Loading...
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