HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020_tcmin0811 COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Burk presiding.
Council Members Present: Ron Campbell, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, Vice Mayor
Marty Martinez, Neil Steinberg, and Mayor Kelly Burk.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Interim
Town Attorney Martin Crim, Director of Utilities Amy Wyks, Director of Public Works
and Capital Projects Renee LaFollette, Director of Economic Development Russell
Seymour, Public Information Officer Betsy Arnett(via WebEx), Airport Director Scott
Cofuan, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Deputy Director of Planning
and Zoning Brian Boucher, Deputy Town Attorney Christine Newton, Zoning
Administrator Mike Watkins, Department of Planning& Zoning Senior Planning Project
Manager Chris Murphy, Management and Budget Officer Jason Cournoyer, Chief
Procurement Officer Octavia Andrew(via WebEx), Department of Plan Review Senior
Project Manager Eric Meske (via WebEx), Department of Public Works and Capital
Projects Land and Acquisition Manager Keith Wilson, Senior Engineer Anne Geiger and
Clerk of Council Eileen Boeing.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION was given by Mayor Burk.
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG was led by Vice Mayor Martinez.
4. ROLL CALL
a. Remote Participation
Council Member Dunn requested to electronically participate in the August
11, 2020, Council Meeting due to the health and safety concerns associated with the
Coronavirus. Mayor Burk, Vice Mayor Martinez, Council Member Campbell,
Council Member Fox, and Council Member Steinberg were physically present at
the meeting.
MOTION2020-188
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
To allow Council Member Dunn to electronically participate in the August 11, 2020,
Council Meeting
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 5-0-1(Dunn absent)
1 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
5. MINUTES
a. Work Session Minutes of July 27, 2020
MOTION2020-189
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
minutes of the Work Session of July 27, 2020, were moved for approval.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
b. Regular Session Minutes of July 28, 2020
MOTION2020-190
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
minutes of the Regular Session of July 28, 2020, were moved for approval.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA
Mayor Burk requested item 13.e. —Water and Sanitary Sewer Service Extension
Approval to Microsoft Phase II Project be moved to after item 20.a. — Closed Session—
Pending Litigation/Annexation and/or Boundary Line Adjustment with respect to the
JLMA. Council had no objections.
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the meeting agenda
was moved for approval.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
7. CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION
a. None.
8. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATIONS
a. Hispanic Heritage Month.
Council proclaimed the Hispanic Heritage Month proclamation. Mayor
Burk presented the proclamation to Ms. Gabriela Lamas. Ms. Lamas made a few
remarks.
2 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
b. Recognition of Rachel Roberts.
Council proclaimed the proclamation in recognition of Leesburg's Flower
Lady Rachel Roberts. Mayor Burk noted that the proclamation for Ms. Roberts
would be mailed to her home.
9. PRESENTATIONS
a. None.
10. REGIONAL COMMISSION REPORTS
a. None.
11. PETITIONERS 0
The Petitioners section was opened at 7:05 p.m.
Charles Kuhn. Spoke to Council on behalf of Kuhn Aviation and requested
Council's support in awarding them the Airport Aviation Fuel Tank Site lease.
Dan Deunkle. Spoke to Council in support of Kuhn Aviation being awarded the
Airport Aviation Fuel Tank Site lease.
Nicholas Clemente. Spoke to Council about his nomination for the Council
Appointment and his disappointment with the process specifically as it related to Mayor
Burk and Vice Mayor Martinez and the outside influences that affected a change in their
support of his appointment.
Shane Murphy. Spoke to Council to request support of the text amendments
regarding the doggy day care.
Rena Campbell, 508 Niven Court SW. Spoke to Council against approving the
concept plan and proffer amendment at the CVS/Allman property.
Rene Dennis. Spoke to Council against approving the concept plan and proffer
amendment at the CVS/Allman property.
Steve Spiewak. Spoke to Council in support of Kuhn Aviation being awarded the
Airport Aviation Fuel Tank Site lease.
The Petitioners section was closed at 7:27 p.m.
12. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Campbell requested item 12.c. —Annual Capital Funding
Request to the County of Loudoun be removed for discussion.
3 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
MOTION2020-191
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following Consent Agenda was proposed:
a. Street Lights for Sycolin Road Phase IV Widening Project
RESOLUTION2020-081
Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute an Agreement with NOVECfor
Installation of Streetlights on the Sycolin Road Phase IV Widening Project
b. Royal Street SE Storm Drainage Improvements Project—Acquisition of
Permanent and Temporary Easements
RESOLUTION2020-082
Authorizing an Offer to Acquire Permanent and Temporary Easements for the
Royal Street SE Storm Drainage Improvements.Project
d. Rock Spring Farm Text Amendment
RESOLUTION2020-083
Initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Amend Articles 5, 9 and 18
to add Spring Water Bottling Plant as a Special Exception Use in the Rural
Estate District and to Develop Use Standards and Definitions
The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor
Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
c. Annual Capital Funding Request to the County of Loudoun
Council Member Campbell commented that the amount requested for
purchasing the Westpark property was too low.
MOTION
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION
Annual Request to the County of Loudoun for Capital Funding for Fiscal
Year 2022
Council discussed the amount proposed for the Westpark property.
Mr. Campbell requested a friendly amendment to the motion to change the
amount of the Westpark property request to, "Not to exceed$6M." Vice
Mayor Martinez accepted the amendment.
4 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August.11, 2020
MOTION2020-192
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the following was proposed::
RESOLUTION2020-084
Annual Request to the County of Loudoun for Capital Funding for Fiscal
Year 2022 to include a not to exceed amount of$6Mfor the purchase of the
Westpark property
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez and Mayor Burk
Nay: Steinberg
Vote: 5-1
13. RESOLUTIONS /ORDINANCES /MOTIONS
a. Award of Lease for Mighty Midget
MOTION 2020-193
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded Vice Mayor Martinez,
the following was proposed:
RESOL UTION2020-085
Awarding a Twenty-Year Lease of the Mighty Midget Semi-Permanent
Kitchen Structure to Mom's Apple Pie Bakery
Council asked questions about the bid process. Ms. Christine Newton
and Ms. Octavia Andrew summarized the bid process and timeline for the
award of the lease for the Mighty Midget.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay.• Dunn, Fox
Vote: 4-2
b. CARES Act of 2020 -Non-profit Grant Awards
Mr. Keith Markel summarized the Council's intent to award$1M of
CARES Act Funds to non-profit groups who applied for the Town grants.
Mr. Markel noted that 26 non-profit organizations met the criteria resulting
in a recommendation to Council to award the grants totaling$865,311.
Council discussed distributing the balance of the remaining$197K and
decided to equally distribute the amount among the 26 non-profits after staff
confirms that they are able to spend the money within the allotted time.
