HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010_tcmin0126COUNCIL MEETING
January 26, 2010
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding.
Council Members Present: Thomas S. Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon Hammler, David
Butler, Marty Martinez, Kenneth ~~Ken" Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen
Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Deputy Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town
Attorney Jeanette Irby, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Deputy
Director of Planning and Zoning Brian Boucher, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy,
Deputy Zoning Administrator Wade Burkholder, Senior Planner Kevin Lawlor, Senior
Planner Michael Watkins, Senior Planner Mark Browning, Zoning Inspector Carmen
Babonneau, and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Call to Order
2. Invocation was lead by Mayor Umstattd
3. Salute to the Flag was lead by Council Member Reid
4. Roll Call showing all members present.
5. Minutes
a. Work Session Minutes of January 11, 2010
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council
Member Butler, the minutes were passed 7-0.
b. Regular Session Minutes of January 12, 2010
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council
Member Butler, the minutes were passed 7-0.
6. Adopting the Meeting Agenda (Amendments and Deletions)
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Butler, the agenda was approved as presented.
The motion to adopt the meeting agenda passed by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. Proclamation -Dating Violence Awareness Month - On a motion by Vice
Mayor Hammler, seconded by Council Member Martinez, the following
Proclamation was made:
PROCLAMAT/ON
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 2
DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
February, 2010
WHEREAS, dating violence is a reality for many young people,
and an issue that many are unaware of; and
WHEREAS, one in three young people are affected by physical,
sexual, or verbal dating violence, with one in five in a serious relationship
reporting having been slapped, pushed, hit, threatened or coerced by a
partner, and breakups can be a time of even greater risk even when a
relationship was never physically abusive; and
WHEREAS, young people can choose better relationships when
they understand that healthy relationships are based on respect and
learn to identify early warning signs of an abusive relationship; and
WHEREAS, elimination of dating violence must be achieved
through cooperation of individuals, organizations and communities; and
WHEREAS, Dating Violence Awareness Month provides an
excellent opportunity for citizens to learn about preventing dating
violence and to show support for the numerous organizations and
individuals who provide critical advocacy, services and assistance to
victims.
THEREFORE, the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of
Leesburg in Virginia hereby proclaim the month of February of the Year
2010 as Dating Violence Awareness Month in the Town of Leesburg.
PROCLAIMED this 26th day of January 2010.
8. PETITIONERS
The Petitioners section was opened at 7:35 p.m.
Chip Taliaferro, 518 Deermeadow Place, SW, stated he lives in Greenway
Farms next to the stand of trees along Route 15 (South King Street). He stated he
and his neighbors have continued concerns about plans to remove a number of the
trees to create a water containment pond for runoff as part of the widening project.
He stated his personal concern is that removing trees will not beautify the entrance to
Town, which is the supposed reason for the project. He expressed a desire for further
study to determine if removing the trees is really necessary. He stated the existing
water containment pond rarely gets very high. He suggested that may be sufficient
to contain the runoff with respect to stormwater from the widening project.
Mr. Wells stated that Kaj Dentler, Acting Director of Capital Projects
Management, is available to speak to the concerned Greenway Farms residents and
update them on the latest developments with the project.
Eric Cheshire, 516 Deermeadow Place, SW, reiterated the same points. He
stated they moved in 10 years ago when the homes were new. He stated at that
_.__ time, the property was zoned as a commercial lot. He stated he is concerned about
Town Council Meeting of January 262010 Page 3
the water retention area because there are a lot of small children in the
neighborhood. He stated they want to protect the trees that are currently there.
Larry Stuart 528 Deermeadow Place, SW, stated he does not understand why
the current water abatement system is not sufficient. He stated it is very large and
never seems to be filled to capacity. He stated if another water containment area is
necessary, he does not see why it cannot be built on the other side of the road. He
stated there is no development there and not as many trees, thus the impact on
existing residents would be minimal.
The Petitioner's section was closed at 7:42 p.m.
9. ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Vice Mayor Hammler, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
following consent agenda was proposed:
a. North King Street Sidewalk Extension Easements
RESOLUTION 2010-010
Declaring that Public Necessity and Use Exist and Authorizing
Acquisition of Required Easements for the Sidewalk Extension for the
North King Street Drainage Improvements Project
b. Approving the Town Manager's Contract
MOTION 2010-002
Approving the Amended Town Manager's Employment Contract
The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. TLSE 2009-0008 AT&T Telecommunications Antenna Special Exception
The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m.
