HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991_05_14MINUTES OF THE REGULAR IViEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL
MAY 14, 1991
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Cb,tubers, 25 West
Market SWeet, Leesburg, Virginia on May 14, 1991 at 8:00 p.m., Council having been in executive
session from 6:30 p.m., prior thereto. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with the
invocation given by Councilman Kimball and the Salute to the Flag led by Councilman Webb. Present
were: Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councflmembers 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 Finance Paul E. York, Director of Engineering and Public Works
Thomas A. Mason, Director of Utilities Randolph W. Shoemaker, Director of Parks and Recreation Gary
Huff, Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson, Planners Peter Stephenson, Gene Arner and Marilee Weir,
Public Information Officer Susan Farmer, Personnel Assistant Nancy Fi~x~ Town Attorney George
Martin and Deputy Clerk of Council Barbara Marldand.
Mayor Sevila stated that Council has been meeting in executive session on a matter pertaining
to employment of the town manager. Mayor Sevila recognized Mr. J. H,rnilton Lambert, the town's
consultant.
Mr. Lambert stated that over 159 applications were received for the position. In working with
Mr. Julian Hirst, a managerial profile was prepared for the Council. The 159 applications were
subsequently reduced to ten. On Saturday, April 20, the Council spent close to ten hours in interviews
with five of the ten candidates. Council subsequently went through some additional work with the
various candidates and also inquired into the development of an employment contract for the town
manager. Another charge given to the town's consultants was the development of certain terms of
employment. The town, in the past, has not utilized the employment contract methodology. The
contract deals with the employment of the manager, the duties, professional growth, salary, vacation
and other benefits, automobile utilization, termination, residency requirements, review clause and saving
claus. It is the Council's intent to have this contract further reviewed by the town's attorney.
On behalf of Mr. Hirst and himself, Mr. Lambert expressed appreciation for the opportunity
of providing these services during this process.
Mr. Lambert reviewed the proposed contract as follows:
The manager shall serve at the pleasure of the Council and shall have charge of the
administration of the town under the direction of Council and perform all duties as required by the
Commonwealth of Virginia and Town Code.
The town manager will be a member of the International City Managers Association and the
Virginia Local Government Managers Association. The Council shall pay for those dues.
The manager's annual salary shall begin at $72,250.00 and shall be paid to the manager on the
same basis as other regular town employees. Vacation and other benefits prevailing Town of Leesburg
policies will prevail. Automobile - recognizing the duties of the manager requires utilization of an
automobile, the Council shall provide the town manager with an automobile for his use without cost
except appropriate state and federal taxes.
Termination of the manager - if the Council terminates the manager, assuming termination is
not a result of an illegal action, he shall receive six months severance pay plus six months family health
care.
It is required that the town manager be a resident of the town.
Review clause - the Council shall on or before each fiscal year beginning in July 1, 1992 confer
with the manager and perform an annual evaluation including but not limited to such items as
performance, salary and other appropriate items.
On motion of Mr. Kimball, seconded by Mr. Webb, the followit~g lesolution was proposed and
adopted.
91-97 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND STEVEN CARL
BROWN APPOINTING HIM TO THE POSITION OF TOWN MANAGER
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The Mayor of the Town of Leesburg is hereby authorized to execute the attached employment
contract on behalf of the Leesburg Town Council which appoints Steven Carl Brown to the position of
Town Manager effective May 14, 1991, after review and approval by the Town Attorney.
Mr. Lovin stated that the vote to appoint a new town manager is certainly an important vote,
probably the most important vote that he will make during his term on Council. It is a responsibility
Minutes of May 14, 1991
that he has thought about a lot recently. We have had meetings long into the night on this process.
It is unfortunate that I cannot cast a positive vote. I will vote no at Mr. Brown's appointment. I have
talked with Mr. Brown about my vote prior to tonight. He and I understand the position that I have
come to. I wish Mr. Brown no ill will. It has nothing to do with his abilities or his performance as
the acting town manager, however, I would like to give the reasons for my no vote.
Several months ago a former town employee was voted out of office with no reason given by
members that have a responsibility to give a reason for a vote. My decision is based on the process -
we had a profile that I helped institute to give our consultants the guidelines for the manager's position.
I feel that the quRli6cations that we were seeking are not being met by Mr. Brown's experience. The
town needs a prudent, experienced manager at this juncture. We need a person with a strong
background in financial matters, planning matters and someone experienced in cut-back management.
My vote cannot be a positive vote for those reasons. I wish it could be better - Mr. Brown will have
my full support as a town manager.
Mr. Kimball stated, contrary to Mr. Lovin's comment, that he stated his reasons for not
support/ng the former town manager. Two newspaper articles, this week, would lead one to infer that
Mr. Brown was the lone ranger/final candidate. Ms. Bawcom withdrew after the fact. Mr. Brown was
appointed by Council, Monday evening, prior to any withdrawal. He is a fine candidate, excellent
academic and work experience. I will support Mr. Brown.
Mrs. Forester stated that this Council has an opportunity to name a manager who can lead the
Town of Leesburg through a very difficult economic crisis and she does not believe that this Council
by making this appointment is taking full advantage of their opportunity. Mr. Brown certainly has a
strong background in personnel management and he has done a commendable job as assistant manager.
However, I do not believe that these are the skills that we need right now to lead Leesburg through
the current fiscal crisis and economic conditions. I do not want anyone to interpret this as a criticism
of Mr. Brown or his style. I support Mr. Brown, I know him, I have worked well with him and I will
continue to work well with him. However, I cannot support this appointment at this time because I
do not believe that it is in the best interest of the Town of Leesburg.
Mayor Sevila stated that he did not think that the Council selected anyone in executive session
but preferences were expressed. We did not take any action in any of the executive sessions that
Council has been engaged in over the past two months.
Council has been embarked on a very tedious, exhausting and long search for what I believe
is the most important decision that members of Council will make over our term together. I met with
Steve following an indication by Council that they intended to employ him. I explained the basis for
everything that I had said in all of the executive sessions. The concerns that I had were not with Steve
and his ability but with his prudent track record. He has excellent academics, good experience and
references and has had a great three years with this town. He has done a good job as our acting town
manager. But Leesburg faces a crisis. We dismissed an outstanding town manager, some months ago,
without a stated public reason. Tonight we employ one who was the assistant manager under the one
we fired. If there was a reason given, it was simply - that it was time, there was need and cause for
a change in this town. This does not represent change - what it does is reaffirm that the original
reasons given for firing were non existent. As we started in on this process in December and met for
the first time in executive session - I asked a question. Are we going to go through this long process
of reviewing 160 candidates to hire Steve Brown, who had expressed his desire publicly and privately
to all of us for the job. The answer was no and we all pledged together, that night, to find the absolute
best candidate available. We all recognized and reaffirmed the need to have the very best town
manager available in the market. My concern was that we pulled up short and ! don't know why.
This is not intended to be critical of Steve. It is only to say that he is starting out in a career that
is very promising. I believe that he will ultimately reach the absolute heights of. But we are at a time
of crisis in our community where we need the best that is available in this field. We pledged that we
would find that person and when I asked the question, point blank in executive session, could anyone
say that we had agreed to employ the very best - there wasn't one word spoken and I knew the answer
to my own question.
Tonight, I say to Steve and to the public, I pledge my 100 percent support to you. I am more
hopeful then perhaps even you that your tenure as our manager is going to be very successful. I want
you to draw on all the talent, skill, training and education that you have in this field to help this town
through a very difficult time in its histo~. I will vote no on this motion tonight. I am rot voting
against you personally. I am votnng against the process which I have objected to, to all of my fellow
councilmembers.
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Kimball and Webb
Nay: Councilmembers Forester, Lovin and Mayor Sevila
The resolution was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
Mr. Brown wished to thank the Council for the opportunity to assist them in their efforts to
meet the challenges facing Leesburg. Our staff stands ready to work diligently to provide our citizens
with top level municipal services despite the economic downturn that has been experienced nationwide.
The past six months have been difficult but the support of the Mayor, Council, town staff and our many
citizen volunteers has been invaluable to ensure a transition. Leesburg's unique blend of history and
high quality of life are unequal in northern Virginia. Our challenge is to maintain the capability to
Minutes of May 14, 1991
preserve our historically significant environment while at the same time taking steps to encourage a
strong local economy. Strong political leadership plus a committed professional staff provides Leesburg
with the opportunity to continue to grow and strengthen our position of leadership in the region and
Commonwealth. I eagerly accept the challenge and look forward to Leesburg's future and I hope to
prove you three wrong. I appreciate the comments that you have made to me.
Mayor Sevila congratulated Steve and wished him the best of luck. Sincerely and heart felt
from all of the Council. We will be pulling for you.
Mayor Sevila wished to thsnk J. Lambert for his outstanding work that he performed for the
Council on behalf of the town.