MOTION2020-194
On a motion by Council Member Campbell, seconded by Council Member
Steinberg, the following was proposed:
5 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
RESOLUTION2020-086
CARES Act of 2020 Non-profit Grant Awards
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye.• Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor
Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
c. CARES Act of 2020 - Spending Plan Update
Mr. Keith Markel discussed the two draft resolutions presented for
this item. The first was to modify the existing spending plan and the second
was for Council to provide direction on the second round of funding. Mr.
Markel reviewed the current CARES Act Spending Plan and the proposed
modifications. The modifications include: additional tiers of annual taxable
revenue (high and low) for eligibility; including round one grant recipients in
with round two grant applicants without requiring first round grant recipients
to reapply for the grant; reducing the threshold of revenue loss from 25% to
15%; removing the requirement to have less than 50 employees; extending
the window for applications; businesses would have to have been in business
on March 1, 2020; money that was still available after phase two could move
to a third phase with priority given to those applicants who have not received
any grants previously and if funds were still available do a lottery among all
businesses that applied. Mr. Markel discussed the Town government's use of
up to $200K to provide a virtual learning and childcare center for dependents
of Town employees.
Council discussed staff's proposal for modifying the existing spending
plan and second round funding options.
MOTION2020-195
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-087
CARES Act of 2020 Modifications to the First Round Spending Plan
Council Member Dunn made a motion to modify the bottom tiers for
eligibility for the business grants. Vice Mayor Martinez asked for a point of
order that the motion had been made and seconded so Mr. Dunn should not
be allowed to modify the existing motion. Mayor Burk noted that due to the
challenges with electronic participation she allowed it.
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Fox,
the following was proposed:
6 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
To remove the bottom two tiers and combine them into one tier of$0-$24,999
and offer$2,000 to any business in that tier
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox
Nay: Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Vote: 3-3
The original motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor
Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
Mr. Markel advised Council that after the previous night's Work
Session, a draft resolution was prepared to decline the second round CARES
Act funding and to ask Loudoun County to manage the money with a
specific request that$1M of Leesburg's portion be dedicated to non-profit
organizations that serve Leesburg. The draft resolution was based on the
discussion at the Work Session; however, staff recommended Council defer
the action to the September 8 meeting as it was learned between meetings
that there may be broader applicability to use the funds and that additional
guidance was expected to be forthcoming from the Federal government. To
retain its options, staff recommended deferral.
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member
Fox, the following was proposed:
To defer action on the draft CARES Act Second Round spending plan
resolution to the September 8 meeting
Council discussed the timing of when funds would be available to
businesses. Mr. Markel explained that the Town has not received any funds
to date to distribute.
Council Member Steinberg withdrew his motion with no objection
from Council.
MOTION2020-196
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the following was proposed:
To accept the second round of CARES Act of 2020 funding, ask staff to
develop a similar spending plan for the$1,000,000 of the funds allocated to
non profits and decide the remaining allocation in September when more
information is received on new spending eligibility
7 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor
Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
d. Authorization of an Indemnification, License, and Easement
Agreement, Leegate
MOTION 2020-197
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
RESOL UTION2020-088
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Indemnification, License, and Easement
Agreement between the Town of Leesburg, Virginia and Stanley Martin
Companies, LLC for Use of Town Property
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor
Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
f. Motion to Approve the Proclamation for Constitution Week
(Sponsor: Mayor Burk)
MOTION2020-198
On a motion by Mayor Burk, seconded by Vice Mayor Martinez, the
following was proposed:
I move to approve the Proclamation for Constitution Week to be proclaimed at the
September 8, 2020, Town Council Meeting.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 5-0-1 (Dunn abstain)
g. Motion to Approve the Proclamation for Payroll Week(Sponsor:
Mayor Burk)
MOTION 2020-199
On a motion by Mayor Burk, seconded by Vice Mayor Martinez, the
following was proposed:
8 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
I move to approve the Proclamation for Payroll Week to be proclaimed at the
September 8, 2020, Town Council Meeting.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 5-0-1 (Dunn abstain)
14. PUBLIC BEARINGS
a. Airport Aviation Fuel Tank Site -Public Hearing and Award of Lease
The Public Hearing was a continuation from the July 28, 2020, Council
Meeting. The Public Hearing was reopened at 8:58 p.m.
Mr. Scott Coffman gave a brief overview of the lease for a fuel tank site
located at the Leesburg Executive Airport. The lease is for a maximum of 2,500
square feet of land owned by the Town of Leesburg and located adjacent to the
existing fuel tank farm on the Leesburg Executive Airport.
Public Speakers:
Charles Kuhn. Spoke to Council to clarify questions from Council and
noted that by offering competitive fuel prices, maintenance services and other FBO
services that it will yield more revenue than just the lease itself.
Shye Gilad. Spoke to Council as the current Airport fuel provider regarding
the differences in fuel prices and the regional differences between Leesburg and
other areas. Mr. Gilad also spoke about his satisfied customers and ProJet's fair
treatment to them over the years. He also noted that he did not believe that Kuhn
Aviation was in compliance with their Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures Plan(SPCC).
Scott Kuhn. Spoke to Council about his six years of experience working
with aircraft refueling operations and noted they are not in violation of their
compliance agreement at the Airport.
Council asked questions about how approval for an agreement is reached
and asked whether or not Mr. Coffman believed Kuhn Aviation was in violation of
their compliance agreement. Mr. Coffman stated that they were in compliance and
explained that they are currently a mobile refueler which allows them to self-fuel
their own aircraft with their own equipment. Kuhn Aviation is currently refueling
from a truck. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC)
would be required for a permanent tank.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:24 p.m.
9 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
MOTION2020-200
On a motion by Council Member Campbell, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2020-0-012
An Ordinance Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Ground Lease Agreement
Granting the Exclusive Right and Privilege to Lease a Maximum of2,500 Square Feet
of Land Owned by the Town of Leesburg and Located Adjacent to the Existing Fuel
Tank Farm on the Leesburg Executive Airport, Leesburg Virginia, and Prescribing the
Terms and Conditions and Restrictions Pertaining to Such Grant as presented by staff
Council made comments about the exiting fuel provider ProJet and that
granting a lease to another company was not a sign of disrespect or dissatisfaction
with the current provider and stated the desire for both companies to be successful.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye.' Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
b. TLZM-2017-0004 CVS at Allman Property.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Murphy gave Council an overview of the rezoning application TLZM-
2017-0004 for the CVS at the Allman Property. Council was asked to decide on
whether to approve the application with conditions or deny the concept plan and
proffer sought by JEM X, LLC, consisting of 10,300 square feet single-story
pharmacy with drive-thru and 22,500 square foot, two-story commercial building
comprised of a maximum of 6,000 square feet of restaurant, a minimum of 7,000
square feet of retail, and 9,500 square feet of office on the second floor. Mr.
