on turf areas. MISSILES AND FIREWORKS. Carry, shoot, fire, explode Or throw any fireworks, firecrackers, rockets, torpedoes or missiles of any kind in any park without a permit from the Director. PH~.TOGRAPHY. Without prior written authorization by the Director, make still or moving pictures that involve the use of special settings, structures, lighting or apparatus, or the performance of a cast of persons, either amateur or professional, or the posing of professional models; said written permission may be issued only when such activities will permit normal use of park facilities by other visitors. However, the provisions of this section do not in any way restrict the use of cameras b.y amateur photographers. 12_._:. SLEIGH-RIDING. Sleigh-ride in an area not designated as a sleigh-riding area. 11.81-6. Meetings and Concessions. No person shall; MEETINGS. Hold or take part in any public meeting or event, religious, political, charitable or otherwise, including vicnic parties and entertainment for charitable or religious purposes, in any public park without first obtaining permission from the Director. Such assemblages shall be conducted in a lawful and orderly manners, and shall occupy such grounds and facilities as may b~ assigned to pr reserved for them. CONCESSIONS. Sell or offer for sale any food, beverage, refreshments or any article or service whatsoever in any park or recreation area except by concessionaires under contract with the town by non-profit, charitable or religious groups, authorized by permit from the Director. 11.81-7. Behavior. No person in any park shall: INTOXICATION. Have entered or be in.or remain in a park or recreation area under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES/ILLEGAL DRUGS. Have in his/her possession at any time in any public park, recreation area, or park facility, alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs. DOMESTIC ANIMALS. Have been responsible for the ent .ry of a cat, dog or other domestic animal into a park or recreation area unless carried, led by a...chain,..strap or rope, or kept in a wagon,, automobile or other vehicle. Dogs, cats or other domestic animals shall not be permitted to enter any lake, pond~ fountain, swimmi.ng pool, stream, court areas, or food and beverage concession area within any park or recreation area. No animal shall be allowed to be curbed in any park area without cleanup by. owner or responsible party, Seeing-eye dogs shall be excluded from the provisions of this re~,ulation. NON-DOMESTIC ANIMAI-q AND REPTILES. Have been responsible for the entry of any non-domestic animal or reptile. FIRES. Build or attempt to build a fire except in such areas and under such regulations as may be designated by the Director. No person shall drop or throw or otherwise scatter lighted matches, burning cizarettes or cizars, tobacco paper or other infimmmable material within any park area or on any highway, road or street abutting or contiguous thereto. CLOSED AREAS. Enter an area posted aS "Closed To The Public" or "No Trespassing." nor shall any person use or abet the use of any area in violation of posted notices. GOING ONTO ICE. Go onto ice 0n any of the w~ters except such areas designated as skating ar0~ and posted as such. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND DISTURBING THE PEACE, Shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following in any town park; En~,in~ in fi~htine, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior, Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, eesture or display. or communicatin~ unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person; C. Insulting, taunting, or challenging another under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to provoke a violent response: Do Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road or right-of-way, or to, from, within or upon public property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender~ Eo Creating a condition which is physically offensive to persons or which presents · a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act which serves no lawful or reasonable purpose of the offender. EXHIBIT PERMITS. Fail to produce and exhibit any permits from the Director upon request of any police officer or park attendant who shall desire to inspect same. INTERFERENCE WITH PERMITTEES. Disturb or interfere unreasonably with any person or party occupying any area, or participating in any activity, under the authority of a permit. !.1~.. WEAPONS. Have in or on their possession any weapon of any .type. 11.81-8. Park Operating Policy. AUTHORITY. The Director shall have the authority to bar individuals from park property for serious or repeated violation of park regulations. To enforce this bar, a no trespass notice shall be issued to the violator, HOURS. Parks shall be open to the public every day of the year from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., except park facilities with special hours of operation which shall be posted thereon. Special permission from the Director is required for any persons to remain in any park area outside regular hours, CLOSED AREAS. Any section of any part of any park may be declared closed to the public by the Director at any time or for any interval of time, either temporarily or at regular and started intervals and either entirely or merely to certain uses, as the Director shall find reasonably necessary. PERMIT. A permit shall be obtained from the Director before participating in a park activity prohibited by these rules; Application. A person seekin~ issuance of a permit hereunder shall file an application with the Director. The application shall state: the name and addres~ 0f ~;he applicant; the name and addre~ of the person, persons, corporation or association soonsorin~ the activity, if any: the day and hours for which the permit iS desired; an estimate of the anticipated attendance; any other information which the Dir~tor shall find reasonably necessary to a fair determination as to whether a permit should be issued hereunder, Standards of Issuance. The Dire~or may issue a permit hereunder when he finds: that the proposed activity or use of the park will not unreasonably interfere or detract frgm the ~eneral public enjoyment of the park; that the proposed activity and use will not unreasgnably interfere with or detract from the promotion of public health, welfare, safety and recreation; that the proposed activity or use is not reasonably anticipated to incite violence, crime or disorderly