HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998_03_24TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 1998
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 24, 1998 at 7:30
p.m., in the Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia 20175, Municipal Government
Center. The meeting was called to order by Mayor James E. Clem.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
J. Frank Buttery, Jr.
Jewell M. Emswiller
Joseph 1~ Trocino
Kristen C. Umstattd
B. J. Webb
William F. Webb, Jr.
Mayor James E. Clem
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Town Manager Steven C. Brown
Director of Planning, Zoning and Development Michael Tompkins
Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason
Director of Parks and Recreation Kaj Denfler
Chief of Comprehensive Planning Jerry Mueci
Planner Marilee Seigfried
Public Information Officer Susan Farmer
Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh
Clerk of Council Barbara Markland
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT
Chairman Mervin Jackson
David Kennedy
Gus Glikas
A. Blake Tlmmpson
Susan Rutherford
Clifton Vaughan
1. INVOCATION was given by Councilmember William F. Webb
2. SALUTE TO THE FLAG was led by Councilmember B. J. Webb
3. ROLL CALL all members of the Town Council were present
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: On motion of Councilmember William F. Webb, seconded by Councilmember B. J. Webb, the
regular meeting minutes of March 10, 1998 were approved as written.
VOTE:
Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Emswiller, Trocino, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb, Mayor Clem
Nay: None
Abstain: Councilmember Umstattd
5. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION were presented to Mr. Fred A. Meyer and Sterling Carpet
Shops, Inc. for their contributions to the Leesburg Police Department.
6. PETITIONERS
Mr. Dan McAuliffe, thanked the Council for the installation of the street light at Market and Fairview.
Mr. McAuliffe brought three concerns to the Council's attention. The site problem on Fairview Street
near the Loudoun Country Day School, the lack of sidewalks from the school to Market Street and from
Fairview Street to Morven Park Road. Mr. McAuliffe cited the site problem as the most important issue
and asked that a status report be provided.
Ms. Laura Lieberman representing the Coalition for Leesburg's Future requested the use of the Town
Council Chambers on Monday, April 20, 1998 from 7 pm to 10 pm to hold a candidate public forum. Ms.
Lieberman also requested the rental fee be waived.
Mr. Robert Primack a resident on Shenandoah Street, addressed the Council stating the Town Council
Chambers is an appropriate place for candidates to speak on issues and the Council should encourage this.
Councilmember B. J. Webb addressed Mr. Primack by stating the Council is here to do town business not
to get free air time for political purposes.
-2-
Mr. Primack referred to the recent sale of the Shenstone property outside the town limits and urged the
Council to work closely with Loudoun County on the development of this property as it will have a major
impact on the Town of Leesburg. Mr. Primack expressed opposition to the development of this property.
7.a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION #SE-97-08
CORNERSTONE CHAPEL, DAY CARE/PRESCHOOL - Ms. Seigfried presented the staff report.
Pastor Gary Hamrick thanked Ms. Scigfried for her work on this application and requested item # 1 be
omitted in its entirety.
Councilmember B. J. Webb asked Mr. Hamrick if the growth and expansion of the Leesburg Airport could
potentially create problems for his church?
Mr. Hamrick stated he is aware of the airports growth but it is unlikely that the church will be at this
location in ten years.
No public comment was received. The public hearing was closed. This item was referred to the April 7,
1998 Planning and Zoning Committee meeting for further consideration.
7.b. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING APPLICATION #ZM=154 POTOMAC
STATION RETAIL L.L.C., CONCEPT PLAN AND PROFFER AMENDMENT - Ms. Seigfried
presented the staff report.
Mr. Randolph Minchew with Hazel & Thomas representing the applicant, addressed the Council. Mr.
Minchew noted that all adjacent land owners were notified, proper advertisement of the public hearing
was duly advertised and that signed proffers were filed today. Mr. Minchew presented a slide presentation
and a report on the proposed rezoning and proffer amendment.