Michael Watkins stated this special exception application is for a
telecommunications antenna. He stated on May 21, 2009, the Zoning
Administrator issued a zoning violation for the construction of the
telecommunications antenna without prior approval of a special exception. He
stated to remedy the violation, the application was required to submit and
receive approval of a Commission Permit and Special Exception. He stated the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 21, and voted to
recommend approval. He stated they also approved the Commission Permit at
that time. He stated the property is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Route 7 and Crosstrail Boulevard and is zoned I-1. He also
stated the application complies with the Town Plan, which encourages towers
or monopoles to be located outside the Town Limits or co-located with existing
towers. He stated staff recommends approval with the two usual conditions of
substantial conformance and no expressed or implied waivers.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 4
Council Member Dunn questioned how the special exception process
took from the time of the violation notice and whether any fines were levied.
Mr. Watkins noted the notice of violation was given in May 2004 with
the requirement being seeking Commission Permit and Special Exception
approval.
Vice Mayor Hammler commented that people who are leaving Wegmans
have no signage directing them to Route 7.
Greg Rapisarda, 500 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD, stated he
represents New Cingular Wireless, which is also AT&T Mobility. He stated they
are trying to rectify the violation which was caused when the tower the
antennas were attached to was moved. He stated these antennas create
wireless service in this area and he noted the tower would exist whether the
antenna array was co-located here or not.
Council Member Wright questioned who moved the tower and how it
got into the Town. He also questioned whether there was an existing
Commission Permit for the original location of the tower. He noted there was
discussion at the Planning Commission about this approval not setting a
precedent for allowing these telecommunications arrays to proliferate in Town.
Mr. Rapisarda stated the original location was less than 100 yards
away. He stated it was his belief that at the time the antennas were located
on the original pole, there was no requirement for Commission Permit. He
noted this application is solely for this antenna array at this location, therefore,
would not set a precedent.
Council Member Reid stated that co-locating antennas with existing
poles or on Town water tanks/towers is a good idea. He questioned whether
the Town was looking into other opportunities for co-location.
Mr. Wells stated the Town is currently exploring other options with
vendors for placing these types of facilities on Town property.
There were no members of the public to speak during this public
hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:56 p.m.
On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council
Member Butler, the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION 2010-011
Approving Special Exception TLSE 2009-0008 AT&T
Telecommunications Antenna on the Property Having Pin Number 149-
19-2265, and Located Near the Intersection of Virginia State Route 7
and Crosstrail Boulevard
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 5
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
-- b. TLOA 2009-0009 Amending Article 15 of the Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance to Allow A-Frame/Sandwich Board Signs in all Commercial Zoning
Districts
The public hearing was opened at 7:57 p.m.
Kevin Lawlor stated currently the zoning ordinance prohibits the use of
portable or A-frame/sandwich board signs except in the Old and Historic
District or for special events. He stated the A-frames are permitted in the H-1
district subject specific criteria regarding size, materials, design, color and
location due to the pedestrian oriented character of the district. He stated this
was deemed a practical solution to downtown business needs for more
advertisement of goods and services as they are well-suited to attract the
attention of pedestrians as opposed to people traveling in vehicles moving at
higher speeds and at greater distances from the storefronts. He stated special
events include grand openings and special sales events and are the only
occasions that businesses can use portable or A-frame/sandwich board signs
outside the Old and Historic District. He stated these types of signs are limited
due to several major concerns including visual clutter, safety, and aesthetics.
Mr. Lawlor stated a survey was done of 11 other jurisdictions showing
six prohibiting this type of signage, six allowing them with exceptions, and one
that allows them without conditions. He reviewed the various regulations for
portable signage in the surveyed jurisdictions. He stated the Planning
Commission voted 4-0-1 (abstention) to recommend denial of this proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment. He stated that staff feels allowing A-frame
~~ signage in more districts will provide businesses with another option for
advertising that may aid some businesses; however, unrestricted allowance of
A-frame signage has the potential for negative impacts that would counteract
any benefits. He stated the following minimum conditions should be made
part of approval:
1. Location. The sign shall be no more than ten (10) feet from the
front door of the business to which the sign pertains. No such sign may be
located within 10 feet of the property line and driveway entrance. On a corner
lot, the sign shall not be located within 20 feet of the intersecting streets. A
four foot unobstructed space must be maintained on the sidewalk in front of
the business to maintain ADA requirements.
2. Maximum Size. The sign shall not exceed 24 inches in width, 34
inches in height.