Murphy noted that the application comes with a Planning Commission
recommendation for denial. Council reviewed and discussed the application with
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Matt Leslie, with Walsh Colucci, gave a presentation on behalf of the
applicant JEM X, LLC Development. He was joined by Mr. Cory Martin from
JEM Development, Mr. Andrew Painter from Walsh Colucci, Mr. Travis D'Amico
from Bohler Engineering, Mr. Steve Beattie from Larson Design, Mr. Al Hansen for
DBI Architects and Mr. Grady Vaughan from Wells + Associates. Mr. Leslie
highlighted the changes made to the concept plan, BAR's required review of the
buildings since they are in the H-1 overlay, having CVS as the anchor store and the
heciso nteoamim ca lcsoon dstr
isauinstsse wd thithe th tz M sL teos laide darnedsschangesththavebeenmadeoverta
the year.concerns from the residents, Planning Commission and staff, the architecture and
the overall footprint of the project.
10 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
Public Speakers:
Greg Wigfield. Spoke to Council as one of the owners of the Greenway
Manor property. He told Council in 2012 a concept plan was approved between
them and the Allman family after a two-year mandated joint process. As a result,
no changes could be made to the plan without each other's approval. He said that
mutual approval changed with the Cornerstone lawsuit. Any protections they
thought they had regarding what could be done to the adjoining property were lost.
Mr. Wigfield shared his concerns with Council about the revised concept plan.
Brian McAfee, 204 Lawn Hill Court SW. Spoke to Council as a Greenway
Farm resident. Mr. McAfee said he was not in support of the application and urged
Council to deny the application.
Kevin Hamilton, 210 Wilson Avenue NW. Spoke to Council in support of
the application and welcomed the CVS and the associated retail and restaurants to
the west side of Town.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11:02 p.m.
MOTION 2020 201
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Campbell,
the following was proposed:
I recommend denial of TLZM-2017-0004 based on the following points as explained
in the August 11, 2020, staff report:
• Inconsistency with Town Plan Southwest Policy Area Objectives#3 and#6;
• Pursuant to TLZO Sec. 3.3.8 Consistency with Town Plan, inconsistency
with the Town Plan is a reason for denial of a rezoning application.
• Proposed uses are more intensive than existing approved uses, and pose adverse
impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods;
• Inconsistency with Chapter 5, Community Design, of the Town Plan
• Proposed site design is not compatible with, and will degrade the character of
the historic Greenway Manor Property;and,
• The more intensive commercial development will degrade the established
residential character along Leesburg's southern gateway into Town.
Council discussed the proposed uses for the property and BAR's oversight.
Vice Mayor Martinez stated he would abstain as he hoped Council would refer this
back to the Planning Commission to continue to resolve any remaining concerns.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 5-0-1 (Vice Mayor Martinez abstain)
11 l Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. TLOA-2020-0001, Amending the `Doggy Day Care' Use Standards to Allow
Overnight Boarding and to Amend `Cattery Uses' in the Various Zoning
Districts.
Mr. Watkins advised that Council held a public hearing on this item at the
July 28, 2020, Council meeting and that any additional action was deferred to the
current meeting. Council had unresolved questions regarding: understanding
doggy day care operations; possible use standards for accessory boarding; and,
possible update to the cattery definition. Mr. Watkins and Council discussed these
items.
Mr. Shane Murphy with Reed Smith made a few comments.on behalf of the
applicant and answered Council's questions. Mr. Murphy noted that Council's
actions were to approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow these
uses but that they would still need to return to Council with a Special Exception to
have additional discussion on reasonable conditions for operation.
Council discussed their concerns, especially with overnight boarding, but
noted that many of their concerns could be addressed at the time of the Special
Exception application. Council also addressed the districts in which these uses were
being added.
MOTION2020-203
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
following was proposed:
I move to approve TLOA-2020-0001, based on the alternate ordinance on the basis
that that the amendments further the objectives of the Town Plan and that the
proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience,general welfare and good
zoning practice.
ORDINANCE 2020-0-013
Amending Zoning Ordinance Articles 6, 9 and 18 to Establish Use Standards and
Definition for Overnight Doggy Day Care, and to Amend Use Standards and
Definition for Cattery
Council discussed whether to define the assumptions or to discuss them at
the Special Exception application. It was decided that there was more flexibility to
review at the Special Exception application because if they were to add it to the
adopted Ordinance, it would be binding for every application that comes before
Council.
Council Member Dunn requested to divide the question and vote separately
on allowing overnight stays as part of Doggy Day Care.
12 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
•
•
MOTION2020-202
Allowing Doggy Day Care the ability to have overnight stays in the proposed
ordinance
The motion was approved by the following vote:
• Aye: Campbell, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Dunn, Fox
Vote: 4-2
The original motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
Council took a recess from 11:54 p.m. — 12:00 a.m.
b. Potential Appointment of a Temporary Council Member.
MOTION2020-204
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
To allow names to be submitted by Council Members in an effort to select a member of
the public to fill the open seat vacated by Council Member Thiel
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Campbell
•
Vote: 5-1
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION
Appointing Mr. Nicholas Clemente a Temporary Council Member
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox
Nay: Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Vote: 3-3
13 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
MOTION
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION
Appointing Ms. Gladys Burke a Temporary Council Member
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Campbell, Dunn, Fox
Vote: 3-3
MOTION
The following motion by Council Member Fox failed to get a second.
RESOLUTION
Appointing Mr. Eric Christoph a Temporary Council Member
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Fox,
the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION
Appointing Mr. David Miles a Temporary Council Member
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox
Nay: Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Vote: 3-3
MOTION2020-205
On a motion by Council Member Campbell, seconded by Council Member
Fox, the following was proposed:
To close the current process and ask that the process go to the Loudoun County
Circuit Court for selection of the temporary appointment
Mr. Crim briefly explained the court appointment process and said
the Town Charter states if Council does not fill the appointment in 90 days
that the Circuit Court shall fill the position. He also noted the appointment
is filled by a judge of the Circuit Court but since Loudoun has more than
one, it presumably means a majority of the Circuit Court judges. Mr. Crim
discussed the timeline and said that the Court is not able to act until the 91"
day after Mr. Thiel's resignation.
Council discussed the appointment process and some of the reasons it
has been unable to appointment a temporary member.
14 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Steinberg
Nay: Vice Mayor Martinez and Mayor Burk
Vote: 4-2
16. NEW BUSINESS
a. None.
17. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES AND COMMENTS /ADDITIONS TO
FUTURE MEETINGS
MOTION2020-206
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the following was.
proposed:
To defer Council, Mayor and Town Manager comments and additions to future meetings to
the next business meeting
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
18. MAYOR DISCLOSURES AND COMMENTS /ADDITIONS TO FUTURE
MEETINGS
a. None.
19. TOWN MANAGER COMMENTS
a. None.