Mr. Robert Campbell with Ford Consultants representing the applicant, provided an analysis of the fiscal
impacts on the existing rezoning and the proposed rezoning.
Councilmember Emswiller pointed out that it has been proven that merchants will move from an older
shopping center to a newer one believing they will increase their business which leaves empty retail/office
space. Ms. Emswiller asked Mr. Campbell, if this was factored in when the analysis was prepared?
Mr. Campbell stated, net new was not estimated. He could not comment on this.
Councilmember Emswiller asked, under the original proffer when Harper Park was rezoned from
office/commercial to residential component, were the land bays considered one unit - so when the mixed
use was allowed, was it a mixed use of 460,000 SF total? Mr. Minchew stated yes, it was always assumed
that there would be a bifurcation of the mixed use area by Potomac Station Drive and there also had to be
a multi-family unit. Councilmember Emswiller stated, because the proffer stated there would be up to
460,000 SF of mixed use, the mixed use could be shifted so the buildings would not be quite as big. The
fact that it is a mixed use there are not specific sizes for each mixed use. Mr. Minchew stated, the
southern of the two 'parcels was always envisioned as being a community-serving retail. It is the most
market-acceptable for a neighborhood-serving retail. Councilmember Emswiller asked, isn't a
neighborhood-serving retail one that serves that particular residential area? Not a shopping center that
would serve a large area. Mr. Minchew disagreed with Ms. Emswiller stating, in the county's plan it is
recognized that a shopping center of around 150,000 SF is a community-serving shopping center. It is
more than a 7-11 combined with a coffee shop. It is something that serves a community of a radius of
about 1.5 to 2 miles. Ms. Emswiller stated, under the original proffer when the maximum and minimum
numbers were punched for the mixed use they knew they could get that mixed use on that parcel. Mr.
Minchew stated he was not sure of that. Ms. Emswiller stated, "ff they didn't then somebody screwed up
on the original proffer." Mr. Minchew stated, "that could be." He stated the original applicant was the
Mission Bank of Kansas. We now have a developer who perhaps knows a bit more about developing
mixed use communities. We are left with a scenario that if you put in 150,000 SF of retail on the southern
land bay - that is maxed out. So we are faced with the situation of where do we put the other required
250,000 SF. It has to be on the north side - there is no more room left on the south. Ms. Emswiller asked,
if this could be flipped? Mr. Minchew stated, then the same situation would exist.
Councilmember B. J. Webb stated her personal choice would be to eliminate the multi-family use all
together. Ms. Webb asked for additional information on the multi-family condo/apartment use.
Mr. Leslie Lloyd referred to page 5 of the staff report and read the last paragraph... "excerpts from the
applicants current submission are attached, attachments A and C these include traffic study entitled
Potomac Station Retail Traffic Feasibility Study dated May 16, 1997 - traffic impact study - mixed use
1997 - fiscal impact analyses - mixed use property October 1997 are all attached. These material
demonstrate throughout the process that there has been no commitment on the part of the applicant to
-3-
provide uses other than retail space on this property. Mr. Lloyd referred to the first paragraph and asked
how many jobs? The whole intent of this law is to create jobs. The purpose and intent section of the PRC
district regulations state -... intended to promote the development of self sufficient communities which
are organized around a mixed use center of commercial employment, community facility and high density
residential uses. The intent of the PRC is to encourage efficient land use patterns which conserve energy
and natural resources and provide a variety of living and working environments integrated with adequate
open space and recreational facilities. Mr. Lloyd stated, if the Council allows the exceptions to the
original plan, the Council is going against their own law.
Mr. Fred Rudder a resident of 6 Linden Hill Way, S.W., addressed the Council expressing concern with
the impact of this development on the residential area. He cited concerns with transportation and traffic,
and noise and urged the Council to consider the long term affect this development will have on the town.