Council Member Dunn stated if the sign is 10 feet from the door, it may
put the sign in the center or right up at the edge of walkway in a strip center.
He stated it could end up in a parking or drive area. He stated while this may
not be the intent of the language, it could end up that way. He suggested
limiting the maximum distance from the sign to the door to five (5) feet. He
added that he is concerned about sign clutter, but he is also very concerned
about the success of businesses in Town. He stated if they feel they need the
additional signage for success, then he is all for the additional signage. He
questioned whether there will be a permitting process for these types of signs.
Town Council Meeting of )anuark26, 2010 Page 6
Mr. Lawlor stated, like any other sign, the person desiring it would be
obligated to apply for a permit to which conditions could be set that would be
_-- appropriate.
Council Member Dunn questioned whether the signs could be unrelated
to the business.
Ms. Irby stated this would be part of a category of commercial signs
that require a permit and that would have to pertain to the business.
Mr. Lawlor noted that the permit process requires a sketch of the sign
including the verbage.
Vice Mayor Hammler questioned whether the Economic Development
Commission or the Economic Development Department had any input or
guidance on this matter.
Susan Berry Hill stated the Economic Development Commission (EDC)
was informed of the proposed change and one member of the EDC did attend
the Planning Commission public hearing, but did not comment.
Mr. Wells noted the Economic Development Department supports the
Council initiation of the proposed amendment within the limitations provided
by planning staff.
Vice Mayor Hammler questioned what taxes might be affected by this
amendment. She stated she is trying to think of this in terms of the overall
__ quality of life issues including sign clutter and the economic benefits to the
Town residents. She noted a preponderance of retail offers tax benefits, but
also comes with drawbacks such as traffic and sign clutter that could impact
quality of life. She stated if the economic benefits to not directly benefit Town
residents, then she would lean towards keeping this type of signage exclusive
to the downtown area or to meals related business types.
Mr. Wells stated the Town does not receive point-of-sales Virginia sales
tax. He stated Loudoun County is considered one pot and the Town receives
an allocation of sales tax based on school age population. He noted meals tax
is exclusively to the Town of Leesburg. He stated BPOL taxes are based on
gross sales and all revenue comes back to the Town.
Vice Mayor Hammler stated increasingly advertising is being leveraged
by the web and geolocational-type services, which could alleviate sign clutter.
Council Member Martinez stated that while he is very concerned about
sign clutter, he would like to hear Council Member Wright's report as to why
the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial.
Council Member Wright stated they were fairly clear in their
recommendation. He stated they highlighted the presence of sign clutter and
a concern about enforcement. He stated they were aware that permits would
be required and this sign would count as one of their two permitted signs
under the Zoning Ordinance. He stated one of the points of discussion was
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 7
that the Town has spent numerous years trying to declutter signage and
viewed this as a step backwards. He stated he questioned them as to whether
there was anything that would alleviate or address their concerns on this
proposed amendment and their answer was very clearly "no".
Council Member Wright questioned how the Town will ensure
compliance so the restrictions that would reduce sign clutter can be addressed.
Mr. Lawlor stated it would require serious manpower as each sign will
have to be checked against the permits that have been issued. He noted any
signs that have been determined not to have approved sign permits will
require a site visit.
Council Member Wright stated another concern the Planning
Commission had was design guidelines.
Council Member Butler stated he polled residents about allowing this
type of signage in places other than the downtown. He noted they did not
want to see the signs around Town, but they are okay with these signs
downtown because it is a place where people walk around.
Council Member Reid noted if the signage cannot be placed on the
public right of way, any sign clutter would be restricted to private property.
There was discussion about inequity issues if businesses located in
shopping centers could have this type signage, but free standing businesses
could not.
There was additional discussion regarding sign clutter in jurisdictions
without restrictions on portable signs.
Council Member Reid stated that while he hates to go against the
Planning Commission, he feels in this environment, the Council has to do what
it can to allow businesses to survive. He urged Council to approve this
amendment.
Mayor Umstattd stated this issue was raised because a shopping center
owner had gotten a lot of sign violation notices for this type of signage. She
stated she is strongly in favor of this amendment. She stated one food shop
owner feels they lost about $4,000 in a three month period because they had
to take down their sandwich board sign. She noted that most of the shopping
centers do have a pedestrian element to them, very much similar to the
historic downtown. She stated sandwich board signs are helpful to her as a
consumer and she will not see them if she is driving down the street because
they are internal to the shopping centers. She stated we tend to over-regulate
to keep the Town aesthetically pleasing, yet it is in the private sectors self
interest to make sure that the presentation of themselves to the world is
attractive and in keeping with their products.