20. CLOSED SESSION
a. Pending Litigation/Annexation and/or a Boundary Line Agreement with
respect to the JLMA
MOTION 2020 207
On a motion by Mayor Burk, seconded by Vice Mayor Martinez, the
following was proposed:
I move pursuant to§2.2-3711(A)(7)and S 2.2-3711(A)(8)of the Code of Virginia that
the Leesburg Town Council convene in a dosed meeting for the purpose of consultation
with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to the pending litigation
of Town of Leesburg et al v. Loudoun County et al, Loudoun County Circuit Court
No. 19-1768 where such consultation in open session would adversely affect the
negotiating or litigating posture of the Town;and consultation with legal counsel
regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel,
and pertaining to a potential annexation and/or boundary line agreement with respect
to the JLMA.
15 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Dunn
Vote: 5-1
Council convened in a Closed Session at 12:10 a.m.
Council reconvened in an Open Session at 1:28 a.m.
MOTION2020-208
On a motion by Mayor Burk, the following motion was proposed:
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 Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and such public business matters for the purpose identified in the motion by which the
closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting by
Council.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
Campbell—aye, Fox—aye, Vice Mayor Martinez—aye, Steinberg—aye, Dunn—
aye, Mayor Burk—aye
12.e. Water and Sanitary Sewer Service Extension Approval to Microsoft
Phase II Project
MOTION2020-209
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Steinberg, the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-089
Conditional Approval of Water and Sanitary Sewer Extensions to Serve a
Portion of the Property of Microsoft Corporation(Microsoft Phase II)
Council, Mr. Crim and outside counsel Mr. Greg Haley discussed the
conditional terms of the agreement. Mr. Crim recommended adopting the
resolution, as presented.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Steinberg, Vice Mayor Martinez and Mayor Burk
Nay: Dunn
Vote: 5-1
16 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2020
21. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the meeting was
adjourned at 1:34 a.m.
Ke y ur ayor
Town of Leesburg
ATTEST:
/Xe,Liredeii>geaxp
Clerk of Council
2020_ccmin08 i 1
17 I Page
Page 1| August 11, 2020
August 11, 2020 – Town Council Meeting
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It
may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the
meeting that is on the Town’s Web site – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Council
meeting minutes. Council meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting
per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
Mayor Kelly Burk: [inaudible 00:01:41] of August 11th, 2020. If anyone in the room needs hearing
assistance, please see the Clerk. Mayor Burk will be giving the invocation, and Vice Mayor Martinez
will be giving the Pledge of Allegiance. At this point, I would like everybody to take a moment of silence
to think about what we've been through in the last six months or so. Think of the things that we have to
give thanks for during this very troubling time.
[pause]
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, would you begin the Pledge of Allegiance?
Vice Mayor Fernando “Marty” Martinez: Would you please stand up and join [inaudible 00:02:43]
Pledge of Allegiance?
Mayor Burk: Members of the public can now participate in the Town Council meetings electronically.
Any member of the public that wishes to participate in the public portion of this meeting should log into
the WebEx or call into the telephone number listed at the top of the published agenda. Let the record
reflect that all members of the Council are-- Wait a minute. Before I do that, I need to have a motion,
excuse me. I need to have a motion to allow Council Member Dunn to electronically participate in the
August 11th, 2020 Town Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved-
Council Member Suzanne Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: -by Vice Mayor Martinez. Seconded by Council Member Fox. All in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That is 5-0-1. Let the record reflect that all members of the Council are present.
Let's see. Do I have a work session? I have work session minutes of July 27th, 2020. Do I have a
motion?
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Moved by Vice Mayor Martinez. Second?
Council Member Ron Campbell: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Campbell. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Thomas Dunn: Aye.
Page 2| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: That's 6-0. Regular session minutes of July 28th, 2020.
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Mr. Martinez. Second? By Council Member Campbell. All in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That's six zero. All right. Do I have a motion to adopt the meeting agenda?
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Vice Mayor Martinez, excuse me. Seconded by?
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: [laughs] Council Member Fox. Before we vote on this, I am going to ask that we take 13E,
which is the Water and Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval to Microsoft Phase Two Project and move
that to after we have the closed session so that we can make an informed decision after we have had
a discussion with our attorney. That being the case, that is the only change unless anybody else has
anything they want to change on the agenda. Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: I just have a question for discussion on that point. Are you suggesting we
move that into a closed session?
Mayor Burk: No, I'm suggesting we discuss it after we have been in closed session and then come
out.
Council Member Campbell: Because we need to talk about it in closed session, or are we going to
talk about it in an open session?
Mayor Burk: We're going to talk about it in the open session, but before that, in the closed session,
you're going to have a discussion of Microsoft and where we are. It's important to have that information
so that you can be informed on voting on this part. That's all. That's the only reason we're moving it.
Council Member Campbell: I'm just wondering what portion of this may we get some legal advice
because the schedule right now in the open session, I'm just wondering what we're going to talk about
that's related to this in closed session so we can be specific. That's all.
Martin Crim: Madam Mayor, the portion of this that we're going to discuss in closed session is in relation
to the negotiations with the County and specifically with regard to the pending litigation and the matters
involving a potential negotiation with Loudoun County regarding the boundary line adjustments.
Council Member Campbell: Okay. I was just wondering why it wasn't in closed session to begin with,
but that's good. I'm good.
Mayor Burk: All right. Vice Mayor Martinez has made the motion, Council Member Fox seconded. All
in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Page 3| August 11, 2020
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: 6-0-1. We have no certificates of-- That's what I said, 6-0. Oh, [chuckles] sorry. 6-0.
Certificates of recognition, we don't have. We have two presentations tonight. The first one is in
recognition of Rachel Roberts. Is Rachel here tonight? I don't see Rachel. This proclamation is in
recognition of Rachel Roberts. Whereas, Ms. Rachel Roberts is a compassionate volunteer at Loudoun
Hunger Relief Pantry and is known for her tireless work towards raising donations to help those in need.
Whereas, Ms. Roberts came up with the creative idea of growing flowers in her garden and selling them
from a stand in her driveway.
She did this in 2012 to raise money for Loudoun Hunger Relief. Whereas, 100% of the proceeds go to
Loudoun Hunger Relief, and the donations have increased from $13,500 in 2017 to over $100,000 in
2020. Whereas, thanks to these donations, Loudoun Hunger Relief has been able to provide over
400,000 meals for those in need. Whereas, residents from all over Loudoun County look forward to
spring to purchase Ms. Roberts' beautiful bouquets and arrangements and, at the same time, contribute
to Loudoun Hunger Relief's mission.
Whereas, Ms. Roberts is lovingly known as Leesburg's Flower Lady for the hundreds of hours she
dedicates to helping those in her community through her volunteer efforts and the donations raised
through her sale of flowers. Therefore, proclaimed that the Mayor and the Council of the Town of
Leesburg, Virginia hereby recognize Ms. Rachel Roberts for her dedication and commitment towards
improving the lives of others through her fundraising efforts, proclaimed this 11th day of August, 2020.