conduct~ that the proposed activity will not entail unusual, extra- ordinary or burdensome expense or police operation by the town; that the facilities desired have not b~n reserved for other use at ~he day and hour required in the application, Appeal. Within seven 17) days after receipt of an application the Director shall either issue a permit or apprise an applicant in writin~ of his reasons for refusing a permit, and any agm-ieved person shall have the right to appeal in writing within five ~5) days to the Town Manager which shall consider the application under the standards set forth in sub-section (B) hereof and sustain or overrule the Director'~ decision within 15 day~, The decision of the Town Manager shall be final, Minutes of February 26, 1991 Effect of Permit. A permittee shall be bound by al! park rules and regulations and all applicable ordinances fully as though the same were inserted in said permits. Liability of Permittee. The person or persons to whom a permit is issued shall be liable for any loss, damage or iRiuries sustained by any person whatsoever, by reason of the negligence of the person or persons to whom such permit.q shall have been issued. In certain cases, a certificate of insurance may be required naming the Town of Leesburg as an additionally insured for a minimum of $1,000,000.00 in comprehensive general liability insurance. F~ Revocation. The Director shall have the a. uthority to revoke a permit upon finding a violation of any rule or ordinance, or upon good cause shown. 11.81-9. Penalties. Violation of any provision of Section 11.81 shall be punished by ejectment from the park and a fine of not more than $100.00, either or both. Uvon eiectment~ a violator shall not be permitted to return to the park for a period of 24 hours. Return to park property during the period of eiectment shall be considered trespass. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage and all ordinances or resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Brown to ensure that these regulations are posted to make the public aware. Mr. Clem wished to compliment Mr. Huff for preparing these regulations. This is a fine tool for preserving our parks. Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Kimball, the following resolutions were proposed as consent items and unanimously adopted. 91-39 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATER AND WASTEWATER COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY WHEREAS, during the Council's Fall 1990 workshop to discuss the future expansion and upgrade of the town's wastewater facility, the need for a comprehensive water and wastewater cost of service and rate study was identified; and WHEREAS, the town's utility fund budget contains an authorized appropriation for this study in the approved fiscal year 1991 budget; and WHEREAS, the town released a Request for Proposals to qualified consulting firms for the purpose of conducting such a study; and WHEREAS, the town received five proposals in response to the RFP; and WHEREAS, the proposals were reviewed and evaluated by the review committee and based on the contents of the proposal, experience of the firm, reference comments and interviews conducted, the committee recommends contract award to the firm of Deloitte & Touche. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The acting town manager is authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of the town with Deloitte & Touche for the purpose of conducting a water and wastewater cost of service and rate design study in conformance with the town's Request for Proposals and their proposal dated January 25, 1991, of which both documents are incorporated as a part of the contract. SECTION H. The contract price to perform these services is an agreed upon sum of $29,775.00. 91-40 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LETTER OF INTENT FOR POLICE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT WHEREAS, each year the Police Department is required to submit a Letter of Intent to the state authorized dealer to reserve the right to purchase replacement police vehicles; and WHEREAS, this year's Letter of Intent must be received by February 28, 1991; and Minutes of February 26, 1991 WHEREAS, the Police Department, in conjunction with the Equipment Management Division, recommends that Council authorize town staff to reserve four police vehicles for purchase in fiscal year 1992; and WHEREAS, each police vehicle will cost $12,785 for a total of $51,140; and WHEREAS, the price is $2,000 per vehicle lower than last year's purchases; and WHEREAS, a corresponding number of vehicles will be removed from service and made available at the town's surplus property auction in late summer: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The acting town manager is hereby authorized to submit a Letter of Intent to reserve four police vehicles for purchase in fiscal year 1992. 91-41 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR TAVISTOCK FARMS SECTION 3 WHEREAS, the Tavistock Farms General Partnership, the developers of Tavistock Farms Section 3, has not completed all the required public improvements in accordance with the approved construction drawings and town standards within the two-year period agreed to in the contract for public improvements; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a one-year time extension to complete the public improvements; and WHEREAS, the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank, which guarantees the installation of public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 3, in the amount of $40,426.00 automatically renews for additional one-year periods; and WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of $40,426.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 3. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Renewal of the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank in the amount of $40,426.00 in a form approved by the Town Attorney and a time extension of one-year for the installation of public improvements are hereby approved for Tavistock Farms Section 3. 