Mayor Sevila also wished to thank Nancy Fixx who spent many, many hours with the Council
during this process.
PROCLAMATIONS
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following proclamations were proposed
and unanimously adopted.
OLDER AMERICANS MONTH
MAY 1991
and
WHEREAS, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed May as Older Americans Month in 1963;
WHEREAS, the wisdom and guidance of many Leesburg Senior Citizens have contributed to
the prosperity and the strong character of our community; and
WHEREAS, responding to a commitment to the well-being of the elderly, programs are planned
to improve the quality of life for older persons in Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, various activities honoring Older Americans are planned for the month of May in
Leesburg and throughout the nation.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Town CoUncil of the Town of Leesburg
hereby proclaim May 1991 as Older Americans Month in recognition of the rich contributions senior
citizens continue to give the Leesburg community.
Employee Health and Fitness Day
May 15, 1991
WHEREAS, employee fitness programs can reduce absenteeism and turnover, while increasing
productivity in the workplace; and
WHEREAS, the month of May is National Physical Fitness and Sports Month; and
WHEREAS, the National Association of Governors' Councils on Physical Fitness and Sports,
the Association for Fitness in Business, and the Allstate Life Insurance Company are sponsoring the
third annual National Employee Health and Fitness Day on Wednesday, May 15, 1991; and
WHEREAS, National Employee Health and Fitness Day provides the opportunity for employers
to introduce a fitness program to their employees; and
WHEREAS, more than 1,400 employers participated in last year's Employee Health and Fitness
Day across the United States; and
WHEREAS, more than one-half million emplOYees are expected to Farticipate in non-competitive
physical fitness activities this year;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
hereby declares May 15, 1991, as Employee Health and Fitness Day in the Town of Leesburg and
encourages all persons to take advantage of free admission and activities at Ida Lee Recreation Center.
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
PETITIONERS
Mr. Alton Echols, addressed the Council with regard to the budget and the Town of Leesburg's
economic stability. We have spent six months on the problem of a town manager. The democratic
process was in vote, and Jeff went. We have had the democratic process again and have hired Steve.
I would rather have Steve as economic development. The minority now has to support the m~jority.
But we have to know what we are supporting. We are a town of people trying to earn a living. We
Minutes of May 14, 1991
compete just like everyone else. The Town of Leesburg is a corporation. It competes against the
corporation of Frederick, Maryland, Winchester, Herndon, Manassas, Warrenton. How well do we
compete? Residentially, commercially and industrially we are number six on the list of six. We used
to be number two or three in all categories. We cannot blame what has happened in the Town of
Leesburg, in the past five years, on Jeff Minor. Nor can we put the responsibility of what is going
to happen in the next six months on Steve Brown. The responsibility for what has gone wrong lies
on every citizen, businessman and Councilmember in this town. We have ignored a basic tenement
of a successful corporation. We have allowed ourselves to become non-competitive. Most businesses
that cannot balance a budget and that have more outlay then inlay, start cutting back. This is the first
thing that Leesburg has to do. The second thing is to grow. We must get together as a democratic
group and grow our way out. Businesses have to be built up by bringing more people into Leesburg.
For example, there is a development on the agenda for 136 townhouse units. Assuming a tax rate of
$.17 and a sale price of $135,000.00 that project, when fully occupied, will bring in over $40,000.00 per
year in real estate taxes. That project will bring in, assuming two automobiles per unit. approximately,
$5,500.00. One successful townhouse project, of affordable housing, will bring in $100,000.00 not
including sales tax, meals and lodging, etc., etc. Tap fees, even if it is a one time thing, is another way
to grow ourselves out of the situation Leesburg is in. None of this will be accomplished unless we stop
fighting, stop blaming and we must accept that we have all contributed to this situation. We are in
a recession or a depression. We have a $2 million shortfall. Half the reason we are in this situation
is a recession the other half is mismanagement. This is a lovely building, but I question now whether
we could afford it. We have Ida Lee Park and the new parking garage and we must get behind them
and make them a success. The good news is that Leesburg is a small unit. If we get a game plan and
jumpstart the economy we can kick this town forward successfully and prosper almost over night.
There is hope in Leesburg. You now have a town manager - give the man a charge. Tell him to put
finance and administration under the Finance Director Paul York and make the Wwn manager the
economic development chief of the Town of Leesburg. He should make the public information officer
the tourism department and take a member of the planning department and make him the
retail/commercial department and jumpstart this town. The Council should hire J. Lambert to make
Mr. Brown the best economic development town manager in the state of Virginia. I have never seen
this town in the shape that it is in. If we have tough times then we should be tough people and work
together. There is no reason why we cannot survive and prosper. We should form a committee with
the private and public sectors.
Mr. Bill Boyd, of Leesburg, addressed the Council with regard to two properties located On
South Street. S.E., which are deteriorating the neighborhood. The executor of the property, Mrs.
Elizabeth Frye, refuses to do anything to the property. They are violating two sections of Article I of
the town's building code, seven sections of Article 2 of Leesburg's housing code and one section of
Article 7 of the town's code. I am representing 15 of the residents and am requesting that the town
step in and do something about this situation.
Mr. Brown stated that members of the public works crew have cleared the lot in question and
sent the owners a bill. The police and zoning officials have frequented the area. Other violations have
also been reported and have been addressed by the police department. A letter has been sent to the
Board of Supervisors requesting their help with the building inspection. We antidpate some positive
response from the county. We have also contacted the executor of the property in hopes that they
would take some action. We will make sure that there is water and electricity being provided at the
property. We have been in contact with the county health department and they have indicated that
no health department violation exists. We did have evidence of water billing at this address. We are
trying to respond in every way that is available to us. Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Brown to pursue this
matter vigorously. It has been a matter of urgent concern to all of the residents and property owners.
It is a problem and if there is a way that we can address it we need to do it.
Mrs. Peggy Forbes, a resident of 309 Wildman Street, addressed the Council with regard to
Rezoning Application #ZM-124 Brownell, Inc. She read a letter written by Mr. Bruce Noland. Mr.
Noland's letter is attached and made a part of the minutes.
Mrs. Forbes also wished to remind the Council that the property when she moved in was zoned
R-4. We moved in with the idea that it would be single-family. There are a number of residents here
tonight who support the denial of the Brownell rezoning request.
Mr. Bruce Roberts, a resident of 1010 Foster Place, addressed the Council. He wished to
commend Mr. Echols for his comments. Mr. Roberts expressed concern with the problems that the
Town o~ Leesbmg is facing. -Lie is very concerned v.~ith ~he scope of the rewsion to the Town Plan and
the time that will be spent on it. Specifically with no director of planning, no census data from the
1990 Census and with the economic time that the town is faced with - staff time and the dollars that
will be spent on that endeavor.
Salary increases are another concern. With business the way it is, the economy and the private
sector - companies facing rough economic times. We need to cut as much fat out of this budget as we
possibly can before we consider raising taxes. The numbers of empty buildings and the businesses
going out of business are real. To be faced with tax increases would make this burden even worse.
We need to come up with some real deep cutting in our Wwn budget before we consider any tax
increases.
The parking garage is another issue. I am deeply concerned with the economic viability of
downtown Leesburg. It is the backbone of our town and it is very important that we keep it as viable
Minutes of May 14, 1991
as possible. The merchants have been put through tremendous trauma with the elimination of the
majority of the parking. There is a proposal to hire three parking attendants and possibly have three
months free parking. We should propose forgetting the three attendants and make the garage self
serving through Christmas. Lets get people used to using it and give the downtown merchants an
opportunity to build back their businesses.
As a town we should consider economic development. It is the key to coming out of these
economic times. We need to pump economic development and do everything that we possibly can to
get growth coming back to this town. We have put the infrastructure in place - this new town office,
Ida Lee Park - now we need the people to help pay for it.
Another concern is our reputation of being a very difficult town to do business in. This is a
very large concern and feeling that is held broadly across northern Virginia. It is time to look at what
we can do to get things going in the fig}it direction again.
The Council has done a tremendous service to the business community in supporting Leesburg
Renaissance. This is a tremendous step in the right direction in getting the business community and
Leesburg unified and focused in what we need to do as a group. Business is the key to the financial
stability of the town. The business community is who creates the jobs and pays the majority of the
taxes. Council is urged to support the renaissance program for the coming year.
The very last consideration that we should have in balancing this budget is an increase in taxes.
An increase will only undermine the business community. The residents of this town are already
strapped financially. We are all fortunate to have a wonderful place to live and a tremendous quality
of life.
With regard to the sign ordinance, Mr. Galloway has proposed an ad hoc committee be formed
to help make recommendations to the ordinance.
Mr. Stanley Caulkins, a resident and business owner in Leesburg, addressed the Council. There
are so many things to be addressed, so many financial problems and so many areas that need to be
attended to. The sign ordinance is flawed and it must address the needs of the economic community.