We will send that to her. There is a mistake in the proclamation, a spelling mistake.
Vice Mayor Martinez: If you're going to collect this, she doesn't-- she asked me to--
Mayor Burk: [chuckles] The next one is Hispanic Heritage Month, September 15th through October
15th, 2020. Whereas, September 15th through October 15th, this is National Hispanic Heritage Month.
Whereas, we celebrate the histories and cultures and contributions of American citizens whose
ancestors came from Spain and Mexico and the Caribbean and Central and South America. Whereas,
we are grateful for the many contributions Hispanic men and women make to our community and for
the vibrancy they weave into our culture.
Whereas, National Hispanic Heritage Month 2020 theme, "Hispanics, be proud of your past, embrace
your future" invites us to reflect on the contributions of Hispanic Americans to the history of our nation
and to look forward to their continued contributions. Whereas, demonstrating a steadfast commitment
to faith, family, and hard work, Hispanic Americans lift up our community and our economy as residents,
business owners, employees, and volunteers.
Whereas, in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month, we honor and recognize Gabriela Lamas, who is a
Leesburg resident, a 2019 graduate of Loudoun County High School, a rising junior at George Mason
University, and a dedicated volunteer at the Ampersand Pantry Project.
Therefore, proclaimed that the Mayor and the Town Council of Leesburg, Virginia hereby designates
September 15th and October 15th, 2020 as Hispanic Heritage Month and encourage all residents to
join in recognizing and celebrating the contributions made by the Hispanic Americans, proclaim ed this
11th day of August, 2020. I'm going to go down and present this to Gabriela.
If you would join me, anybody else would like to come down? Our handheld microphone is broken. I'm
not going to blame it on anybody. No [chuckles].
This is Hispanic Heritage Month. We wanted to present this to you, Gabriela. You have done so much
and have represented the Hispanic community with such grace and such amazing things that you have
contributed to the community, and it's just fantastic. We wanted to recognize you and give you this
proclamation, but I'd like you to say a few words of what it means to you to be Hispanic American.
Gabriela Lamas: It's an honor to not only represent the Hispanic community but to represent my family
in the Pantry Project. My heritage has always been very important to me. I think of my Peruvian roots
Page 4| August 11, 2020
as something very important, so thank you so much for this honor. Thank you to the Town Council and
to Leesburg [unintelligible 00:12:04] Commission, and to Peter Burnett for nominating me.
Mayor Burk: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
Gabriela Lamas: Thank you.
[applause]
[pause]
Mayor Burk: All right. We now have petitioners. One of the first orders of business is to hear from the
public. All members of the public are welcome to address the Council on any item, matter, or issue.
Please identify yourself and, if comfortable, give your address for the taped record. Any public speaker
will be requested to state their name, and please spell it for the purpose of close captioning.
In the interest of fairness, we also ask that you observe the five-minute time limit. For those participating
in person and on WebEx, the green light on the timer will turn yellow at the end of four minutes,
indicating that you have one minute remaining. At that time, we would appreciate you summing up and
yielding the floor when the bell indicates your time has expired. For those participating on phone, you
will hear a bell when your time is up.
Under the rules of orders adopted by this Council, the five-minute time limit applies to all. Council is
now able to hear from members of the public remotely. Once we have heard from anyone present in
the room, we will hear from members of the public on the phone and WebEx. Our first speaker for
tonight is Charles Kuhn, followed by Dan Duenkel. Did I say that correctly?
Dan Duenkel: Duenkel.
Mayor Burk: Duenkel. Okay. Charles first?
Charles Kuhn: Hi, how are you?
Mayor Burk: Hello. How are you tonight?
Charles Kuhn: I'm speaking on behalf of the Kuhn Aviation request and the fuel farm. I spoke at a
previous Council meeting, so I won't bore you with a lot of the details. I just wanted to thank you, Ms.
Mayor, and also the Town Council for looking at our application. I'm excited to bring competition to the
Leesburg Airport. I think it’s duly needed. I am confident with having a competing FBO at the Airport,
we will not only bring more business to the Airport, we'll bring more business to the Town and to the
County, so thank you for your time tonight.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Kuhn. Mr. Duenkel, and Nick Clemente. Good evening.
Dan Duenkel: My name is Dan Duenkel, it's D-U-E-N-K-E-L. I live on 417 South King Street, so I'm
right downtown here. I've been a pilot at the Airport now for over five years. I just want to talk about the
competition and that I support competition in the Airport for a number of different reasons. One of the
things is fuel prices. I look today, if I look at Winchester, it's $2.90 a gallon, Manassas is $2.87, and
Leesburg is $5.61. When you're filling 400 or 500 gallons of gas in your plane, and you're talking $2 or
$3 a gallon difference, it hurts the pilots.
I can tell you, I don't get fuel here unless I have to. I fly to other airports, and I know that hurts the Town
from a revenue perspective. I can tell you another thing is that I'm a big involvement in-- I have a Pilatus,
it's a turboprop plane. They have the Pilatus Owners and Pilots Association. They were supposed to do
their national conference at Lansdowne this year. They decided not to do it at Leesburg Airport because
of the cost of fuel and nobody would call them back.
Page 5| August 11, 2020
I'm not going to complain about the current operator there, but competition would prevent that. Me being
a pilot, I would love to see 40 planes come in there when everybody's coming in. I can tell you the
number of pilots that don't own planes like that would love to see that many planes on the runway and
be able to take pictures with them and things. When you look at competition, that's a big deal.
The other thing is maintenance on the field. I've been on the field for five years. I've never used
maintenance on the field once, and I won't. I don't trust it. It's been bad from the beginning. Sterling's
at least gone now. Nobody trusted them. The new maintenance shop, I still don't trust. It's one of those
things where I fly my plane somewhere else to get maintenance done. It's because it's poorly run there,
and that's all based on the current operators. To me, competition is going to be huge there. I think it will
help all the pilots out, and it will actually help the Town out because you'll get more gas sold there, and
I think the Town makes money on any gasoline there. That's important.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Nick Clemente, followed by Shane Murphy.
Nick Clemente: My name is Nick Clemente. I live at 510 Sunset View Terrace, Southeast Leesburg,
Virginia. Madam Mayor and Town Council, thank you. I was honored to appear on all five of your lists
for appointment. When the vote on July 28th resulted in a tie, I was puzzled. That evening, I barely
slept. As I was looking for inspiration, I came across a quote that demonstrated true leadership. "I never
lose. I only win and learn." When I saw this, I reflected on the man who said these words, Nelson
Mandela.
Mandela would not see this as a defeat but an opportunity to learn, which I have done. Since that night,
I've learned about the influence the AFL-CIO, Laborers' International Union, and Sheet Metal Workers'
Union have on Councilman Martinez and Mayor Burk. These unions have been funders of their various
political campaigns. I've learned these special interests did not want me on Council.