Council Member Martinez suggested approving the amendment tonight
and then revisiting this issue after a period of time to assess whether it has
created sign clutter.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 8
Council Member Wright clarified that because of the location
requirements, some businesses would not be eligible to place a sandwich
board/A-frame sign in front of their business. He also clarified that the
businesses that have gotten a duly permitted sign will be allowed to keep the
sign regardless of the final outcome.
Mr. Lawlor affirmed that and added that businesses that already have
two signs would not be eligible either because each business is only allowed
two signs. He also noted the signs that have been permitted during this period
would become legal nonconformities.
Vice Mayor Hammier questioned whether there are a lot of businesses
requesting this type of signage.
Mr. Lawlor stated it has only been an issue in the past with regards to
the downtown, which is the reason for having A-frames permitted in the Old
and Historic District.
Council Member Butler clarified that the sign vigilantes will not be
empowered to remove these signs. He suggested letting everyone know that
enforcement will come only from the Leesburg Zoning Department.
Mr. Lawlor noted no sign vigilantes have permission to pick up signs in
the Town of Leesburg.
Council Member Dunn suggested putting a time limit on the length of
time for which an A-frame can be approved. He noted he will support this, but
he is hesitant to do so because this is spotty zoning without looking at the
complete picture and how they all tie together. He expressed concern that this
will not work with Form Based Code.
Brian Boucher stated that staff is looking comprehensively at the sign
ordinance, which will be an involved process with a lot of contact with the
development community. He stated at that time, anything that does not work
correctly will come up in those discussions.
There were no members of the public wishing to comment.
The public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
On the motion of Council Member Reid, seconded by Council Member
Butler, the following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2010-0-002
Amending Article 15, Section 15.3 Definitions, Section 15.5 Prohibited
Signs, Section 15.7 Regulations Applicable to All Signs and Section 15.9
signs in Nonresidential Zoning Districts of the Leesburg Zoning
Ordinance
Council Member Reid stated he would like to put this into effect and see
how it works.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 9
Council Member Butler stated Council should pass this and review the
issue in six months to see if there is a sign clutter issue.
-- Council Member Wright acknowledged people in Loudoun are very
sensitive to signage and noted the Council needs to be sensitive to the impact
of signage. He stated by allowing these signs in the downtown and then not
allowing them in shopping centers with wider sidewalks, it creates a problem.
He stated the regulations will not necessarily be in place to hinder business,
but to respect and reflect the community as a whole. He stated in the interest
of trying to strike a balance, he would like to make a friendly amendment to
Section 15.7.2 to make the maximum distance from the front door of the
business five feet, rather than ten feet.
The friendly amendment was accepted by Council Members Reid and
Butler.
Council Member Wright questioned whether language needs to be
amended to make sure the sign is not located in a drive aisle or access path.
Vice Mayor Hammler questioned what regulations will the Town have
that will help keep down sign clutter.
Mr. Lawlor stated the big difference between Leesburg and the City of
Manassas is the distance to the door.
Vice Mayor Hammler offered a friendly amendment to make it clear this
will be for a trial period of six months.
Council Member Reid stated he could not accept this as a friendly
amendment because six months may not be long enough to get sufficient
data.
Ms. Irby confirmed that any signs issued during the trial period would
be grandfathered as legal nonconformities. She suggested language that
would allow the permits to continue should Council decide the ordinance is
working, or allow the permits to expire should Council decide the ordinance is
not working as hoped. She stated the language should be printed on the
permit.
Council Member Dunn suggested making the permits for two years,
automatically renewable. He stated if at the beginning of the second year,
Council decides these signs are not desirable, businesses have a year and 11
months grandfathered before the permit expires. He questioned how much of
a burden keeping up with renewals and grandfathering will be on staff.
Council Member Butler stated he would like to make the period six
months.
Council Member Wright confirmed that current sign permits have no
time limits. He questioned what are the other consequences regarding
tracking.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 10
Vice Mayor Hammler made a motion to amend the original motion to
add a six month review by Council.
Mayor Umstattd clarified that the permit would be for six months,
automatically renewing, unless Council changes the Zoning Ordinance to not
allow A-frame signs.
Mr. Lawlor stated they have the ability to track the expirations in the
land management information system.
Council Member Butler seconded the motion to amend.
Council Member Dunn clarified there would be no additional fee at
renewal time. He asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to amend to
make the time period one year.