Whatever variations, within reason, need to be addressed without undue arrests. We need that vehicle
between the people who control the ordinance and the people who need the signs.
The Town Plan is a bit premature in its necessity. It should be tabled in the effort of saving
finances for the town. The last revision was completed in 1988 and it only requires a five year review.
Some months ago I was a promoter of the procurement of the Dodona Manor property. I have
watched the Council labor through many, many hours. The Council has an opportunity now to deny
the purchase of that property and the Council should do so. Three years from now the property will
still be available at half the price and then the town can capitalize on it. Mr. York proposes a transfer
of funds to make the budget become current on June 30. My business is off 35 percent. How is the
town going to pay their bills if it does not have the money. I beg the Council to please be careful with
the town's money. We are in a critical situation. Two years ago the town probably had a Four A
rating on the bond market. What would happen today in the bond market - the town has had bad
publicity in the Wall Street Journal, there is just no capital or cash flow. We must all pull together.
Ma.ry Hope Worley, a resident and business owner in Leesburg, addressed the Council. She
and another business associate were discussing leases and the only way to get out of a five year lease
is to declare bankruptcy. Leases are one of the problems that face the property owner and their
financial institutions and the business owner and their short and long term planning. There is no
doubt that the next several months will be crucial times. Retail sales, personally, have been down for
the last 18 months. The Town Council and business owners have the same problem - how to increase
revenue while keeping or improving the quality of service or merchandise and cutting back expenses.
Would the Town Council entertain a work session for ideas for increasing revenue, one rule being that
no one would be allowed to say "that won't work because." For example, keeping the town office open
until 9:00 p.m., for citizens to conduct business on Friday night, together with retail businesses staying
open on the same night. By reducing staff on slow days and having them work on a specific night
would take care of increased personnel costs. What abaut assessing existing space to see if it could be
used by two offices. The success of the retail community is vital to the business community. The
decline of retail sales cannot be blamed totally on the changing of our parking location nor will it all
of a sudden revecse when the parking facility opens. We need the town's continued support. We need
a common sense interpretation of the sign ordinance with an attitude of how the town can help us be
successful in our business. Not a combative, adversary procedure. We need some public relations on
the streets tomorrow. A little in service to town employees and construction workers to tell people
where to park and apologize for the inconvenience would be a help. We need help to fill vacant spaces
downtown. Could town departments, whose schedules are not so full, be directed to some of these
immediate needs. We appreciate the town's support of the business community through our
partnership in Leesburg Renaissance. The Leesburg Flower and Garden Festival was a positive attitude
for our town.
Mr. Kevin Goehler, a real estate agent in the town, addressed the Council on two issues. He
spoke on behalf of Mr. Tom Galloway and the sign ordinance.
He referred to the Plaster's building on the corner of King and Market Streets. In 1911 there
Minutes of May 14, 1991
was a sign above the building called the W.W. Chamblin Building. He .has a tenant that is willing to
use the original name of the building, W. W. Chamblin. Doing this, does not comply with the town's
sign ordinance. We need some sort of waiver or enactment from the town. The restoration of this
building is a tremendous asset to the downtown. The Council should work with us to allow the original
sign back on the building.
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Goehler if he has been before the BAR. Mr. Goehler stated that he
has not officially, but has left it up to the construction people and he understands that it has been
turned down because of the size. Mr. Lovin, as the Councilmanic appointment to the BAR, stated that
the BAR has not had a vote on this matter. The drawings and application were approved. The amount
of work at this building and at Jordan's Restaurant is remarkable. I would assume, from my
association on the BAR, the sign would have a positive influence. It would probably take a legislative
act to erect the sign. Mr. Goehler stated that he is not asking for a fast approval of the sign but would
like some attention to the matter. The building is near 100 percent leasing. Mayor Sevila asked Mr.
Brown to prepare a report for committee consideration and inform Mr. Goehler of the committee date.
Ms. Evelyn Thaler, a resident of Leesburg, wished to commend the builder for restoring the
Plaster's building. It is a wonderful addition to the downtown, historic district. It is a professional,
high class job and it is a plus to the community. The Mayor and Council should do everything they
can to help the applicant.
Mr. Andy East, a resident of 206 Wildman Street~ addressed the Council with regard to
Rezoning Application #ZM-124 by Brownell, Inc. He stated that the town is in a crisis and should
seriously weigh the consequences of doing anything hastily during a crisis - with direct respect to our
neighborhood that would be dumping affordable housing in there. Mr. Brownell has permission to build
66 fine, quality homes - quality is the key to everything. Mr. East asked that the Council weigh the
concerns of the direct vicinity that their decision will impact.
Mr. Joe Kelly, a resident of North Street and a Leesburg business owner, addressed the Council.
He is chairman of the parking committee and wished to address a few of the recommendations that
came out of the committee.
The closing of the parking garage, the committee feels will be a problem for restaurant owners.
There is nothing to steal in this garage, therefore, it should not close at 1:00 a.m.
We would like to keep the Liberty Street parking lot open for free parking to employees.
The committee feels the strongest about the four weeks of free parking recommended by staff.
There is no way to get this facility off the ground in only four weeks. Free parking should be allowed,
at a minimum, until October 1st and preferably through the Christmas season.
We would like to have the police department use all levels in order to provide a safe and secure
atmosphere for shoppers.
The committee feels that the facility is great and we want to bring commerce back to Leesburg.
We urge the Council to give these recommendations consideration. The town is in a terrible economic
situation. We should also postpone the revision to the Town Plan and put our emphasis on economic
development.
Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Brown if the adoption of a ratified regulation for parking fees, and
hours of operation would come to the Council in a form of a resolution or ordinance. Mr. Brown stated
in a series of ordinances that would adopt the operation plan for the parking facility.
Mr. Jim Pumphrey, a resident of Leesburg and co-owner of Jocks Exxon, addressed the Council.
He stated that in the past two years business has dropped nearly 40 percent. Because of this many
changes have been made for the well-being of the business. The town is in an economic crisis and it
is time for the town government to make some crucial business decisions for the well-being of the town
and tax payers. The town needs to work with the business community to retain existing businesses
and to attract new ones. Do not work to put up more road blocks and red tape to deter business. Lets
work to bring new dollars to the Town of Leesburg - the old one is getting mighty thin.
Mr. Sam Legar_d, a business owner in Leesburg addrosse~ the Council. He wished to echo
what has already been smd by the former speakers with regard to the budget.
On another issue, Mr. Legard asked for an update on what the Council is doing about the three
buildings in Leesburg that have been damaged by fire.
With regard to the sign ordinance. He asked the Council to make it as easy as possible for
people to advertise their business.
Mr. Brown stated that town forces have gone out and cleaned up these properties. As long as
these homes are boarded and the yards maintained, the health department insists that no violation
exists. One of the buildings is scheduled for re-development~ information has been submitted to the
town. The town cannot demolish a building without owner permission. We did receive permission
from one of the property owners but they would not agree to pay the demolition bill which could
amount to at least $10,000 in landfill fees. The town is trying to maintain the yards and will continue
Minutes of May 14, 1991
to make sure that the buildings are properly boarded. We are encouraging the property owners to take
care of these buildings as quickly as possible. The Mayor asked Mr. Brown to keep Council informed
and to find out whether the town has any power outside of the county health department or other state
agencies to enforce these kinds of property questions. Mr. Brown stated that the Town Attorney and
Deputy Town Attorney have researched these situations and have determined that the town does not
have the power to demolish these buildings.
Mayor Sevila wished to commend the speakers tonight. He stated that it is a genuine
experience for the Council to have so many citizens from such a broad cross section of our town come
and bring issues, concerns and problems to the Council. This is a healthy sign that people are coming
to our town with positive suggestions and meaningful input that we as a town Council can direct into
some kind of action to maybe help relieve some of these problems. It also suggests the spirit of
cooperation and a recognition that we areall experiencing some difficult times. We are in this together
and will have to solve it together. We as a Council are going to try to work with the private sector,
neighborhoods and communities in the town to solve the formidable problems facing all of us. The
Council cannot function efficiently if we do not hear from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING - FY 1992 BUDGET
Mr. Brown made the following statement, in conjunction with a slide presentation.
The proposed budget for FY 92 submitted to Town Council on April 9, 1991, totalled
$22,535,037 for all funds. The budget reflects the Council's direction at our March 11 pre-budget
workshop to provide the same high level of service that our citizens have grown to expect from town
government.
Highlights of the proposed budget are:
The establishment of a $500,000 financial reserve to accommodate emergencies
and improve cash flow;
o Wastewater plant expansion activities;
Contributions to Leesburg Renaissance, special events and other economic
development and tourism activities;
Opening of the downtown parking facility;
Elimination of a position in the Clerk's office, finance department and utilities
department; and
Elimination of internships and summer employment.