Mr. Robert Primack a resident of Shenandoah Street, addressed the Council in support of staff's
recommendations. He stated the Town Council has the responsibility to uphold the Town Plan. Route 7
was planned to remain free of retail uses. This project will affect the town dramatically.
Councilmember B. J. Webb clarified that this is a special exception request not a rezoning. The rezoning
was approved before this Council was in office.
Councilmember Umstattd referred to the fiscal impact analysis dated October 30, 1997 and stated she is
concerned that the analysis did not differentiate between the two impacts of tenants leaving a shopping
center and moving to another newer center, especially if the kind of retail increased is going to be the
larger community commercial retail centers rather than the smaller neighborhood retail centers. Mr.
MincheTM stated," it is not the applicant's desire to have anything even approaching destination retail.
That is not right for this site. Something that would serve the community as a food store anchor type
shopping center but nothing that would draw traffic off of Route 7." Ms. Umstattd asked if there will be
any new transportation dollars over and above what was proffered in the original Harper Park rezoning
provided in ~this request for a proffer amendment? Mr. Minchew stated, "from a standpoint of
contributions to the town's transportation improvement fund, we realized that the square footage was
being dropped but we did not want to drop the total number of contributions so what we did was we raised
the contribution up to the same number to make it equivalent as it was in the original Harper Park
rezoning. From the standpoint of transportation improvements, the primary transportation improvement
that is on this application and was not on the original Harper Park rezoning is the commitment to build
the western two lanes of Battlefield Parkway south of Potomac Station Drive to East Market Street. The
Harper Park rezoning did not consider any offsite building of roads. From the standpoint of
traffic/transportation improvement fund dollars, we did not increase it - we left it the same with reduced
square footage and we proposed additional asphalt in the proffers for the phase 2 building of the western
two lanes of Battlefield Parkway." Ms. Umstattd referred to the multi-family units and stated, she would
like to see them disappear and asked if they were a necessary part of making this project work? Mr.
Minchew stated, "the applicant in the original rezoning proffered certain lower and higher - maximum
and minimum percentages. Basically a proffered percentage of not less than 15 percent nor more than 20
percent multi-family. The reason multi-family was placed in phase 3 was because the applicant does not
have any plans to build it. It is our understanding that we are required in order to conform with the
proffers to build the multi-family units. We don't have a plan to do it right now. We would be glad to
talk about it and receive some additional clarification from town staff on whether it is required. In
previous conversations with town staff, we were told that, if the applicant wanted to do away with that
proffer we could just reduce the multi-family units and not raise other units - abolish them and we would
need to bring in all of the Potomac Station mixed-use zoning.
Mayor Clem asked, who told Mr. Minchew that and stated why would the Council want to ever look at
something like that? Mr. Minchew stated, "he could have misunderstood but as he recalled the response
was that if we wanted to do away with the multi-family obligation to build we would have to come back
with a proffer amendment bringing in ail of Potomac Station." Mayor Clem suggested this issue be
discussed at a future work session.
Councilmember Umstattd stated, staff's position is there should be an application to amend the town plan
but thus far the applicant has chosen not to. Mr. Minchew stated, "basically the property is currently
zoned in the PRC for a mixed use center up to 466,286 SF of non-residential. The proffers do not specify
retail or office. Just by reducing the minimum square footage it is not tantamount to a change in use that
was part of the legislation adopted by the town that would warrant a town plan amendment. When the
original Harper Park was rezoned under the old town plan, this area was planned mixed use. Somehow in
the new town plan the mixed use designation for Harper Park was left out and replaced with Business 1.
The new town plan was adopted after the application was filed and the town staff is suggesting that the
application is in nonconformance with the town plan as amended.
Councilmember Emswiller pointed out that when the Council talks about the Route 7 Corridor Study, the
corridor includes the county and town and all of Route 7 from Route 28 into Leesburg. For years, the old
comprehensive town plan showed this corridor as being non-retail. This Council is on record sending a
resolution to the county stating, the town encourages the county to not allow retail and that the town
would not also.