Vice Mayor Hammler accepted the friendly amendment, but Council
Member Butler did not.
Council Member Butler stated there is no additional burden on staff so
he would like the A-frames to go away sooner if Council decides they are not
desirable.
Council Member Reid seconded the amendment for one year.
The motion to amend passed by the following vote:
Aye: Dunn, Hammler, Reid, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Butler, Martinez and Wright
Council Member Butler made a motion to change the one year to six
months. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hammler.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Aye: Butler and Hammler
Nay: Dunn, Reid and Mayor Umstattd
Abstain: Martinez and Wright
Vote: 2-3-2
Council Member Dunn questioned if the sign cannot be more than five
feet from the door, how does it stay 10 feet from the right of way?
Mr. Lawlor stated that is a back up measurement with the distance
from the door being the primary measurement. He clarified if there is not
enough room for both measurements, then the business owner may not be
eligible for an A-frame sign.
The original motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 11
c. TLOA 2009-0011 Recreation Uses in the I-1 District
The public hearing was opened at 9:14 p.m.
Mark Browning summarized the history of this proposed amendment to
permit certain new transitional uses in the I-1 zoning district by-right in
existing buildings only. He stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval.
There were no members of the public to speak on this issue.
The public hearing was closed at 9:18 p.m.
On the motion of Council Member Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor
Hammler, the following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2010-0-003
Amendments to Section 6.7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance, I-1
Industrial/Research Park District, and Section 9.2 Use Table, to Permit
Recreation Facilities, in Existing Buildings Only, as a By-Right Use in the
I-1 Zoning District
Council Member Dunn stated he would like to add more uses as by-
right uses.
Council Member Reid stated this has been a long time coming and he
hopes to see future reforms in the I-1 district.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
U mstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
d. TLOA 2009-0020 Amending Articles 9, 17 and 19 of the Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance to Enhance the Effectiveness of Residential Excessive
Occupancy Regulations
The public hearing was opened at 9:18 p.m.
Wade Burkholder stated this subject was brought before Council in
November, at which time he outlined four areas in which the Town approaches
the subject including enforcement, code changes, inspections, and community
outreach. He stated this public hearing deals strictly with the Zoning
Ordinance text amendment which would enhance the effectiveness of the
zoning ordinance regulations. He pointed out the proposed amendments very
closely model those adopted by the Town of Herndon and the City of
Winchester, both of which have been using these regulations and had some
success.
Mr. Burkholder summarized the proposed amendments. He noted they
are targeting single family districts where people are renting out rooms to any
number of persons.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 12
There was discussion regarding what constitutes a single family and
whether very large single families may reside in a single residence.
-- Mr. Burkholder clarified that the Virginia Property Maintenance Code
actually define the number of persons permitted to reside in a single family
residence by square footage per resident. He noted the County would be able
to inspect and enforce this using their property maintenance inspectors. He
noted the existence of a second kitchen does not automatically grant
permission for a second dwelling within a single family residence.
He stated both staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of
the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Council Member Dunn questioned whether homeless shelters would be
an allowed use. He questioned the timeline on implementation of the process
as a performance measure.
Mr. Burkholder stated there is a specific use for warming shelters, but
not homeless shelters. He noted that any use not specifically listed in the
zoning ordinance requires Zoning Administrator determination for other like
uses. He stated on average excessive occupancy cases remain open about 49
days but this is dependent case by case on different factors including property
owner cooperation. He added using the property maintenance code provisions
will cut down the average length of time it takes to resolve an excessive
occupancy case.
Council Member Dunn requested he be provided with an average
timeline for such a case. He stated the average would be a good performance
measure.
Mr. Burkholder stated the department has a standard procedures
guideline which outlines the timeline. He noted the maximum time allowed for
appeal of a violation notice is 30 days.
Vice Mayor Hammler thanked Mr. Burkholder and staff for the work
leading up to this public hearing. She stated she understands it is part of the
strategic roadmap and tools to be used. She questioned whether publication
of cases that are being actively pursued would be another tool that could be
used.
Ms. Irby stated the Town cannot threaten criminal prosecution to gain
an advantage in a civil suit. She also stated she could not recommend this
course of action.
Council Member Wright agreed noting that landlords have a lengthy
process to go through to get a tenant out off their property even if the tenant
has broken the terms of the a valid lease.
Vice Mayor Hammler stated the Council should add to the Legislative
Agenda and look for ways to team with Virginia Municipal League and other
municipalities to increase the civil fines associated with noncompliance.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 13
Council Member Martinez questioned whether any residents spoke at
the Planning Commission public hearing.