Since the budget was submitted, Council has held two workshops where cuts in expenditures
were discussed. As a result of these discussions, it appears likely that the refuse collection fee proposed
in the FY 92 budget could be eliminated, however, several revenue enhancements remain proposed.
Because revenue from real estate taxes is down due to decreasing assessments, a $.02 real estate tax
rate increase is proposed.
Also proposed are increases in transient occupancy, utility taxes and meals taxes. These
revenues are necessary to maintain the town's commitment to enhancing tourism and economic
development in Leesburg. Contributions to Leesburg Renaissance, Bluemont Concert Series, First Night
Leesburg and other special events in Leesburg plus the funding of EDAC publications, the parking
facility operations and debt service on the town's quality of life related projects far outweigh the revenue
collected through meals and transient occupancy taxes.
11.
Budget workshops are scheduled for May 20 and May 29 with budget adoption slated for June
The Engineering and Public Works Department account for the largest source of general fund
expenditures - 33 percent or $11.8 million. The Police Department accounts for nearly $2 million.
parks and recreation - $1 million and Debt Service - $1.9 million.
In 1988, the town's budget was $6.3 million, in 1989 - $7.3 million, in 1990 - $9.7 million. This
years estimated budget is $9.9 million and next year's budget - $11.8 million. The largest general fund
revenue source is property tax. We are proposing to go to a semi-annual billing cycle to create an extra
half-year property tax revenue. Other local taxes amount to about 22 percent or $2.6 million.
Revenues from the Commonwealth are about $915,000. Permits, fees and licenses account for about
11 percent of the town's revenue. For the past five years, general fund revenues have increased as the
general fund expenditures have. The general fund's capital projects proposed for the next five years
amount to 34.1 percent. Those projects being, in the storm drainage category, with 29 percent for
streets and highways. Parks and recreation account for 19 percent,engineering and public works - 12.1
percent and the police - 4.9 percent.
The fund balance in relationship to revenues and expenditures, this year, was quite low. We
are proposing to raise that fund balance for the next fiscal year. The town continues to be competitive
Minutes of May 14, 1991
with the larger towns in Virginia. Even with a proposed tax increase of 2 cents, we would still be
below most of the other towns. We have substantially increased real estate values since 1982. The
accessed values have risen steadily, however, for the next fiscal year we are anticipating a dramatic
decrease in accessed value, which has necessitated the proposed tax rate increase. Zoning permits have
decreased dramatically. In 1983, the town received $257,000 in availability and connection fees, 1991 -
$710,000 and 1992 we are estimating $1.3 million in availability and connection fee revenue. This
does not .compare favorably with 1986 through 1988.
Mr. Tom Julia, owner of Dominion Consulting and Vice President of Government Affairs for
the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council. On behalf of the chamber's
executive committee, congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Brown on his appointment. The chamber
is gratified to have had the opportunity to work with staff on the budget, specifically on a number of
revenue increasing proposals. We commend the staff, particularly Steve Brown and Paul York for their
efforts to make these discussions constructive for all parties. The areas of urgent concern are proposed
business taxes and fees. What has been heard this evening is the collective frustration of businesses
in Leesburg. All of whom are willing and able to work with the public sector to revitalize the local
economy. Don't make Leesburg a less attractive, a less competitive place to do business. Don't reduce
the disposable and the investment income of our business community. Don't do damage to the very
tools of the economic recovery that will come. It is the business tax base that fuels the local economy
in Leesburg and Loudoun County. If you do so it will be a disservice not only to the business
community that has contributed so much but also to the residents of Leesburg who have every right
to expect and hope for a strong local economy that will fund the programs and services that make for
a high quality of life. The message that should be put forward by town government is one of greater
efficiency, doing more with less, downsizing, deferring and holding the line. To an extent the proposed
town budget reflects these considerations. Yet on the subject of new taxes and fees the proposed budget
looks more like an effort to serve a higher tax bill on the business community and Leesburg citizens.
The chamber commends the town for its proposed reserv~ and for recommending a semi-annual tax
collection. This is good thinking and good planning.
Mr. Steve Wagner, President of Community Bank and Co-Chairman of the Chamber of
Commerce Legislative Committee, addressed the Council. The chamber is committed to playing a
responsible, constructive role in the town's budget review. We recognize at this time of declining
revenues, lower assessed values and economic uncertainty, that new revenue opportunities must be
considered along with spending reductions. Therefore, we believe that a small increase in the broad
base real property tax rate may be necessary to balance the budget. We cannot say the same about
other revenue proposals. The chamber opposes increases in the following taxes: meals tax, consumer
utility tax and the transient occupancy tax. The chamber also opposes the proposed trash pick up fees.
The chamber requests that the town do the following: identify any additional deferrals or reductions
in capital improvement expenditures, eliminate proposed cost of living, merit and other wage increases,
reduce or eliminate proposed department allocations for travel, training and fringe benefits. The
philosophy of town government, this year, should be to downsize wherever possible, and get more out
of current programs and personnel resources. The chamber is confident that the local economy will
resume a positive course in the near future. It is the responsibility of local government to do
everything in its power to accelerate that process, not hamper it. It is the responsibility of local
government to restore and boost a local tax base that will generate the funds to sustain and enrich the
excellent quality of life all of us cherish.
Mrs. Jane Brown, representing the residents of Cedar Walk Circle, Meadows Lane, the
Neighborhood Watch Program of Cedar Walk and the Leesburg Crime Prevention Counsel, addressed
the Council. She stated that there is an urgent need for street lights in both of these communities.
Our homes were built before lighting codes were more strictly enforced. Through meetings with Traffic
Engineer Calvin Grow, it has been established that both neighborhoods have grossly inadequate street
lighting. We are confident that the Council may want to increase the allocations for these streets and
not cut them out of the budget. Proper illumination from street lights is the number one way to
reduce crime. Based on police reports, the communities of Cedar Walk Circle and Meadows Lane
border two of the most crime ridden areas in Leesburg. Both communities offer street parking for their
residents. How secure can our vehicles be if there is inadequate lighting. Lighting provides security
for homes and vehicles. It increases residential value and resale value. Adequate street lighting is the
most cost effective security system. The residents are asking the Council to allocate this money for
more street lights. Let our tax p~yer's dollars work where it will do the most good. The results are
dramatic, cost effective, less crime, fewer accidents and safer neighborhoods.
Mr. Frank Ratio, 130 Prospect Drive, S.W., addressed the Council with regard to the budget.
He stated that in 1989, the Council said when the total tax collection from property was $1.8 million,
in five years the total tax collection will be $6.1 million and no increase in taxes. It is now three years
into that five year program. In 1991, the tax collection was $2.6 million. In 1992, the tax collection
is going to $2.8 million. How is it going to get from $2.6 million to $2.8 million by raising the tax rate
.2 cents and using the one time windfall from collecting taxes three times in the year instead of twice.
The total increase will be $1.3 million. This is poor fiscal policy. What is the town going to do next
year. The Council should look again at the projected increase in assessed values. The philosophy of
taking a one time revenue and using for general operating expenses is a mistake. The staff should
justify a 15%, 25% and 30% increase in assessments.
Mayor Sevila stated that this is a draft budget, prepared by town staff with instructions from
the Council to prepare a balanced budget.
Minutes of May 14, 1991
Ms. Natalie Huelsman, a resident of 262 Meadows Lane, N.E., addressed the Council regarding
street lights. She stated that one year ago she wrote a letter and submitted a petition to the Council
on behalf of her neighborhood. She received a call about one month ago and was told that all
preparations had been completed but that the town was not planning on allocating any funds for street
lighting. It seems that it was a waste of time, money and energy to have gone through an of this
trouble to not follow through with the street lights. How can the citizens watch for crime when we
are unable to see what is going on in our streets. Money needs to be anocated for these street lights.
Mr. George Atwell, a resident of 509 Evergreen Mill Road, addressed the Council. He stated
that a community such as Leesburg is made up of three important elements. The town government.
business community and the citizens. If the three elements do not work together in a partnership then
the community stands very little chance of success. A critical re-look should be made to the function
of town government. A town government should be vitally concerned with economic development.
Other functions of government are public safety, police, street lights, public works and sanitation.
Council must make some changes. Council must be more concerned with what is vital and what is
necessary for the citizens and businesses of Leesburg. My special interest is the trash collection fee.
The Council wants to balance its budget by charging every citizen for a basic function that the town
government needs to provide.
Mr. Alton Echols, addressed the Council with regard to the budget. He stated that in 1986,
the budget was $6.2 million. In 1991 and 1992, the budget is over $11 million. It has doubled in five
years. Lets stop the double talk on how the Council has held the tax rate. The tax rate does not mean
a thing unless it is coupled with assessments. What has happened to assessments since 1986. They
have gone from $.4 million to $1.5 billion - 300 plus percent. Houses have not gone up 20 percent in
1986, 1987 and 1988. The whole town is over assessed.