91-42 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR TAVISTOCK FARMS SECTION 4 WHEREAS, the Tavistock Farms General Partnership, the developers of Tavistock Farms Section 4, has not completed all the required public improvements in accordance with the approved construction drawings and town standards within the two-year period agreed to in the contract for public improvements; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a one-year time extension to complete the public improvements; and WHEREAS, the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank, which guarantees the installation of public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 4, in the amount of $122,400.00 automatically renews for additional one-year periods; and WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of $122,400.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 4. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Renewal of the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank in the amount of $122,400.00 in a form approved by the Town Attorney and a time extension of one-year for the installation of public improvements are hereby approved for Tavistock Farms Section 4. 91-43 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR TAVISTOCK FARMS SECTION 5 WHE~, the Tavistock Farms General Partnership, the developers of Tavistock Farms Section 5, has not completed all the required public improvements in accordance with the approved construction drawings and town standards within the two-year period agreed to in the contract for public improvements; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a one-year time ex~nsion to complete the public Minutes of February 26, 1991 improvements; and WHE~, the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank, which guarantees the installation of public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 5, in the amount of $117,498.00 automatically renews for additional one-year periods; and WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of $117,498.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 5. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leeshurg in Virginia as follows: Renewal of the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank in the amount of $117,498.00 in a form approved by the Town Attorney and a time extension of one-year for the installation of public improvements are hereby approved for Tavistock Farms Section 5. 91-44 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR TAVISTOCK FARMS SECTION 6 WHEREAS, the Tavistock Farms General Partnership, the developers of Tavistock Farms Section 6, has not completed all the required public improvements in accordance with the approved construction drawings and town standards within the two-year period agreed to in the contract for public improvements; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a one-year time extension to complete the public improvements; and WHEREAS, the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank, which guarantees the installation of public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 6, in the amount of $200,556.00 automatically renews for additional one-year periods; and WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering and Public Works has approved the amount of $200,556.00 to guarantee installation of the remaining public improvements in Tavistock Farms Section 6. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Renewal of the letter of credit from Perpetual Savings Bank in the amount of $200,556.00 in a form approved by the Town Attorney and a time extension of one-year for the installation of public improvements are hereby approved for Tavistock Farms Section 6. 91-45 - RESOLUTI(YN - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN EXETER SECTION 8 WHEREAS, the town's Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the public improvements installed to date in Exeter Section 8 and certified that the value of work performed exceeds $222,105.00; and WHEREAS, a letter of credit from First American Bank in the amount of $589,388.00 has been provided by the developer and approved by the Council to guarantee installation of public improvements in Exeter Section 8. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The letter of credit from First American Bank in the amount of $589,388.00 is reduced to $367,283.00. SECTION II. The Acting Town Manager shall notify the developer that liability for the letter of credit has been reduced as outlined in Section I of this resolution, and that this reduction does not constitute acceptance of public improvements by the town or relieve the developer of responsibilities outlined in the contract for public improvements for Exeter Section 8. 91-46 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION FOR THE EXETER CATTAIL BRANCH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND WI-IEREAS, the town's Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the public improvements installed to date for the Exeter Cattail Branch Stormwater Management Pond and certified that the value of work performed is $891,370.00; and WHERF_u~, a letter of credit from First American Bank in the amount of $1,126,065.00 has been provided by the developer and approved by Council to guarantee installation of public improvements for the Exeter Cattail Branch Stormwater Management Pond. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Minutes of February 26, 1991 SECTION I. The letter of credit from First American Bonk in the amount of $1,126,065.00 is reduced to $234,695.00. SECTION II. The Acting Town Manager shall notify the developer that liability for the letter of credit has been reduced as outlined in Section I of this resolution, and that this reduction does not constitute acceptance of public improvements by the town or relieve the developer of responsibilities outlined in the contract for public improvements for the Exeter Cattail Branch Stormwater Management Pond. 91-47 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION FOR BATTLEFIELD PARKWAY PHASE WHEREAS, the town's Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the public improvements installed to date for Battlefield Parkway Phase II and certified that the value of work performed is $1,043,653.00; and WHEREAS, a letter of credit from First American Bank in the amount of $1,761,183.00 has been provided by the developer and approved by Council to guarantee installation of public improvements for Battlefield Parkway Phase Il. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The letter of credit from First American Bank in the amount of $1,761,183.00 is reduced to $717,530.00. SECTION H. The Acting Town Manager shall notify the developer that liability for the letter of credit has been reduced as outlined in Section I of this resolution, and that this reduction does not constitute acceptance of public improvements by the town or relieve the developer of responsibilities outlined in the contract for public improvements for Battlefield Parkway Phase II. 91-48 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO AMEND SECTION 7A-4(7) OF THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING TI-rE MEASUREMENT OF LOT WIDTH FOR OVERSIZED LOTS, UNDER CHAPTER 11, TITLE 15.1 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: A notice of a public hearing with the Town Council to consider amending Section 7A-4(72) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance regarding the measurement of lot width for oversized lots shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on March 13, 1991 and March 20, 1991 for the public hearing on March 26,1991 pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The public hearing shall begin at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached, and shall be held in the Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street N.W., Leesburg, Virginia. The clerk shall publish notice of this hearing and the Council's intention to consider amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance. 91-49 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 hearing to consider rezoning plan amendment application, Exeter PRN, #ZM- 126 shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror. The notice shall be published on February 27, 1991 and March 6, 1991 for the public hearing on March 12, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the lower level meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia. Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Forester referred to the memo received from staff on the Loudoun Foundation for Adequate Housing (LFAH) and to the public hearing notices. The notices read "Notice is hereby given that the Town of Leesburg will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, February 27, 1991." My understanding is that this is not a town public hearing but it is a public session held by representatives of the LFAH to hear the public. Mr. Brown stated that because the town will be making application for the grant, if agreed to by the Council, it has to be the Town of Leesburg not a Council public hearing. Mrs. Forester referred to the Brownell public hearing notice, noting that it is worded the exact same way, as all Town Council notices are. How will the citizens know the difference between this public hearing and any other public hearing? Are the citizens going to expect to see the Town Council present at this public hearing. Mayor Sevila asked if the grant requirements do not require the town to conduct a town-wide public hearing. Mr. Brown stated that is correct according to the staff of LFAH. Mayor Sevila stated that a certain amount of confusion arises when the town has regularly Minutes of February 26, 1991 scheduled public hearings and then the Council takes the responsibility for having a public information session. I assume that the public information is supposed to be input for the local governing body in helping it decide whether or not to adopt a resolution. Mr. Brown emphasized the fact that this was on a fight schedule which did not allow for a Town Council public hearing. Mrs. Forester asked if enough notice has been given to the citizens. Mr. Brown stated that the requirements of the grant application have been met. Both sessions have been advertised in the Loudoun Times-Mirror. Mrs. Forester expressed concern with the way these meetings have been advertised and believes that it is misleading to the citizens of Leesburg. Mrs. Forester also raised concern with the proposed resolution, stating that it contains language that she does not know anything about. She does understand that the Council is under a fight schedule. Mr. Brown stated that the proposed resolution is not one that staff has endorsed. Staff was asked to put together a resolution that would not only endorse the grant but also avoid compromising any of the town's development concerns. The Mayor noted that the applicant is seeking approval of developments that have not been through the normal review process of the town, including a rezoning and proffer amendment. Mr. Kimball asked who the holder of the money would be. Mayor Sevila stated that the town would receive the money and administer it. Mayor Sevila stated that he shares the concerns of the other councilmembers, in that, the town is sort of charging ahead with something that we know very little about on the notion that is generally good. The foundation's draft language has a number of things in it that concern the Mayor. The time frame has put the Council in a tough situation, thereby putting town staff in a tough situation. Staff needs to distribute to the Council enough information to help us understand exactly what it is we are being asked to do. To make sure that it is consistent with our planning and other policies in the community. Mr. Webb noted that the deadline for Dodona Manor was nearing and asked Mr. Brown to provide the Council, at the next meeting, with a rundown on the $1.4 million - where are these funds, are they available, etc. Mayor Sevila stated that this would be discussed at the March 11, 1991, Council budget workshop. EXECUTIVE SESSION 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 go into Executive Session. The authority for this Executive Session is found in Section 2.1-344(a), Subsection (7) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The purpose for this Executive Session is to discuss pending litigation styled as Georgelas & Sons, Inc., versus the Town of Leesburg. The Acting Town Manager, Deputy Town Attorney, Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason, Traffic Engineer Calvin Grow, Director of Utilities Randolph W. Shoemaker and Special Counsel Bob Corish are requested to remain for the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Webb. Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Sevila Nay: None 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 Mr. Clem. Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Sevila Nay: None On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-50 - RESOLUTION - CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF FEBRUARY 26, 1991 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. Minutes of February 26, 1991 Aye: Nay: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Sevila None On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned. Clerk of Council Robert E. Sevila,/ Mayor Town of Leesburg