Mayor Clem stated this was a combination town and county rezoulng with the portion to the right in the
Ms. Seigfried stated, this application is not a special exception. It is a rezoning.
No other public comment was received. The public hearing was closed. This matter was referred to the
Planning and Zoning Committee of April 7, 1998.
c. TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN CODE, CHAFrER 7, ARTICLE V.
EXPLOSIVES, BLASTING AGENTS, PYROTECHNICS AND AMMUNITION - Mr. Brown
provided the staff report.
Mayor Clem thanked Terry Lee, Jeff Cowart, Jeff Flippo, Karen Richardson and Bruce Clendenin, the
members of the Blasting Committee, for their hard work and many hours devoted to the proposed
amendments to the blasting ordinance.
Mr. Bill Fissell, representing the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association (NVBIA) addressed the
Council stating the NVBIA appreciated the opportunity of working with the town on the proposed
ordinance.
Mr. Bob Kingan, a resident of Linden Hill addressed the Council thanking Mr. Cowart and Ms.
Richardson for senfing on the Committee and representing the homeowners. Mr. Kingan supports the
proposed ordinance and would like to see it even tougher. He stated one of the most important provisions
in the ordinance is that the Fire Marshal can request blasting data through the Freedom of Information
Act.
Mr. Hubbard Turner a resident of Bradfield Drive in the Country Club Subdivision, addressed the Council
regarding the proposed blasting ordinance. Mr. Turner presented a written statement which is attached
and made a part of the official record.
Mr. Allan Furman a resident of 37 Linden Hill Way, addressed the Council regarding the proposed
blasting ordinance. Mr. Furman presented a written statement which is attached and made a part of the
official record.
Mr. Fred Rudder a resident of 6 Linden Hill Way, addressed the Council stating the proposed ordinance
should include such information as date/time/location/charge of weight/material used when blasting. This
information should be filed with the Town of Leesburg to retain for its records.
Mr. Jeff Cowart a resident of Linden Hill and a member of the Blasting committee, addressed the Council
stating the proposed ordinance accomplished three things. 1.) Improved communication and information
for homeowners in advance of blasting. 2.) Duties and responsibilities of enforcement for the Fire
Marshal. 3.) Public access to records. Mr. Cowart stated the homeowners got from the Blasting
Committee the strongest ordinance possible.
Councilmember B. J. Webb asked if there are any accreditation requirements for blasters? Mr. Cowart
stated there are. The Fire Marshal's office is responsible for this information. Ms. Webb asked if the
Blasting Committee received input from the public during the meetings? Mr. Cowart stated meetings
were held in the Linden Hill and Potomac Crossing communities. Not many homeowners appeared at the
Blasting Committee meetings. Even one had a chance to speak.
Fire Marshal Jeff Flippo addressed the Council stating the Blasting Committee did an outstanding job.
Representatives from William A. Hazel also offered valuable input.
No additional public comment was received. The public hearing was closed. This matter was referred to
the April 7, 1998 Administration and Public Works Committee for further consideration.
d. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1997 TOWN
PLAN TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BLASTING IN
THE TOWN OF LEESBURG - Mr. Brown provided the staff report. Mayor Clem pointed out that
a Planning Commission quorum was present.
Mr. Hubbard Turner a resident of 1107 Bmdfield Drive, Couniry Club Subdivision, agreed with the
amendment to the Town Plan.
-5-
Mr. Allan Furman a resident of Linden Hill Way, addressed the Council stating the proposed paragraph,
2"d second sentence should be modified to read.., developers shall provide information to the town
Planning Commission that they have taken into consideration the effects of their work to be carried out
with regard to construction traffic noise, debris and blasting...
Mr. Fred Rudder a resident of Linden Hill Way, addressed the Council stating developers should be
required to state the impacts. They should identify mitigation of adverse impacts and recommend
alternative actions to what is proposed.