Declare Marshal Law and suspend the sign ordinance. Give temporary permits to everyone.
Tell the zoning administrator not to enforce the sign ordinance.
Rents are too high. Assessments are too high which raises the insurance on properties.
Government has out grown our population. The town's budget is as 'much out of line as Loudoun
County's budget. Fifty percent of our problem is the recession, the other fifty percent is our own doing.
We have to balance the budget, we must save the businesses that we have and then try to get new
· ones. The Council has to give Steve Brown 110 percent of its suppm~c. We need an economic
development committee and a tourism committee. You need to put some of the extra $500,000 into
a dedicated tax to promote tourism. Corporations, whether private or public, have the same
characteristics. One of which is they have to take in as much revenue as they spend. That is what
Leesburg has to start doing. The Council should put Leesburg on a budgetary Marshal Law. Declare
war against a Leesburg depression. Tell your town manager to come to the next Council meeting with
an economic re-development plan. Leesburg needs an economic re-development plan. The budget has
to be cut - even if we have to cut personnel. People (antique shops) will not come to Leesburg because
of the experiences they have encountered with the town's rules and regulations. Builders will tell you
equal horror stories. We can change this overnight. We need to have a less regulated entity and make
it pleasant for people to come here.
The public hearing was closed. Mayor Sevila asked staff to prepare a summary of the minutes
for the May 20, 1991 budget workshop.
COUNCILMEMBER'S COMMENT
Mr. Webb stated that he and Ms. Bange were present at Saturday's Listening Session. Mr.
Dave Bowers attended the session and expressed concern with the timing and cost associated with the
review of the Town Plan.
Mid-Atlantic Cable made a presentation at last evenings Cable Commission meeting. Mid-
Atlantic presently offers service to western Loudoun and is in the process of conducting a survey in
the Town of Leesburg to determine the feasibility of bringing their service to the town. This is
something that this Council should strongly consider. Mid-Atlantic would be a second cable company
in the town offering the same type of service as Multi-Vision. They hope to petition the Council in late
fall.
Mr. Lovin commented on the positive response of the Leesburg Flower and Garden Festival.
tie thanked the Central Loudoun Little League for opening day.
He attended the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce Valor Award Luncheon and wished
to congratulate the Leesburg Police Department, particularly Officers Paul and Orr who were recipients
of a life saving medal and a bronze metal of valor, respectively. Also congratulations to K-9 Officer Rex
who won the top dog honor.
Mr. Lovin wished to recognize Herman Costello, a 27 year member of the town's Board of
Zoning Appeals. Mr. Costello has submitted his resignation.
Mr. Clem congratulated Mr. Brown on his appointment as town manager.
He wished to echo Mr. Lovin's comments with respect to the Valor Awards. Congratulations
to Officers Paul and Orr and an the other fire and rescue personnel that received awards.
Minutes of May 14, 1991
Mr. Clem thanked the petitioners who spoke tonight. There was a lot of excellent information
provided by these people. With regard to Mr. Bruce Roberts comments, asking that salaries be frozen,
Mr. Brown has proposed that there be no salary increases. Along the same line, it would be most
fitting for the Town Council to set a precedent and consider surrendering our salary for one year to
aid in balancing this budget. It amounts to about $50,000.
Mr. Kimball stated that this is his third budget review cycle and it has certainly been the most
active one that he has experienced. Tonight's comments were heard and well received by all the
Council. We all have very specific interests in the community, in the business sense and if nothing
else, just homeownership. We are concerned with the economic downturn. With regard to the
comments made on the sign ordinance, Mr. Kimball stated that he likes the appearance of Leesburg
and would not want to see the town go too far on allowing open season, in an attempt to jumpstart
the economy. He is not sure that the sign ordinance is the problem - perhaps there are some areas
in it that need relief which will be addressed as the review begins.
He noted that Mary Hope Worley called for a town work session on how to increase business -
that is a valuable suggestion and recommendation. We have some mechanisms in place to do that -
our own Council, town, community, Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC). Mr.
Kimball called for a renewed effort from the EDAC, in an advisory capacity, to present viable, economic
suggestions where the public sector might participate. We are attempting to do that with Dodona
Manor. There have been many calls tonight for an increase in residents and tourism, certainly there
are some tangible and intangible benefits in that endeavor.
Mr. Kimball expressed encouragement with the number of comments and number of individuals
who came forth tonight to share their views. Some of them very heart felt. They do not fall on deaf
ears - we are concerned. We are interested in working together to help us all through this process and
this time. We have made appeals, through Mr. Brown, for a process to be more user friendly, to be
more responsive in a timely fashion to citizen's requests and requirements.
Mr. Kimball stated that he endorses Mr. Kelly's comments with regard to the parking garage.
Mr. Kelly was present at the May 7, 1991, Administration and Public Works Committee and made an
excellent presentation.
Mrs. Forester wished to echo the comments made with respect to the Flower and Garden
Festival. It was a great enhancement to the town.
She wished to encourage everyone to become involved with the fund raiser for Loudoun County
High School's all night graduation party. In concert with the town's Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission, they are selling Meadow Muffin Mega Bucks and have extended it to June 1, 1991. We
should encourage this event as a community for the safety of our youngsters.
Mrs. Forester also thanked the citizens for their input tonight. It has been one of the most
lively budget public hearings that she has attended, not only as a councilmember but as a citizen as
well. She urged Council to set some goals and priorities and to look at a balanced budget that will spur
economic development in the town.
As a member of the Planning Commission, Mrs. Forester stated that the Planning Commission
as a whole was very disappointed at the level of input received on the sign ordinance. We had several
workshops, a public hearing, several public sessions and very little input was received from citizens and
businesses. As a councilmember, Mrs. Forester is looking forward to that level of input, so that the
town can come UP with a sign ordinance that is best for everyone and for the Town of Leesburg.
Ms. Bange wished to congratulate Mr. Brown. She believes that Mr. Brown has it in him, his
skills and technique - maybe not as much experience but she believes he will be a good leader.
Ms. Bange reported that Mr. Dan Reeves, with Barber and Ross, called during Saturday's
Listening Session with regard to a temporary sign which he installed at the entrance to their new outlet
on Catoctin Circle. Since the temporary sign was installed he has had as many as 30 to 40 customers
in a day - one temporary sign has really done a lot. Mr. Reeves would like to know what the town
could do to give him a little more flexibility on this temporary sign. If one sign bas done that for one
business, this could be a domino effect for all of us. Ms. Bange urged Council to look into this.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission held its meeting this morning and raised
concern with closing the farmhouse. They are concerned with the farmhouse sitting empty and
deteriorating. The commission favors the continued use of the farmhouse.
MANAGER'S REPORT
Mr. Bra. stated that due to the lateness of the hour he would abstain from any formal report.
He did note that because funding was not available for the turn lane at Country Club Drive, staff is
looking at an alternative. Flashing lights and flags to identify an approaching intersection. Mr.
Kimball expressed appreciation for this information and staff's response.
LEGISLATION
Minutes of May 14, 1991
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
91-98 - RESOLUTION - DENYING REZONING APPLICATION #ZM-124 BY BROWNELL, INC.
WHEREAS, on September 10, 1990, the Council received rezoning application #ZM-124 by
Brownell, Inc., to rezone a 14 acre parcel of land located north of Wildman Street and west of Manors
subdivision from R-4 to R-6 with proffers and referred the application to the Planning Commission for
public hearing and recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on November
15, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a revised concept plan and revised proffers to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on December 20, 1990; and
WHERFu~, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application on December 20,
1990; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a revised concept plan and revised proffers to the Town
Council; and
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on this application on February 26, 1991;
WHEREAS, the proposed R-6 zoning, with revised proffers, is not consistent with the density
for this area as set forth in the Town Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed R-6 zoning with revised proffers is not in the interest of public health,
safety, and general welfare:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
Rezoning application #ZM-124 by Brownell, Inc. is hereby denied.
Mr. Webb asked what the difference in the number of units is in the R-4 and R-6. Mr. Brown
stated that R-4 allows 4 dwelling units per acre and R-6 allows 6 units per acre. Ms. Weir stated that
the property has approval for 66 single-family units. With approval of the rezoning a total of 80 units
would be permitted. A total of 52 single-family and 28 duplex units.
Mr. Lovin stated these issues are never easy, particularly with neighborhood zoning applications.
This application has been tough. The applicant has done a very good job of presenting the application.
The job that I have is to decide what is best for Leesburg and I don't think that I can vote positive for
this because I don't really think it is the best for Leesburg. The main reasons are the issues of density,
traffic, water, environment, and sink holes that have come up out there. The statement of justification
causes me some problems along with the density. I cannot support the application - it does not follow
the Town Plan.