Let me be clear. I have reliable sources that told me these members of Council reverse course because
of my association with the Associated Builders and Contractors, a pro-merit inclusive organization that
union lobbyists hate. I applied for this appointment because business leaders and residents asked me
to. They knew I could be a fresh and objective voice on Council.
They knew my leadership could help bring this Council together and deliver the taxpayers, the
transparency, accountability, and effectiveness they deserve in local government. After learning that
my appointment was blocked by union lobbyists, it is clear Leesburg voters now more than ever need
a voice on Council free of special interests. I've learned why the unions were so interested in blocking
my confirmation.
They were concerned I would expose the fact that project labor agreements and prevailing wage laws,
which are policy schemes supported by unions and will no doubt be discussed in future Leesburg capital
improvement budgets, do not benefit workers in the Commonwealth of Virginia or in Leesburg. More
importantly, they do not benefit the taxpayer. They benefit the union bosses who signed the checks that
funded Councilman Martinez, Mayor Burk, and the current majority of the General Assembly.
Lawmakers who support anti-competitive policies that steer taxpayer-funded public works contracts to
union political donors should be ashamed that they're not putting taxpayers first. In conclusion, I've
learned that if we do not fight back and shed light on these special interest policy schemes, the very
principles that have made Virginia and Loudoun County the best place to do business will disappear.
Whether on Council or as a citizen, I will continue to fight corruption and give a voice to our entire
community, not special interest. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Clemente. Shane Murphy.
Shane Murphy: Madam Mayor, members of the Town Council, my name is Shane Murphy with Reed
Smith, and I represent the Village at Leesburg which has, on its calendar again tonight, an unfinished
business--
Mayor Burk: Excuse me, one second. What's with the presentation?
Page 6| August 11, 2020
Shane Murphy: I'm sorry?
Eileen Boeing: It's the petitioner’s [unintelligible 00:20:47].
Mayor Burk: On something that we're dealing with later in the meeting? Generally, we don't have the
petitioner do two petitions. This is a time for citizens to come up and speak, and we would welcome you
to do so and come back up and speak at the time when we are dealing with that particular issue.
Shane Murphy: Okay. I'm happy to do that.
Martin Crim: Mayor, however, this is a Town initiated application, so he would not normally speak
during the presentation.
Mayor Burk: We will let him, most certainly. You are more than welcome to present this during that
presentation.
Shane Murphy: If you'd prefer for me to just not double-dip, I'm fine.
Mayor Burk: No, that's fine. When we get to it, if you would do it then.
Shane Murphy: Would you prefer for me to sit down now and we can--
Mayor Burk: If you have something you would like to say [chuckles].
Shane Murphy: Again, we'll go through the presentation at the right time. I just wanted to say very
clearly that we would like to, again, ask for your support for the text amendment for the doggy day care
facilities. We want to be very clear with Town Council Members, this would not approve doggy day care
as a by-right use. We would still have to make application and come back, and the Town Council and
the Planning Commission and staff would be able to review every aspect of that application.
Simply approving this does not mean that it's going to go in tomorrow. It would mean, however, that we
would have to make application. I'll take the rest of my time when we get to that section. I'm certainly
happy to answer your questions.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you. Thank you for being so cooperative.
Shane Murphy: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
Mayor Burk: I appreciate that. Is there anybody in the audience that-- We need to do the electronic
next. Is there anybody that is waiting in line to speak electronically?
Betsy Arnett: Mayor, we have three members of the public who have joined this evening's meeting by
WebEx. Callers I'm going to unmute you one by one to allow you to speak. When I unmute you, you
will hear a tone, and that will be your signal to make your remarks. If you wish to speak during the public
hearing later in the agenda, please just say public hearing, and we will come back to you at that time.
You will each have five minutes to speak. I'm going to start with Rena Campbell. As soon as you hear
the tone, Ms. Campbell, please state and spell your full name and address for the closed captioning.
Ms. Campbell, I am unmuting you now.
Rena Campbell: My name is Rena, spelled R-E-N-A, last name is Campbell, C-A-M-P-B-E-L-L, and
I'm at 508 Niven Court, Southwest Leesburg, Virginia. I've lived in Greenway Farm for 24 years now.
This is a residential neighborhood. I don't know if I'm speaking at the right time, but I'm concerned about
the idea of the front of our neighborhood becoming commercial with a CVS store. I'm concerned about
the traffic going in and out, the children that walk around here. I'm concerned about car accidents, about
people coming into our neighborhood. I'm generally concerned about the safety of our residential
neighborhood staying that way. That's it.
Page 7| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Thank you. You're talking concerning the Allman application, commercial application
that's coming to a public hearing. Correct?
Rena Campbell: Yes. I'm mostly concerned about the traffic going in and out of our Greenway Farm
because the entrance is very tight to begin with, and people that would be turning in there would be
turning around and creating possibly accidents and more traffic.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much, Miss Campbell.
Rena Campbell: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Have a good evening. Second.
Rena Campbell: You too. Thank you very much.
Mayor Burk: Second speaker?
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, our second speaker is Steve Bowlds. Mr. Bowlds, I'm going to unmute
you and you will hear a tone. If you would please state and spell your name and give your address for
the closed captioning. I am unmuting you now, sir.
Steve Bowlds: Hello. My name is Steve Bowlds, S-T-E-V-E B-O-W -L-D-S. I live at 514 Deer Meadow
Place, Southwest Leesburg. I have no comments to make. I just was wanting to listen in on the Allman
Property discussion.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Bowlds. Our next speaker.
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Dennis Boykin. Mr. Boykin, I am going to unmute
you.
Mayor Burk: I thought Dennis was here.
Betsy Arnett: State and spell your name.
Dennis Boykin: Thank you, Eileen. I'm just running the meeting on the computer because we can't get
the TV to work in the conference room. No comments here.
Betsy Arnett: All right. Thank you, sir.
Mayor Burk: I'm confused on that one [chuckles].
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, those are all of the callers we have.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there anybody in the audience that did not get the opportunity to speak that
would like to speak now? Please come forward. I just saw your mother two days ago [laughs].
Rene Dennis: Thanks, Kelly. Town Council, my name is Rene Dennis. I've lived here since I was a
small child, and I'm speaking about the CVS Pharmacy. We already have one, and it is just hideously
uninteresting. By the way, I'm an architect, a local architect. It's hideously uninteresting. We have 16
pharmacies at least. I don't think we need another one, particularly on our historic corridor coming in.
That's it.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much. I appreciate your input. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak?
They have the chance.
Steve Spiewak: Good evening. My name is Steve Spiewak. It's S-P-I-E-W -A-K. I'm speaking on behalf
of a competition coming to Leesburg Airport, Kuhn Aviation. I house my plane at the Leesburg Airport.