Mr. Burkholder confirmed that no residents spoke at the public hearing.
Council Member Butler stated he agrees with the intent of these
amendments. He noted large numbers of related individuals can still live in
the same single family dwelling even with the square footage requirements in
the Property Maintenance Code.
Council Member Reid commented that while no residents came out to
speak to this issue, there are 54 complaints, with 23 currently under
investigation, which indicates there is a problem.
Mayor Umstattd questioned what qualifies as an apartment building
under the ordinance. She noted there are several buildings in the historic
district that are single family homes that were converted into apartment
buildings.
Mr. Burkholder stated they are classified as multi-family dwellings,
which by definition are three or more dwelling units located on a single lot or
parcel. He stated a dwelling unit is a single unit providing complete
independent living facilities for a single family including provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, and sanitation.
Mayor Umstattd stated the Town could have theoretically levied
transient occupancy taxes (TOT) from boarding houses or rooming houses
even though it has never been done in the past possibly because it would have
been difficult to document.
Mr. Burkholder stated the next public hearing regarding Town Code
amendments will seek to remove the definition of boarding house or rooming
house from transient occupancy tax payers.
Mayor Umstattd stated the Town should think about whether they want
to eliminate the ability to impose a TOT on boarding or rooming houses even if
the property is being illegally used.
Ms. Irby stated it would be easy to amend the language to state even if
a use is illegal, it does not eliminate the obligation to pay any transient
occupancy taxes that may be due.
Council Member Dunn questioned if something is illegal, would taxing it
give it some validity of legality.
Ms. Irby stated the precedent of AI Capone who failed to declare the
illegal gotten gains on his income taxes, so he was convicted by the Internal
Revenue Service, not for the underlying illegal activity. She stated the Town
can still collect the tax even though it is for an illegal activity.
There were no members of the public wishing to address this issue.
The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m.
Town Council Meeting of Januarx 26, 2010 Page 14
On the motion of Vice Mayor Hammler, seconded by Council Member
Dunn, the following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2010-0-004
Amending the Zoning Ordinance Articles 9, 17, and 18 to Enhance the
Effectiveness of Residential Excessive Occupancy Regulations in
Leesburg
Vice Mayor Hammler noted this is an important quality of life issue in
the Town's neighborhoods.
Council Member Wright stated he appreciates that the Town is
continuing to move forward and use all the tools at its disposal, but there are
still a lot of people that can legally live in a single family home.
Council Member Butler commented that this amendment is trying to
minimize the impact of a large number of people in a house to the surrounding
neighborhood and neighbors. He stated he is not sure the definitions in
18.1.57 gets the Town where it is trying to be. He stated enforcement is very
difficult and complex and he does not think focusing on whether occupants are
related is the answer. He stated there is no difference to the impact on the
neighborhood whether excessive occupants are related or not. He stated he
understands the need not to break up families, but adding in others such as au
pairs, live-in servants, etc., distorts the intent of the ordinance and makes
enforcement needlessly complex. He proposed limiting the number to some
number of adults with an unlimited number of underage children. He
questioned whether staff felt that eight would be an appropriate number.
Mr. Burkholder stated the State Code identifies families as not less than
four adults.
Mr. Boucher stated state and national definitions of family is very broad
and does not limit the number of people that can be part of a family. He
stated jurisdictions have always stayed away from that because they do not
want to legislate how many family members can live in a house.
Council Member Butler encouraged staff to review and come up with
something more simple. He questioned whether Section 18.1.57 need to be
called out in Section 9.7?
Council Member Wright stated for clarification, the definition of family in
the Zoning Ordinance is that number of people can live in a residence however
the math works out, as long as you fall within that definition, but in addition
the occupants of the residence still have to conform to the Virginia
Maintenance Code.
Council Member Reid stated we have to have faith that people will not
make complaints on legitimate families with large numbers of children. He
stated when people start seeing an inordinate number of people, cars and
noise is when staff will be called in. He stated he feels this should be adopted
and revised, if need be.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 15
Council Member Dunn stated this will give us the ability to have more
or less voluntary compliance.
- Vice Mayor Hammler stated this is a very serious issue and she
appreciates the amount of serious thought that everyone has given to it. She
agreed that it is not perfect, but it is progress. She summarized by saying
whether it is clutter or more cars, those living close to these situations know
exactly what is going on. She stated in her neighborhood, the neighbors did
not want their daughters walking down the street anymore because of the
seriousness of the situation.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
e. Amending the Town Code for Compliance with the Virginia Propertx
Maintenance Codes and State Law
The public hearing was opened at 10:11 p.m.