Mayor Sevila stated that Mr. Nelis has done an outstanding job, both in presenting this at the
committee meetings and at the Council public hearing. The Mayor also thanked Mr. Nelis for a letter
he sent the Mayor responding to concerns that the Mayor expressed in the committee meetings
concerning the zoning line and comprehensive plan proposed or approved densities. It has been a
thorough presentation. The Mayor expressed concern, as the Council has listened to the dialogue
between the applicant and the citizens that it became an "us versus them" issue. I never like to see
it devolve into something like that. It got to be where the developer/applicant was a bad guy and it
is very unfortunate if Council ever finds itself leaning toward those kinds of arguments or rationale to
support their positions. I don't view Mark Nelis as a bad guy. I view him as a capable attorney and
applicant's representative. I don't view Bruce Brownell to be a bad guy. I know that he has been
involved in litigation against this town but he has alse done some very high quality development in this
community which is frequently sighted by all of us as examples of how development should be dono.
I'm not interested in that kind of debate or discussion and am certainly not even invited to participate
in it.
I have looked at this and considered it thoroughly over the last few weeks. There is no doubt
that the public interest in the application is extremely high. The public has brought to us many issues
that were of concern to them and they forced the Council and staff to go back and look at many of the
genuine planning issues that are presented by the application. It does raise questions of compatibility.
It raises issues of consistency and even predictability. I find that I resolve these issues all in the
negative - that is against the application. There has to be a level of predictability. I am concerned with
citizens who say that they bought homes in a community believing that it was an R-4 single-family
development. They did not know that it was going to be used later for what has been called,
erroneously, an affordable housing project. It is a difference in mix in the community. It was not
anticipated. There is a certain expectation that gets built into homeownership and you do have a great
interest in what goes on the vacant land around you. People who have appeared before the Council
and who have spoken have said that they inquired about that and were satisfied that the zoning was
Minutes of May 14, 1991
R-4 and that there weren't any mistakes or compelling reasons in the original zoning for them to
believe that the Council might be considering a change to that. I am not opposed to affordable housing
but I am opposed to the sporadic efforts that are not part of an overall community wide, even region
wide effort to solve what is a very real and pronounced problem.
I agree that these duplexes might be more affordable then single-family homes on that property,
but at the same time I don't think this is a serious effort to provide affordable housing. I think it is
instead an alternative available to the applicant. I don't fault him for this because it is that kind of
creativity and ingenuity that keeps developers afloat in these difficult times. It is an alternative that
might open an avenue to a more active market. We cannot approach the affordable issue without at
least considering what effect it is going to have on vested interests in the community and expectations
and most importantly on property values.
In conclusion, this zoning would not be consistent with good zoning practice and does not
promote and is not in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. It is the Council's duty to
protect. I will support the motion to deny this item.
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.
91-0-17 - ORDINANCE - APPROVING VACATION OF THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS
A AND C, TAX MAP 48K~ BLOCK 4 (FIRST STREET CAR WASH PROPERTY)
and
WHEREAS, the Loudoun County tax records show a boundary line separating lots A and C;
WHEREAS, the owner of lots A and C proposes to erect a building occupying a portion of both
lots; and
and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance requires structures to be located on a single lot;
WHEREAS, the owner of these lots desires that the boundary line separating lot A and C be
vacated to create a single lot; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public heating on this application on April 23, 1991:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
Boundary Line Vacation application #91-01, authorizing the vacation of the boundary line
separating lot A and lot C, Loud~un County Tax Map 48K, Block 4, is hereby approved. The newly
created, single parcel consists of 2.2696 acres as shown on the plat of consolidation dated January 18,
1991, prepared by Cervantes and Associates, P.C. for First Street Limited Partnership.
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
91-99 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1991, AND THE TRANSFER OF
FUNDS FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
and
WHEREAS, the town recently concluded operations for the third quarter of fiscal year 1991;
WHEREAS, an evaluation of the town's financiol performance was made in a memorandum to
Council dated May 3, 1991, for the period ending March 31, 19.ql, and for the conclusion of the fiscal
year; and
WHEREAS, due to Leesburg's financial condition and present economic climate, 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.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The budget for the general fund is hereby amended to provide for the transfer
of $750,000 in available funds from the town's capital project funds.
SECTION II. A transfer of bond funds in the amount of $250,000 is authorized from the
Buildings Capital Project Fund to the General Fund. This transfer is a reimbursement to the general
fund for a portion of the $1,448,500 in contributions from the general fund over the past three years.
Minutes of May 14, 1991
SECTION III. A transfer in the amount of $220,000 is authorized from the Storm Drainage
Capital Project Fund to the General Fund. This transfer is a reimbursement to the general fund for
a portion of the $775,575 in contributions from the general fund over the past three years.
SECTION IV. A transfer of $280,000 is authorized from the Streets/Highways Capital Project
Fund to the General Fund. This transfer is a reimbursement of a portion of the $540,430 in
contributions from the general fund over the past three years.
Mayor Sevila asked if the reimbursements to the various funds to the general fund were
contemplated reimbursements when the transfers were made. Mr. Brown stated no. They are
necessary to have a balanced budget. They were not contemplated when those capital project funds
were established. Mayor Sevila asked what capital project fund is the $750,000 being taken from. Mr.
York stated that as far as the building's capital project fund - the $250,000 transfer are funds that will
be remaining from the $300,000 left from the Dodona Manor money that was set aside. Originally, we
had $1 million earmarked for Dodona Manor. If we only use $700,000 of the $1 million it would leave
$300,000 and of that $300,000 remaining we are proposing $250,000 go back into the general fund. On
the streets and highway projects - the Route 15 bypass widening project came in at about $200,000
under budget. We are proposing to use $193,000 of that to be placed back into the general fund.
There are a couple of projects that have been completed and some money remaining from what we had
anticipated spending. The Sycolin Road project - $200.00 - this project will be closed out. Route 654
relocation is a VDOT project that is in the final completion stages. The Plaza Street relocation is a
VDOT project - we feel we can take about $5,000 from that project because it is not proceeding
anywhere near the pace that we anticipated. The Country Club turn lane project is $78,000. These
projects total $280,000. There are a couple of storm drainage projects that will be dosed out - Phase
VI Dry Mill Road project. There is not an immediate need to do the First Street ouffall project which
is in the budget. This project will be deferred which amounts to $5,500. The West Loudoun Street
project (formerly Peer Manor) that was funded is proposed to be deferred, transferring $138,000 back
to the general fund. The total amount being returned back to the general fund is $750,000.
Mayor Sevila expressed concern with the use of the word "reimbursement", when the advances
that were made from the general fund and various other funds were not in the form of loans that we
sometimes make and there wasn't any anticipated reimbursement. Mr. York stated that the reason for
using "reimbursement", is that there was originally no contemplation for that money to ever come back
to the general fund when it was originally transferred out for these various projects. The intent was
for the money to remain in the capital project accounts. In essence we are actually reimbursing the
general fund for money that we had taken out in the past and earmarked for these projects. We have
in the past transferred significant sums of money out of the general fund to help defray the costs of
these projects. The Mayor stated that theoretically of the $300,000, $250,000 being allocated is bond
money. He asked if separate legislation is needed to allocate earmarked bond funds to general fund
use. Mr. York stated not the way this is being proposed. All of the funds being transferred out of the
general fund were to be used for capital improvement projects - all of those projects named were all
projects eligible for financing under our bond ordinance. This was reviewed by the town's bond counsel
and they said there is no problem doing what we are proposing. It is a perfectly legitimate move as
far as the use of the bond proceeds.
Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
91-100 - RESOLUTION - ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEARS 1992-1996 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-464 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes preparation and
annual review of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, the acting town manager submitted a proposed Capital Improvement Program to
the Town Council and Planning Commission on March 22, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Town Council held public hearings ou the CIP
on April 11, 199~, and April 23, 1991, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Fiscal Years 1992-1996 CIP and
recommends adoption to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the CIP provides a long-term plan for the financing, acquisition and construction
of capital facilities, projects and equipment in the amount of $40 million over five years.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The proposed Fiscal Years 1992-1996 Capital Improvement Program is hereby adopted.
Mayor Sevila, in response to questions raised by citizens regarding street lights, asked what has
been done with street lights in the coming year. Mr. Brown stated that the current proposed CIP does
Minutes of May 14, 1991
not include the $8,000 for street lights. As a result of the last budget workshop those funds were
deferred until next year. Those funds can be reinstated. According to Traffic Engineer Calvin Grow,
the description the residents gave this evening is accurate. Mayor Sevila suggested that the street
lights be put back into the CIP for this year. Recognizing that this is not a commitment to install them
this year but it is a commitment to do our best to find the $8,000 to do it this year.