Page 8| August 11, 2020
As you know, aviation requires a great deal of planning, coordination, and attention to detail. One of the
most critical considerations is fuel management and cost. As an airplane owner and a consumer, like
all consumers, a choice of where and how and how much I pay for my goods is appreciated.
At Leesburg Airport, we're not afforded these basic options. If you want to purchase fuel at Leesburg
Airport, the price and terms of the purchase are dictated solely by ProJet. In addition, it's my
understanding that ProJet is also dictating terms and methods of payment in which fuel must be
purchased. In the past, we were allowed to have a credit card of our choice on file to make the
transaction.
This was a huge benefit in that we would receive the points from the credit card company for the
transaction. It's now my understanding that this is no longer acceptable. I received a phone call from
ProJet instructing me that I would need to apply for their credit card to purchase their fuel or pay for the
fuel at the point of sale or with the credit card of my choice. Time after time, my pilot and myself found
ourselves altering our flight plan for the sole purpose of purchasing fuels off somewhere other than
Leesburg Airport, which is a huge inconvenience.
It seems to me that the Town of Leesburg would want as much fuel as possible to be sold from this
location to generate revenue for the Town. As a business owner of 42 years, I've never objected to
competition. Competition keeps businesses at their best. Knowing that the consumer has choices keeps
business owners more sensitive with their pricing and level of service they provide to the customer.
Please allow competition to benefit the consumer and the Town of Leesburg.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much.
Steve Spiewak: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Is there anyone else in the audience that didn't get a chance to speak that would like to
at this point? All right, that being the case, there's no one else. This gentleman already spoke. I will
close the petitioner section and we will move on to approval of the consent agenda. The consent agenda
is 12A, the Street Lights Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute an Agreement with Novak for
Installation of Streetlights on Sycolin Road Phase Four Widening Project. B is Royal Street's
Stormwater Drainage Improvement Project, Acquisition of Permanent and Temporary Easement
Authorizing an Offer to Acquire that Permanent and Temporary Easement for the Royal Street Storm
Drainage Project.
C is the Annual Request to the County of Loudoun for Capital Funding for Fiscal Year 2022. D is
Initiating a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Amend Article 5, 9, and 18 to Add Spring Water
Bottling Plant as a Special Exception use in the Rural Estate District and to Develop Use Standards
and Definitions. Does anybody want anything moved off of this?
Council Member Campbell: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Which one?
Council Member Campbell: Item C.
Mayor Burk: Item C. All right. Anyone else?
Council Member Fox: I have a question. Item D. If we want to pull it off, that's fine. Rural estate, we
had a discussion last night about that designation. Will it remain that way?
Mayor Burk: I believe so at this point. Do you know Mr. Crim?
Martin Crim: I didn't understand your question. I'm sorry.
Council Member Fox: The special exception use in our rural estate district, we had a discussion last
night about changing that. Is that going to stay that way for this purpose?
Page 9| August 11, 2020
Martin Crim: This is just to initiate that zoning text amendment. Then, when it goes to the Planning
Commission, they may come up with some other recommendations that, for example, as we were
discussing last night, have a new zoning district that would be within the scope of this initiation for the
Planning Commission to come back and say, "Instead of what you initiated, we're proposing something
else." If the Council agrees, then that's what gets adopted.
Council Member Fox: Ok, thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thanks. All in favor of 12A, B, and D, indicate by saying-- Wait a minute, I need
a motion.
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox. All in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That's 6-0. All right. Mr. Campbell, you had an issue with the annual capital funding
request.
Council Member Campbell: It's a question for the staff particularly as it contains to the last item, the
$3.5 million for Westpark property. As I understand it, we were talking about the Westpark properties. I
don't know if that number is too low, the buy the property. The only conversation we had last night was
to talk about purchase of the property. I want to make sure we either have the right number, or the staff
can explain what I think is a low number of 3.5, what the right number might be to put in there to ask for
the County.
Kaj Dentler: Last night, as you know, the Council places on your potential list to request funding from
the County. As such, what is the right number? I don't know and you don't know. The number that has
been discussed in the past for some of the property is anywhere from $3 million to $4 million, but we've
never really had a conversation with the party who has a contract for the site.
We don't know really what the number is. It's a placeholder. The conversation last night, I went back
and listened to the tape, you did not discuss whether or not you're trying to acquire the entire parcel or
just the parcel that has been presented to us for consideration in the past. The number could be $3
million to $4 million on the low for things that we've been offered to discuss, but it could be much higher
if we're trying to acquire the entire parcel inclusive of the hotel site.
Long answer to your question. The short answer is we really don't know what number to put because
you need to clarify what your scope of what you're trying to acquire unless you just want to focus on
what has been presented to us in the past.
Council Member Campbell: I heard what you heard last night, which was property. I think the numbers
should be $6 million if it's going to be a shot in the dark. All we talked about, we didn't talk about parcels,
we didn't talk about other opportunities, we just said property. I don't know if there's a harm in changing
the number or going higher. What I don't want to do is to make a false effort. We've got to be serious
about asking for money from the County.
This is a serious, to me, documented request that we should at least get in the ballpark. Now, we don't
know what the value is of the property. We haven't talked to the property owner. I get all that, but this
was, again, a rush to judgment last night. All I'm trying to do is clarify to make sure if we’re going to do
this, then we're somewhere in the ballpark.
Page 10| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Then, you need to make a motion of some sort.
Council Member Campbell: I don't know if there's any other discussion or conversation on it. I'm not
the only one that can speak to this issue. I'm willing to make a motion.
Mayor Burk: Go ahead, and we can discuss what your motion is.
Council Member Campbell: I make a motion that we increase this amount for the entire Westpark
property to $6 million to request from the County to CIP.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there a second? Yes?
Vice Mayor Martinez: [inaudible 00:35:06] motion on the capital funding request with that change to
$6 million would be the proper way to do it instead of just making a motion on Westpark by itself.
Mayor Burk: We can do it that way if you want. I'll accept a motion to the annual capital funding request
as is. Then, Mr. Campbell can make the motion to change the Westpark project.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Can we do them both at the same time?
Mayor Burk: If you want to do them both at the same time, we can do them both at the same time. I
thought that's what we were doing, but okay, go ahead.
Vice Mayor Martinez: We hadn't made a motion on the original resolution.
Mayor Burk: That's what I'm trying to get everybody to do.
Council Member Campbell: The original resolution is under discussion. I was asked to make a second
motion. That's why I wanted to open it up for discussion if there's discussion about the original
resolution.
Vice Mayor Martinez: There has not been a motion put on the table for that thing for that part.
Council Member Campbell: True.
Vice Mayor Martinez: The proper way to do it is to make that motion. Then, if you want to addendum
that or change it to $6 million, then you can do it at the same time. That's all I'm saying, but we have
not made that initial motion.