Mr. Burkholder stated these amendments to the Town Code stem from
the initial discussion in November regarding getting the Town inspectors
involved in working on these types of cases. He stated they have met with
representatives of Loudoun County and reported there is a draft memorandum
of understanding being reviewed at the County level. He stated they have
identified a number of up to 50 excessive occupancy cases that the County will
participate on with the Town. Essentially, the Town will need to make a case
and do the background work and call in the County inspectors if necessary.
Mr. Burkholder reviewed the proposed amendments to the Town Code.
He stated these changes will mesh the Town and County codes.
Vice Mayor Hammler questioned the status of the legislative process to
allow Town Zoning Inspectors to perform excessive occupancy inspections.
Mr. Wells stated the State Building Code group has recommended
working it through a change in the state building code rather than working
through the legislative process. He stated that is an active effort right now.
Vice Mayor Hammler clarified that language allowing TOT to be levied
on illegal boarding houses be included.
Council Member Wright questioned how the process of handling
excessive occupancy complaints works at the County.
Ms. Berry Hill stated it is filed through the zoning division.
Mr. Wells clarified that the building inspections department and the
zoning department are the same department in the County.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 16
Council Member Wright noted there is a limitation of 50 cases placed on
Leesburg and he would hope the same limitation would be placed on other
areas of the County.
Council Member Butler stated he is still not clear why the Town should
need a memorandum of understanding from the County since Town residents
are also County residents. He noted that the state's tables show in an 850
square foot house you can have 10 adults as long as they are related, but in
an 1400 square foot house, you can only have four unrelated adults. He
stated this makes no sense and requested the Town try to figure out how to
make this make more sense.
Council Member Reid questioned what the effect deferring this item
would have on enforcement.
Ms. Irby stated without the code changes, the Memorandum of
Understanding will not be completed and the Town will have no enforcement
capability over this issue.
Council Member Reid questioned why the Town is required to have a
Memorandum of Understanding for County officials to perform the same
services they perform in other areas of the County, such as Sterling, without
one. He recommended having this issue taken up with the full board. He also
stated during the budget process, Council should consider a second zoning
officer.
Mr. Burkholder introduced the Town's Zoning Inspector, Carmen
Babonneau, to the Council.
There were no members of the public wishing to address Council on this
subject.
The public hearing was closed at 10:23 p.m.
On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council
Member Butler, the following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2010-0-005
Amending the Town Code Articles I, II, VI, IX and Appendix B for
Compliance with the Virginia Property Maintenance Codes and State
Law
Vice Mayor Hammier made a friendly amendment to include the ability
to collect TOT from boarding houses. The friendly amendment was accepted
by Council Members Martinez and Butler.
Council Member Dunn stated there is a double standard as there does
not need to be a Memorandum of Understanding for our staff to collect fees
due to the County.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 17
The amended motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammier, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
il. ORDINANCES
a. None
12. RESOLUTIONS
a. None
13. OLD BUSINESS
a. None
14. NEW BUSINESS
a. None
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Reid wished everyone a Happy New Year. He stated the
Standing Residential Traffic Committee (SRTC) held a meeting this month and
continued their discussion of the Tavistock Drive issue. He stated the Economic
Development Commission (EDC) had a presentation on Form Based Code. He thanked
staff for an excellent job on the town calendar. He stated it was nice to see all the
religious holidays included. He thanked the Volunteer Firefighters and Rescue Squad
for their banquet. He congratulated the Greene Turtle on their opening and thanked
them for inviting Council to the open house. He stated he appreciated the meeting
with Senator Warner and commended Council for attending noting that they put the
importance of the Sycolin Road flyover and bringing Northrup Grumman to Loudoun on
the senator's radar. He stated the Martin Luther King Day parade was a delight to be
apart of, but he noted it is not so much a parade as a march to commemorate the
civil rights marches of the 1950s and 1960s. He expressed his dismay that public
school educated children are not learning about the period of time in the 1950s and
1960s when blacks did not have the equal rights. He stated the further we get away
from the events of that era, the more we forget them. He expressed concern that
people will forget about the Holocaust as more of the victims pass away. He stated
the Martin Luther King march is a reminder that there are still problems in our society
of racism, bigotry and a lack of understanding. He stated he is thrilled to participate in
this march that indicates to him a willingness not to forget those who, at great risk,
fought for equal rights. He expressed hope that today's young people understand the
importance of those marches.