Nay:
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
Mr. Clem made a motion to defer the reading of item 11 (f) in lieu of a staff report.
Mr. Stephenson, addressed the Council in response to two concerns raised at the previous
Planning and Zoning Committee meeting. First the economic benefit of the proposed power plant. The
applicant clearly stated that the power plant will not seek a tax exempt status and will be investing
about $140 million in the project and will be paying annual tax revenues to the county, possibly to the
town if this area is annexed. Second, electro magnetic fields and its possible health affects. Additional
information received from the applicant scores the fact that the findings are inconclusive to-date. There
is no evidence to document that the power plant would have any negative impact on the adjacent
properties.
Mr. Stephenson briefly reviewed the comments in the proposed resolution and noted that the
Council does reserve the right to further comment at the upcoming Loudoun County public hearing.
The county has not yet set a public hearing date.
Mrs. Forester asked how important it was for the county to receive town staff comments before
the public hearing. Mr. Stephenson stated that the county uses our comments to develop their public
hearing staff report. We are one of a number of referral agencies. It is their policy to get these
comments in advance of the public hearing.
Mr. Lovin asked if the Northern Virginia Park Authority has made any comment or taken any
position. Mr. Stephenson stated that being within the 1000 foot range there will be some noise
emanating from the turbine engines as well at the visual impact. Staff has not received the referral
comments from the park authority.
Mr. Ter .ry Titus, representing the applicant, addressed the Council and stated that he spoke
with the park authority and they indicated that their referral will be forwarded to the county. To Mr.
Titus's knowledge there are no significant comments, with respect to noise or visual impact, from the
park authority.
Mr. Kimball asked if there would be any additional units built, other then the three generators
that are proposed. Mr. Titus stated that there will be three stacks within a cluster of one. Mr. Fields,
representing the Siemens Corporation, addressed Mr. Kimball and stated "no." Further, there are no
plans to acquire additional property to this site.
Mr. Fields stated that the Siemens Corporation is a fifty percent partner in this project and is
one of the worlds largest power generation equipment suppliers. Long Lake Energy is the partner and
is an experienced developer with a great deal of background in hydro-energy projects. They are in the
construction phase of a nearly identical project in the Chesapeake Virginia area.
A base load is the electrical demand on a steady basis. Certain times of the day there are peak
loads and are met by building projects such as this that use gas turbines as opposed to large coal fired
or nuclear plants to meet the base load. Gas turbines are much less expensive and they are able to
start up and meet the peak load very quickly, usually within 15 minutes, whereas, a coal fire facility
may take several days to reach its full load. We will occupy about 500 feet square. These plants are
very clean, gas fired and can be located very near the load center, that is, they can be placed where
people need them. This is why this particular site has been chosen. The site is near a quarry on
Route 653, presently has industrial zoning and there are two large, major gas transmission lines across
this site. Additionally, there are electrical transmission lines across the site that interconnect with the
Dickerson Power Plant in Maryland. That makes this particular area absolutely ideal for this type of
facility. In the case of air pollution - this plant will be designed so that it will have an insignificant
impact on areas surrounding the plant. This is true even when using the backup fuel, which number
two oil is required when natural gas is not available. When natural gas is being used, which is
virtually all the time when tne plant is running, the pollution is much less. The plant would normally
operate to meet these peak loads, normally less than 1000 hours per year and very often, in Virginia,
less then 200 or 300 hours per year. There is no water discharge from this type of plant, no boilers,
and no steam involved. Even though there is noise generated from the facility it is very low - the broad
band type of noise. Traffic is not a problem - there will be about three people on the site.
Visibility has been a major question. We have done quite a lot of work in trying to compute
sight lines to the stacks and to the facility in various different locations. The facility will generally be
invisible to almost anybody with the exception of someone passing by on the W&OD trail. During the
summer months when the leaves are on the trees, you would have to seek the plant to find it. The
stack does emit hot air but the plume is invisible and there are no particulates in the stack. Even on
number two oil the combustion is very clean and very complete.
With regard to EMF, because we are constructing our line on existing lines, we will have no
Minutes of May 14, 1991
impact on the EMF question. We are not planning on constructing any further lines into the Town
of Leesburg, along the W&OD trail or further into Loudoun County. It will be strictly within the
existing right-of-way and on existing structures.
It is important to know that there is a great deal of regulatory oversight in this process. The
state will regulate both the air and water discharge question, along with the EPA. The Corp of
Engineers is reviewing the wetland delineations and impacts. The SCC must issue a Certificate of
Convenience and then there is the local government review.
There are a great deal of benefits to this facility. We are contracting with PEPCO for the sale
of this power. This electricity benefits the people of northern Virginia as well as Maryland and D.C.
We will not seek a tax exempt.status. We intend to pay a great deal of taxes through the
assessment of the facility.
Mayor Sevila confirmed that the SCC's Certificate of Convenience is issued only one time. He
inquired about another review conducted by the SCC. Mr. Fields stated that the SCC will review the
air permit in addition to threatened and endangered species. There are federal agencies involved in
the oversight of what is charged for this power. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will rule .
upon the contract and involve themselves in how the plant is built and whether it is built to codes and
standards.
Mayor Sevila asked if this plant would qualify to be treated as a public utility and if as a public
utility would the personal property and plant, etc., be taxed locally as personal and real property or
will it qualify for some exemption under a public utility that avoids taxation. Ms. Maury Hummel, with
the law firm of Hazel and Thomas, addressed the Council stating that a fair amount of preliminary
research has been done into the classifications available for operations of the plant. There are three
categories that public utilities would fall under, the first is a public utility per say and this type of
operation does not qualify. The second is the public service corporation/public service company that
is under the tax authority of the SCC for some purposes and then for collection is under the authority
of the local taxing officials. It appears that this operation would have an option as to whether to seek
the public service corporation status or to be a private corporation. At the present time the plan is to
be a private corporation meaning that the taxation in terms of both assessment and collection would
occur at the local level. We have talked with Kitty Ashby, the Commissioner of Revenue for Loudoun
County about the distinctions and she is comfortable with other public service corporation treatment
in the state, perhaps locally, and is aware of the fact that the assessment could occur at the state if the
SCC were the assessing official. She characterizes it as they do all the work, Loudoun County gets
all the money. Although we have talked about the existence of that scheme, it is not the scheme that
is anticipated at this time. All property of a non-tax exempt entity is taxed. It is classified into
different categories. The SCC would do the classification and the assessment - there is a special rate
that is applied at the SCC if indeed it is a public service corporation. The Mayor noted that the
applicant is presently seeking a commission permit from the county along with the special exception.
Ms. Hummel stated that that is correct so that the commission and the Board of Supervisors can look
at the whole picture at the time of review. The Mayor asked, if the county has made a public service
corporation or public utility finding with respect to the plant, how do they regulate under the
commission permit. Ms. Hummel stated that the Code of Virginia does not define one term
synonymously in one portion of the code with the land use articles in Section 15.1. They have
determined, at the county, that this is a public utility for purposes of zoning approval and the levels
of review that are required. That is why the commission permit is a requirement because of the public
utility aspects of the project. That term does not carry over for tax purposes. Mayor Sevila stated that
the proponents have been discussing the benefits to our community. He agrees that $140 million of
real or personal property on a 500 square foot facility on the doorstep of the town has the potential,
if fully ts×able, for tremendous tax benefits to the community.
Mrs. Forester asked what the benefits are to the town in having this project close to the town.
There are benefits if we assume annexation but we cannot assume annexation. Mr. Stephenson stated
that the benefits are primarily to the county. It is a logical place for this facility. Mrs. Forester stated
that she has some strong reservations that are not reflected in the proposed resolution. She would like
to take a stronger stand with regard to whether this project is a benefit to the town, the level of noise,
air and visual pollution that the town may have to deal with that is not going to be a benefit. She
expressed concerns about EMF and the fact that staff has not had.the time to do any research in terms
of these concerns. At this time, Mrs Forester stated that she could not support the resolution.
Mayor Sevila stated that the town, in this case, is only a referral agency and any action by this
Council is not going to affect the application itself. The actual approving agency is the county. Rather
then vote to deny we should put this matter back on the committee until mid or late June when we
know all of the information and have had the opportunity to review the referral comments that come
into the county. Our delay does not have any affect on the progress of this application as it moves
through the county review process.
Mr. Lovin commented on the lack of information to the general public on this project. This
project produces a lot of questions that cannot be answered at this time. Mr. Lovin agreed to defer
this item.
Mr. Webb stated that the reason the power plants are in Maryland instead of in Loudoun
County is because the Board of Supervisors took their time and then would not approve the project~
Minutes of May 14, 1991
The Potomac Power Company had already purchased the land. We talk about improving our relations
with the county and we are "fiddlin~ around. We should not put this off. We should go ahead and
vote on this.
