HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016_tcwsmin0627 Council Work Session June 27, 2016
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor David S. Butler
presiding.
Council Members e bers Present: Kelly Burk, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, R. Bruce
Gemmill, Katie Sheldon Hammier, Marty Martinez and Mayor Butler.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Deputy
Town Manager Keith Markel, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, and
Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Items for Discussion
a. Certifying Closed Session
On a motion by Council Member Hammier, seconded by Council Member Fox,
the following was proposed:
MOTION 2016-011
In accordance with Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move that
Council certify to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and such public business matters as were identified
in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed
or considered in the meeting by Council.
Council Comments:
• Dunn: Requested that the public be informed why Council was in
closed session.
• Butler: Stated that the council was in closed session for the purpose of
discussing and receiving information regarding interviews of
prospective candidates for employment as the chief of police.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
Aye: Burk, Dunn, Fox, Gemmill, Hammier, Martinez, and Mayor Butler
Nay: None.
Vote: 7-0
b. Stipends for Advisory Commissions
Council Member Gemmill noted that he provided supporting
documentation in the packet to support his goal.
Key Points:
• State of Virginia calls serving on a Board or Commission an "honor
and a privilege" and service is without stipend.
1IPage
Council Work Session June 27, 2016
• Loudoun County has 43 commissions and boards — eight include a very
small stipend.
• Discussion does not include the Board of Architectural Review, the
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals.
• Stipends are $76,000 for the remainder of the Commissions.
• Would hope that Commissioners would voluntarily give up their
stipends.
Council Comments:
• Dunn: Stated that the stipends were just increased a few years ago, so it
makes it awkward to go back and ask them to forego their stipends. He
suggested trimming down the number of commissions by creating a
sub-committee structure with unpaid sub-committees.
• Burk: Stated she would rather not do this in the middle of the budget
cycle.
• Hammler: Stated she would be willing to look at changes in the
commission structure.
• Fox: Agreed that there is some compacting that can be done with
respect to the commission structure.
• Hammler: Stated she would like to include the Boards and
Commission in the policy discussion.
• Fox: Questioned why staff does not support this.
Dentler: Stated that staff has not taken a position on this.
There was consensus to have the commissions provide feedback.
There was consensus to discuss changes to the commission structure.
c. New Proffer Policy
Barbara Notar gave a brief presentation on the new proffer policy.
Key Points:
• Recommend initiating fee increases to offset increased cost of
administering new regulations.
• Recommend adopting an interim policy which will prohibit the
submission of proffers until amendments can be finalized.
• Similar to plans by other jurisdictions.
• Onsite proffers must be specifically attributable to the impact created by
the new residential development.
• Offsite proffers include cash proffers and must meet a stricter test to be
considered to be reasonable.
• Under the state code, the developer of an approved development could
bring suit.
• New statute allows an unreasonable proffer to be struck entirely by the
court as well as a court order of the rezoning.
2IPage
Council Work Session June 27, 2016
• The Town will adopt a similar plan to those being put in place by other
local jurisdictions.
• Developers fully anticipate increased fees as a result of the new law.
• Meetings with developers should include either a representative from
the Town Attorney's office or the Director of Planning and Zoning.
Council Member Comments/Questions:
• Burk: Questioned whether applications will stall because the legislation
is not yet in place.
Notar: Stated that they can still move through the system, but the town
cannot accept proffers. Further, she stated that the town cannot impose
a moratorium on applications. She stated that the development
community understands that this will take some time for approximately
six months.
• Fox: Noted that the clock is still running during this period of time.
She questioned why a consultant is necessary.
Boucher: Stated that the state has given a presumption of a law suit
against the town anytime anyone claims an unreasonable proffer has
been requested. He stated that the consultant will determine the
impact.
• Hammier: Stated that the consultant as well as staff time to manage the
consultant is included in the increase in the application fees. She
suggested making commercial by-right.
Berry Hill: Stated from a planning perspective, mixed use development
can be a good thing to generate the support within the development for
the commercial uses.
• Fox: Questioned what applicant initiated Town Plan amendments
have to do with proffers.
Notar: Stated the Town Plan gains significance with this law and the
town should be in charge of the Town Plan.
• Gemmill: Stated he talked to a representative from a construction
company who stated that many of the members of the NVBIA are not
thrilled about this because it will slow down development.
• Butler: Stated an off-hand comment by a council member or staff could
cause issues.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
There were no additions.
3. Adjournment
7-en a moti• • by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the meeting
ddjo 'ed •5p.m.
Clerk of C•uncil
2011 tcwsmin0613