Council Member Butler stated over the Christmas break he had the opportunity
to spend the night at the Homewood Suites, which was a great experience and added
it is a good addition to the Town. He congratulated the businesses in Town that were
granted ABC licenses and thanked Senator Herring for facilitating the process. He
stated he attended the Rescue Squad dinner and had a great time. He stated he was
accepted into the Sorensen Institutes' Political Leaders Program starting in March
where he will learn a lot about things being done around the state that could benefit
the Town. He stated on behalf of the Tree Commission, he hopes everyone will see
Avatar as it is a tree friendly movie.
--- Council Member Wright had no comments.
Town Council Meeting of January 26, 2010 Page 18
Council Member Martinez stated he participated in the Martin Luther King day
march and it was good to see all the people remembering Martin Luther King. He
stated he also attended the Rescue Squad dinner, which was wonderful.
Vice Mayor Hammier stated Council Member Reid's heartfelt sentiments
reminded her about one of the books she read over the holidays, Geraldine Brooks'
"March", which tells the story of the father of the "Little Women" who went off to the
Civil War. She stated the story starts at the Battle of Balls Bluff and is so descriptive
about the atrocities of slavery and it is difficult to think about how the history of this
country started. She stated she was disappointed there is some much work to do
even with elected representatives, referring to an incident at the Board of Supervisor's
level. She disclosed a meeting with members of George Mason University including
Roger Staub, Roy Hinton, and Gerry Coughter with members of Town Staff and Jan
Zachariasse on January 20. She thanked town staff for the calendar which she noted
included a cost savings of over $1,0,000 over the calendar insert previously included in
the Loudoun Times Mirror's Leesburg at Leisure. She thanked OJ Jackson and Eddie
Brown for cleaning up the mulch pile at Ida Lee, an issue brought up by Mr. Vanzandt.
She congratulated Mr. Wells on his contract and thanked him for everything he does
for the Town.
Council Member Dunn stated he enjoyed the Martin Luther King march, which
he participated in with his sons. He stated he is reminded how things come full circle
as his father attended Central High School in Little Rock in 1956 and he had the
opportunity to graduate from Mary Washington College, which stands on the site of the
Battle of Fredericksburg, and while he attended there, he studied under the direction
of Dr. James Farmer who was the founder of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) and
the founder of the freedom rides. He commended staff, private contractors and the
public on their snow removal efforts and patience as there were no major complaints.
He stated it was an honor to attend the firehouse and rescue squad dinners and was
proud to know that the Town makes such sizable donations to their operations which
are so necessary to the community. He commended all the cub scouts across the
nation who participated in the Pinewood Derby. He noted it is an opportunity for
parents to participate in a project with their children.
16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Umstattd disclosed a meeting with members of the Community Church
on Lee Avenue regarding the Wage Drive drainage project. She commended both the
members of the church and Town staff for the productive meeting where they tried to
come up with creative ways to solve the conflict. She thanked the Board of
Supervisors for voting to hold the line on aircraft tax and for their open minds on this
issue and willingness to listen to facts and figures. She stated she feels this is the
right thing for the local economy. She noted the residents of Linden Hill Way are
continuing to express their concerns regarding the Route 15 (South King Street)
widening. She requested staff keep Council briefed on developments to ensure they
have access to northbound Route 15 as well as southbound Route 15.
17. MANAGER'S COMMENTS
Mr. Wells stated a letter will be drafted for signature regarding the aircraft tax.
He reminded Council of the vacancy on the Board of Zoning Appeals and asked for
nominations to send to the Court. He noted Tom Brandon and Kaj Dentler met with
the three residents who spoke earlier during the Petitioner's Section and were able to
give them an update on the information that was provided at the citizen's meeting
Town Council Meeting of Januarx 26, 2010 Page 19
and what the next steps will be. He noted the Town will be receiving a check of
approximately $90,000 from Loudoun County resulting from a recreation proffer
related to Spring Lakes. He noted the funds are limited to use at Ida Lee.
He thanked Council for the vote of confidence with regards to his contract. He
stated he views that as an affirmation of the work that Council and staff do together.
He stated it has been reflective of a lot of the changes that have been made in terms
of culture and style of the way business is done with the residents and development
community.
18. CLOSED SESSION
a. None
19. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Dunn,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m.
S
Clerk of Coun it
2010 tcmin0126
~~
ris n C. mstattd, Mayor
Town of Leesburg