Mr. Kimball agreed with deferring this item and asked Mr. Stephenson to contact the county
to get an extension of time for submitting town staff comments. He stated that the resolution needs
stronger wording in the land use paragraph of the proposed legislation as it relates to line of sight~
noise transmission, visual impact~ additional screening. The county is asking for our comments - we
should make them "hard." We should also speak to the economic impact as well. Mr. Kimball stated
that unless he sees stronger language with respect to visual impact, screening and noise, he would not
support the resolution. He does not want see any impact to development within the town.
Mayor Sevila asked Ms. Hummel to keep the town informed of discussions with the State
Corporation Commission or Ms. Ashby's office if a determination is made and if we are able to take
$140 million of improvements and classify it between real and personal property. Then look at real
tax dollars, both to the county and potentially to the town. That would certainly answer, in the
strongest way, the issue of benefit.
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mrs. Forester, this matter was deferred to a future
Planning and Zoning Committee agenda.
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following resolutions were proposed as
consent items and unanimously adopted.
91-101 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC
SIGNAL ON EAST MARKET STREET (ROUTE 7) AT THE ROUTE 15 BYPASS
WHE~, the intersection of East Market Street and the Route 15 Bypass southbound exit
ramp is an important regional road connection; and
WHEREAS, high volumes of vehicles at peak hours cause lengthy delays and unsafe traffic back-
ups at this intersection; and
WHEREAS, a traffic signal is warranted for this intersection in accordance with the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and
WHEREAS, installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is included in the Town of
Leesburg FY91-95 Capital Improvements Program; and
WHEREAS, Loudoun County has allocated to the Town $57,000 in matching funds towards the
construction of this traffic signal from Loudoun County gas tax revenue; and
WHEREAS, the Wwn's matching funds will come from proffered off-site transportation fees
which have already been collected.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The capital projects fund budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991 is
hereby amended to provide $57,000 of proffered off-site transportation funds and $57,000 in County
contributions for the construction of a traffic signal on East Market Street at the Route 7 and Route
15 Bypass.
SECTION II. An appropriation is made in the amount of $114,000 to the Highways Capital
Projects Fund account #902-9212-700-090 and will remain in effect until the project is completed.
91-102 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING FUNDIN. G FOR LEESBURG RENAISSANCE
WHFREAS, Council adopted on June 27, 1990, Resolution No. 90-160, which established
Leesburg Renaissance and the conditions required fo" matching towv funding; and
WHEREAS, as one of the conditions of funding, Leesburg Renaissance must receive Council
authorization of programs that are to be initiated and implemented; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance has conducted promotional programs such as the
Leesburg Flower and Garden Show; and
WHEREAS, active promotion of Leesburg during difficult economic conditions is necessary and
welcome by town businesses and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors adopted its short-term objectives and
presented them at the February 5, 1991, Administration and Public Works Committee meeting and
provided the Town Council with a projected cost of future events and programs to meet these objectives;
and
Minutes of May 14, 1991
WHEREAS, Leesburg Renaissance continues to implement its comprehensive plan, Planning
for Progress: 1990 and Beyond, to promote the economic development of the Town of Leesbur~.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The request for matching funding in the amount of $12,200 for Leesburg Renaissance
expenditures through April 14, 1991, is hereby authorized.
91-103 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO INITIATE CONTACT WITH
OBERKIRCH, GERMANY REGARDING A POTENTIAL SISTER CITY
RELATIONSHIP
WHEREAS, Lore Michael, Public Relations Director, for Shenandoah University, transmitted
a request from Oberkirch, Germany to the Administration and Public Works Committee of Council on
May 7, 1991, to initiate the development of a sister city relationship with the Town of LeesburF, and
WHEREAS, a potential for economic development and cultural exchanges is available from sister
city relationships; and
WHEREAS, further examination of the potential benefit for both communities is necessary prior
to the formalization of a sister city relationship.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The town manager is hereby directed to contact the City of Oberkirch, Germany to exchange
information, examine the potential for establishing a sister city relationship and report any findings to
the Council.
91-104 RESOLUTION - CREATING A CITIZENS AD HOC COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE
AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1990, the Council initiated proposed amendments to Article 10
(Sign Regulations) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, subsequently, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on these proposed
amendments, and on April 10, 1991 forwarded its recommendation to the Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 1991, a member of the local business community requested that Council
establish a committee to encourage additional citizen input regarding the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Committee of the Council recommended
an Ad Hoc Committee be formed to evaluate the proposed amendments to the sign regulations and to
facilitate input from the Town citizens to ensure the amendments will be in the best interest of the
community:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. An ad hoc sign ordinance citizen advisory committee is hereby established. The
committee shall evaluate the proposed sign regulations to ensure the needs of the community are
adequately addressed by analyzing the aesthetic values provided by the proposed regulations and by
considering the expressed concerns of the business community.
SECTION II. The staff is directed to solicit interest from Leesburg's citizens to participate in
the sign ordinance advisory committee.
SECTION III. The advisory committee will report to Council at the public hearing on these
regulations, scheduled for July 23, 1991, and present its findings and recommendations in order to assist
Council in amending the ordinance.
91-105 - RESOLUTION - CREATING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW FURNISHING,
ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS IN THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT CENTER
and
WHEREAS, the new municipal government center has been opened and staffed for six months;
WHEREAS, some alteration and enhancement are required to fully develop the workplace
environment; and
WHEREAS, furnishings, landscaping, artwork and decoration issues are being proposed; and
~rI-IEREAS, to accommodate the needs of the staff and to increase the efficiency of the town's
operation while maintaining the beauty and functionality of the facility, some control over these issues
is required.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
Minutes of May 14, 1991
SECTION I. An ad hoc committee is hereby established to advise the town manager and
Council regarding the new municipal government center. The committee is charged with the following
duties and responsibilities:
Evaluate and recommend action regarding landscaping, artwork, decorations and
furnishings of the new municipal government center;
Review and comment on any interior or exterior architectural changes to the
facility;
Maintain the integrity of the original design by adhering to the concept and
appearance of the center as designed by the architect;
Establish its own internal operating procedures.
SECTION II. The committee shall consist of Mayor Robert E. Sevila, the Chief of Operations
and Inspections, Chief of Current Planning, a representative of the Employee Committee, the Capital
Projects Coordinator and a non-employee citizen of Leesburg chosen by the other committee members.
91-106 o RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION IN THE UNION COURT SUBDMSION
WHE~, the town's Director of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the public
improvements installed to date in the Union Court Subdivision and certified that the value of work
performed exceeds $150,736.00; and
WHEREAS, a irrevocable letter of credit from Sovran Bank in the amount of $188,420.00 has
been provided by the developer and approved by Council to guarantee installation of public
improvements for the Union Court Subdivision.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The irrevocable letter of credit from Sovran Bank in the amount of $188,420.00
is reduced to $37,684.00.
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 Union Court Subdivision.
91-107 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE AND WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS FOR THE
LEESBURG GATEWAY CONDOMINIUMS
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The acting manager shall execute the contract for public improvements for the
improvements shown on the plans approved by the Director of Engineering and Public Works for the
Leesburg Gateway Condominiums.
SECTION II. The extension of municipal water and sewer for the Leesburg Gateway
Condominiums is approved in accordance with Sections 15-9 and 19-18 of the Town Code.
SECTION III. The irrevocable bank letter of credit in a form approved by the town attorney
from Eastern American Bank in the amount of $367,000.00 is approved as security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements shown on plans approved by the Director of Engineering and
PUblic Works for the Leesburg Gateway Condominiums.
91-108 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC Ht~ARING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO
AMEND ARTICLE 10A SIGN REGULATIONS OF THE LEESBURG ZONING
ORDINANCE, UNDER CHAPTER ll_~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 Article 10A Sign
Regulations shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on July 10, 1991 and July 17, 1991 for
the public hearing on July 23, 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.
91-109 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO
AMEND SECTION 10A-4 SPECIAL DEFINITIONS OF THE LEESBURG ZONING
Minutes of May 14, 1991
ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION OF GASOLINE STATION SIGNS,
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 10A-4 Special
Definitions of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of Gasoline Station Signs shall be
published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on June 12, 1991 and June 19, 1991 for the public hearing on
June 25, 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 this amendment to the Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance.
91-110 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO
AMEND ARTICLE 1lA SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGULATIONS OF THE LEESBURG
ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE SECTION 11A-12 CONCURRENT
APPLICATIONS, 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 Article llA Special
Exception Regulations of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to include Section 11A-12 Concurrent
Applications shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on June 12, 1991 and June 19, 1991 for
the public hearing on June 25, 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 this amendment
to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance.
Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila
None
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded be Mr. Webb, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
Clerk of Council
Robert E. Sevila, Mayor
Town of Leesburg
(This page is intentionally left blank~