Mr. Jeff Cowart a resident of Linden Hill Way and a member of the Blasting Committee stated, had
Winchester Homes done its job when it was supposed to under town contract, damage to homes would not
have occurred. With regard to Potomac Crossing, the developer built a ring of houses and then went
inside the circle of the ring of houses and started blasting. Can't the blasting occur before buildings are
built? These ordinances apply to commercial buildings as well. The same problems happen when
blasting occurs near commercial establishments too. This is a property protection issue.
No additional public comment was received. The public hearing was closed. This item was referred to
the April 7, 1998 Planning and Zoning Committee meeting for further consideration.
Councilmember Umstattd asked that the public works contract be placed on the April 7, 1998
Administration and Public Works Committee for discussion.
8. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember William F. Webb asked Mr. Brown to look into the matter of installing lights on the new
overpass.
Councilmember Buttery attended a community meeting on Saturday at the Woodlea Manor Club house
where parksand recreation facilities and the connection to the bike trail was discussed. Mr. Buttery stated
the meeting was well attended.
Councilmember Umstattd had no comments given the lateness of the meeting.
Councilmember Trocino pointed out that the Leesburg Airport now houses 196 airplanes.
Councilmember Emswiller had no comments given the lateness of the meeting.
Councilmember B. J. Webb disclosed that she met with representatives of Pence Friedel, Potomac Station,
Chelsea and Uniwest.
9. MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Clem asked that a proclamation on behalf of National Day of Prayer
be prepared for adoption on April 14, 1998.
10. MANAGER'S REPORT - Mr. Brown pointed out that the Council did receive a copy of the
Manager's report.
5. b. PROCLAMATION
MOTION: On motion of Councilmember B. J. Webb, seconded by Councilmember Trocino, the
following proclamation was proposed and adopted.
PROCLAMATION - MASSAGE THERAPY AWARENESS ~firEEK APRIL 20-27, 1998
VOTE:
Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Emswiller, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb, Mayor Clem
Nay: None
11. LEGISLATION
(a) MOTION: On motion of Councilmember William F. Webb, seconded by Councilmember B. J.
Webb, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted.
98-71 - RESOLUTION - APPROVING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF A SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN POTOMAC STATION, SECTION 2EF
VOTE:
Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Emswiller, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb, Mayor Clem
Nay: None
Co) through(o) MOTION: On motion of Councilmember William F. Webb, seconded by
Councilmember B. J. Wcbb, the following resolutions were proposed as consent items and adopted.
98-72 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR
GREEN-WAY FARM SECTION 6
98-73 - RESOLUTION - AUTHOIHZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR
GREENWAY FARM SECTION 7
98-74 RESOLUTION - AUTIiORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS FOR
GREEN-WAY FARM SECTION 8
98-75 RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS FOR
GREENWAY FARM SECTION 10
98-76 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A SUBSTITUTE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR POTOMAC STATION SECTION 1D
98-77 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A SUBSTITUTE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR POTOMAC STATION SECTION 1E
98-78 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A SUBSTITUTE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR POTOMAC STATION SECTION 2AB
98-79 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A SUBSTITUTE PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR POTOMAC STATION SECTION 2GH
98-80 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN POTOMAC STATION SECTION 2AB-1
98-81 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN POTOMAC STATION SECTION 2CD
98-82 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN POTOMAC STATION SECTION 4
98-83 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN POTOMAC STATION SECTION 4
EXTENSION PLAN
98-84 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS FOR THE
TECKLA COX SUBDIVISION
98.85 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CHANGE ORDER FOR THE
WEST MARKET STREET AT CATOCTIN CIRCLE/FAIRVIEW STREET INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
VOTE:
Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Emswiller, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb, Mayor Clem
Nay: None
Abstain: Councilmembcr Trocino from 11. (b), (c), (d), (e)
12. NEW BUSINESS
MOTION: On motion of Councilmember William F. Webb, seconded by Councilmember Umstattd, the
following resolution was proposed and adopted.
98-86 - RESOLUTION - WAIVING FEES FOR THE LOUDOUN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
AFTER PROM BREAKFAST
-7-
VOTE:
Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Emswiller, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb, Mayor Clem
Nay: None
On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m.
· Clem, Mayor
Town of Leesburg
Clerk of Council
March24,1998 3c~, )r~ ~,or~ ~ ~~.,
TOWN OF LEESBURG JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
THE TOWN CODE,
CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE V.
EXPLOSIVES, BLASTING AGENTS,
PYROTECHNICS AND AMMUNITION
Public Comments by:
Hubbard Turner
1107 Bradfield Drive, S.W.
Leesburg, Virginia 20175-4303
Addressed to:
The Leesburg Town Council and Planning Commission
The proposed subject Town Code Amendment does nothing to restrict the development
community's movement to further empower the construction blaster with "Inalienable Rights" to
perform excavation blasting anywhere in the Town of Leesburg. This continued practice is putting
property owners in adjacent residential and congested areas at risk of potential personal injury
and property damage for the sole purpose of reducing construction/development costs at the
adjacent property owners expense. Is this a guaranteed conveyance covered in the U. S.
Constitution, The Bill of Rights or its Amendments or the Code of Virginia? This code amendment
also violates the property owners rights to privacy by subjecting their premises to intrusion by
blasting- associated personnel conducting pre-blast and post-blast surveys while guaranteeing the
privacy of blasters by giving them possession to the Blasting Records and restricting the access by
others. There is also no mention in the code amendment as to how the security of the pre-blast
survey photographs and notes of the property owners premises are to be maintained. All blasting
personnel should be required to sign non-disclosure statements.
The initial need of blasting assisted site excavation must be determined with the submittal
of the preliminary site development plan to the Planning Commission for approval. This is the only
way the safe construction of the site can be planned to avoid exposing areas of the site to blasting
as they become occupied and congested during the course of phased development.
Nothing is mentioned in the amendment for calibrated test blast to determine the
transmissibility of the soil to determine minimum charge allowed to prevent damage to surrounding
structures [ref 1993 Edition VSWFPC Effective April 1, 1993, Section F-3008]. The seismograph
must meet the requirements of paragraph F-3008.4 Instrumentation of prior 1993 Edition of Virginia
SWFPC dated April 1, 1994 or equivalent.
The Fire Marshall's Office must maintain a copy of all records detailing levels of charges
used for a minimum of 10 years from the date of the blasting. The Blasting Compliant Data
Compilation sheet for each blast must be maintained by the Fire Marshall's Office.
The Blaster must show evidence of a $1,000,000.00 general liability insurance policy for an
extended period after blasting operations have concluded. What is to prevent the cancellation of the
policy after completing all blasting operations? How will the property owner be protected if the
blaster closes his business and moves out of the county or state to avoid paying damages? The
general contractor for site development must also post a bond for an extended period after
suspension of blasting operations. This section is very lose.
After the blasting is completed all affected property owners must be given a complete set of
Data mentioned in 7-28 [last paragraph, not identified] an provided and provide overview of the
entire operation. It could take years for damage to become obvious. There must be a post-blast
inspection.
HOW DID WE GET TO THIS STAGE OF DEVELOPING LEESBURG BY ALLOWING
BLASTING IN CONGESTED AREAS:
This Blasting Ordinance clearly is written to protect the interests of the contractor and
blaster. The Town of Leesburg assumes no responsibility at all for insuring that the blasting is
properly exercised. However, it is the Town's Planning Commission, Town Staff, and Town
Council that approve the site development plans and neglect to consider the requirement to plan for
blasting or other potential problem areas to accomplish site excavation. Remember the sink hole
problem associated with the development of a major housing development North of Leesburg.
Remember the blasting problems associated with the excavation of the Wal-Mart site. Remember
there was very little rock excavated out of the Greenway Storm Water Management Pond after
several weeks of continued blasting resulting in reported damage to a number of homes. The
geological conditions of the construction site must be considered early in the development process
and it is possible that some areas of a site requiring blasting for excavation be designated as suitable
only for parks and open space or scheduled for excavation only during the first phase of
development. The developer cannot be trusted to make the right decision that would be in the best
interest of the property owner. The Design Standards and Construction manual should contain a
section defining acceptable methods of excavation allowable in congested areas and those consisting
of sufficient rock content to require blasting.
THIS BLASTING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE CITIZENS OF LEESBURG:
The approval of this Ordinance Amendment will make the public, the property/home owner,
the undisputed loser of potentially being exposed to considerable risks. This would result in property
being exposed to extended periods of continual blasting for several weeks in some instances. Since
blasters and supporting organizations rely very heavily on the development community for their
lively hoods it is very unlikely that qualified technical consulting support free of conflicts of interest
with the development community would be available. The property owner/home owner must prove
that damage occurred but most would be severely restricted relating the reported damage to the
technical cause/effects of blasting with the resources available. The Insurance Institute recognizes
that blasting can cause damage. He may have to get legal help to file a law suit and suffer substantial
Page 2 of 4
expense. If he does not have the right expert witness and loses then he must pay for all repairs and
possible court costs. The blaster closes out his corporation and moves on. If he wins and the
blasters insurance pays for repairs then he must deal with another contractor that will disrupt his
household. All of the pictures taken during the pre-blast survey could wind up in a data base on the
internet and for instance his antique clock collection is stolen. Several years later the property
owners house is put up for sale and the buyer insists on a radon check as a condition of sale in a
buy's market. The radon test results by a qualified tester reveal a radon level of 1,200 pica curries
per liter, 300 percent over the EPA acceptable level of 4 pc/ltr. The property owner has to spend his
entire equity of $20,000 in the house to reduce the radon to acceptable levels because the house
resides over a thick shale deposit.
All Contractor personnel associated with performing blasting operations must be required to sign
a privacy non-disclosure statement concerning all matters related to the blasting operations
concerning adjacent property owners. This must be included in the ordance.
WHAT IS A SAFE DISTANCE FROM A STRUCTURE/DWELLING?
Safe Blasting Limits are set forth in USBM RI 8507 Study.
The CJreenway Farms Blast #4 on 8/19/1997:
Average Explosive Per Load: 5.1 lbs
Distance from SEIS From Blast: 95 ft
Recorded PPV in/ses: 1.280 [Safe Blasting Limit 0.75 in/sec Wallboard; 0.50 in/sec Plaster]
Frequency Hertz: 32 hz {Less than 40 hz]
Recorded AirBlast bd/l: 116.9
Scaled Distance To SEIS: 41.3
It appears that Safe Blasting Limits were exceeded:
#2 16:26 8/15/1997 19.2 # 175 ft 0.796in/sec 39hz
gl 11:41 8/18/1997 05.7# 150fi 0.560in/sec 21hz
#3 14:02 8/19/1997 27.6 # 140 ft 0.540 in/sec 37 hz
#4 18:31 8/21/1997 18.9 # 175 fi 0.870in/sec 43 hz
[Dry Wall & Plaster Limit]
[Plaster Limit}
[[Plaster]
[3 hz over 40 hz limit]
It appears that initial testing is the only determination. Are the blasters performing testing?
RECOMMENDATION:
I request that the Leesburg Planning Commission and Town Council not approve the Blasting
Ordinance at this time and send it back to Committee for further review and incorporation of the
comments presented at this public hearing. The public is not adequately protected. Blasting should
be treated as a last resort and alternate techniques should be addressed. Probably the blasting section
should be part of a larger ordinance that addresses preferences for excavation within the Town of
Leesburg in congested areas and residential developments. If every one had done their job properly
there would have been no need for blasting in the Greenway Storm Water Management Pond next
to Linden Hills as was proven by the lack of rocks. No one listened to the alternate approach
recommended by Linden Hills HOA President: Mr. A1 Furman.
Page 3 of 4
Joint Meeting of Town Council and Planning Commission
to consider draft amendment to Town Code and Town Plan
on the the use of blasting agents within the Town
Tuesday, March 24, 1998
I wish to add a few comments to those made by my neighbors concerning the pro-
posed amendment to the Town ordinance on blasting. It is safe to say that while the pro-
posal represents some modest improvements over the current situation, it still does not pro-
tect the homeowners and taxpayers of Leesburg. It is at best a bureaucratic paper shuffle
that pretends to provide protection with some cosmetic changes that the developers' repre-
sentatives on the blasting committee were willing to accept since the changes obviously
would not affect them and the way the have been doing business in the past.
The solution is not documentation but an amendment with real teeth that requires
builders/blasters to prevent damage, however great or small, to our homes. What you have
before you tonight does not do that. The time has come for all of us to recognize that as
elected officials, the Town Council must put the rights of the citizens of Leesburg first and
foremost. We only ask that you give us the same right to protect our homes that you have
already given to the developers.
This whole sordid tale began on July 1 last year. Everything that has happened since
then has been in support of the developers and that must stop. Given our experience it is
not sufficient under any circumstances to suggest that developedblasters will "consider" the
impact blasting will have on existing neighborhoods. Last July Mark Chadwick of Winchester
Homes told me" Mr. Furman, we can blast and we will blast." and you know what happened
after that. I am confident they will continue to do the same unless the proposed amendment
is substantially strengthened.
When one reads this document you can only conclude that the developers have rights
which are far more important ours. I simply do not understand why their rights should pre-
empt ours. But the way the this ordinance is written, one can only conclude that they do
To begin with, notification of homeowners at whatever time is of little or no use when
it comes to protecting our homes from damage. Based on our experience blasting should
not have occurred within 350 feet of our homes, let alone 150 feet. Homes on the north side
of Linden Hill Way were 300 - 350 from blasts and still suffered damage.
In my view a preblast survey does nothing except give the blaster a license to dam-
age our homes with the understanding that they might compensate us if we can ever prove
to their satisfaction that they were responsible for the damage J and only then after consid-
erable delay.
In my view a preblast survey is a gross violation of my privacy and compromises
protection of my property. I refused to permit a preblast survey on my own home because I
have no way of knowing how the information would be used or who would have access to it.
I can think of no good reason to expose any homeowner to possible unauthorized access to
information about his or her home and its contents by unknown persons.
There are numerous ways to avoid some of these problems but it is clear now that
only the Council can do it since the developers had their way in the committee. As a start, I
propose the following:
Before any blasting permit can be issued, a public hearing shall be held to deter-
mine whether there is in fact a need for blasting in areas adjacent to inhabited dwellings.
Based on the conclusions of that hearing, fifteen days prior to beginning blasting op-
erations, the blaster shall submit to the Town Engineer for review and approval a detailed
blasting plan which shall provide at a minimum a schedule of blasts, location and size of
charges and steps taken to ensure that authorized charge levels are not exceeded.
Blast monitoring data shall be submitted to the Town Engineer weekly, and more of-
ten if required due to problems, and shall be available for review by homeowners.
Blasting charges shall not exceed .50 peak particle velocity/second. In the event a
blast exceeds that limit, the Fire Marshall shall immediately shut the blasting operation down
and an alternative plan for removal of the debris is presented to the Town Engineer for re-
view and approval. In any event no further blasting shall take place and all blast records
shall be available to determine responsibility for failure to comply with established limits.
If the blasting company fails to comply with this ordinance, the company shall be be
s~ubject to a fine of not less than $10,000 for each violation. Any construction bonds shall be
withheld until all damage claims are resolved to the satisfaction of the affected homeowner or
(~wners.