Mayor Burk: Are you making the motion, Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: I will make the motion for this with a friendly amendment that Ron Campbell, I'll
take it as a friendly amendment to increase the total dollars to $6 million.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there a second?
Council Member Campbell: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Mr. Campbell. Is there an additional discussion on this?
Council Member Dunn: Madam Chair?
Mayor Burk: Yes?
Council Member Dunn: I would only offer up a one slight change to what sounds like a proposed
wording, and that is the amount not to exceed the $6 million because, again, the effort that was put
forward was to ask the County to consider purchase or to provide funds for Leesburg to consider the
Page 11| August 11, 2020
purchase should there be one in the future. Yet, we don't know what that amount is, but we have to put
at least a request for it now, and there may be additional talk that will happen between now and that
actual funding, but I would say not to exceed the $6 million because we don't know what the amount is.
Mayor Burk: Do you accept that as a friendly amendment?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Sure.
Mayor Burk: Do you, Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Yes.
Mayor Burk: All right. The motion is to accept the capital funding request that we're going to send to
the County of Loudoun for capital funding for fiscal year 2022 with the amendment to request to
purchase the Westpark property to not to exceed $6 million. All in favor?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Steinberg: Nay.
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Dunn, you were a nay, right? Did I hear you correctly?
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Oh, you were an aye? Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay.
Council Member Dunn: No, I was a yes.
Mayor Burk: No, you were the aye, yes. That is a 5-1 vote. Rock Springs Farm text amendment, we
already did it. Resolutions, ordinance, and motions. We have the award of the lease for the Mighty
Midget. Do I have a motion to accept the award of the 20-year lease of the Mighty Midget to disseminate
some semi-permanent kitchen structure to Mom's Apple Pie Bakery?
Council Member Neil Steinberg: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Mr. Steinberg, seconded by Mr. Martinez. Is there any discussion on this?
Yes, Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: I had a couple of questions if I could.
Mayor Burk: Okay, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Thank you. Is the structure going to be relocated to Mom's Apple Pie, or would
Mom's Apple Pie be selling product out of its current location?
Mayor Burk: It will be relocated to her location.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. Then also, we received some emails today where there were some
concerns about the current leasers of the building where they felt that the process had been dragged
out or there were answers not given. Can staff provide a little more light on the issue as to why there's
a discrepancy over the leasing process and what seems to at least a couple of people that it took too
long? Thank you.
Page 12| August 11, 2020
Christine Newton: Sure. I am Christine Newton, the Deputy Town Attorney, and I have been working
on the lease document, and I have on WebEx our Chief Procurement Officer, Octavia Andrew, and she
is going to address any questions about the procurement process. Octavia.
Mayor Burk: Will she go through the process and explain how the process happens? Okay.
Christine Newton: Yes.
Octavia Andrew: Good evening. Can you all hear me?
Mayor Burk: We can now. Thank you.
Octavia Andrew: Thank you. Sorry about that. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the Council.
In regard to this particular procurement, it was a more lengthier process, the reason being we had
holidays and we also were dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, and so that did present us with various
operational and other concerns in dealing with that. In regards to how long the process has taken with
RFPs, request for proposals, it is typical for it to be a lengthier process.
Yes, there were additional delays, additional information that we did request from the offerors, allow
time for Town staff to review that additional information, and then regroup as an evaluation committee
to discuss the proposals and the additional information that was presented.
Mayor Burk: Also, my understanding that there was an issue with trademark discussion? No? Am I
thinking of another application?
Christine Newton: We did have a provision added to the lease to allow the successful offeror to license
the use of the Town's service mark in the name Mighty Midget Kitchen. Octavia, would you just provide
a rundown of the bids that we received and then how we narrowed it down to two offerors, and then
what happened with the timing of the only remaining offer?
Octavia Andrew: Sure. The RFP was issued last year in August. We received those proposals in
September. The Town received three proposals in response to the RFP. In September and October,
the evaluation committee met to review those proposals. From our discussion in late September, we
did eliminate one of the offerors which was Scarps Breakfast Joint. From there, we went through and
did offer a presentation in which the two remaining offerors, MacDowell Company and Mom's Apple Pie
was brought in to further elaborate on their proposal and allow the Town staff an opportunity to ask any
questions or get any clarification of those proposals.
After those proposals, we debriefed. Then, the evaluation committee met yet again to discuss
everything that was submitted. I should back up a little bit, but these proposals were evaluated against
the evaluation criteria which is stated in the RFP. W hen we initially got those proposals, we scored them
and we evaluated based on that evaluation criteria. From there, that's when the shortlisted, removed
Scarps from further consideration, and then had further discussions with Mom's Apple Pie and
MacDowell.
From there, again, as far as the delays, we have holidays in between there. In February of 2020, we
did reach out to the shortlisted offerors again to request a site plan. That additional information is one
of the items that we are allowed to and it is specified in the RFP that the Town may request additional
information to the offeror. We did in late February requested that site plan just to make sure that the
boundaries were correct, the sidewalks, and that the structure would be able to be placed upon any
property and to also see exactly what their approach would be, and to see exactly what their plan for
the Mighty Midget Kitchen were.
Then, we got hit with COVID. We requested additional time from the offerors. On one occasion, I did
receive an email from MacDowell, but when we requested additional time, we did not receive any
confirmation via email. Even thinking back to the site plan in late February, I did not receive an email
from MacDowell, but they did show up with their site plans. I took that as a thing that they were still
interested in holding their proposal valid to the Town.
Page 13| August 11, 2020
After we received those site plans, we reviewed them yet again. The evaluation committee met again.
From there, we determined, the evaluation committee, which is comprised of members from Economic
Development, the Town Manager's office, Parks and Rec, and Planning and Zoning. We collectively
decided that the proposal from Mom's Apple Pie was in the Town's best interest. From there, we posted
our intent to award to Mom's Apple Pie.
Mayor Burk: Does that answer your question, Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: In part. Was there a timeline for this RFP process that it was supposed to
have a specific ending date?
Octavia Andrew: In our RFP, we do state that the proposals are valid for 120 days which is typical.
That is one of the reasons why via email, I requested offerors to confirm that their proposal was still
valid to the Town because we did go beyond that 120-day mark.
Council Member Dunn: When you say we, it was the Town that went beyond the date?
Octavia Andrew: Town staff, yes.
Council Member Dunn: Were you asking for additional time from the applicants?
Octavia Andrew: I was asking the offerors to verify that their proposal to the Town was still valid. In
the several instances in which we requested that additional time, I ask them to confirm with a specific
date that their proposal was indeed still valid. Offerors, at their discretion, if the Town goes above the
120 days or if they feel like they're no longer interested, they do have the right to not extend that to the
Town.
Council Member Dunn: Did you get any confirmation from-- because MacDowell, I assume that's the
applicant's name, MacDowell, did you get anything specifically saying that they were withdrawing their
application or that they're giving you the extension, or we just going off of assumptions?
Octavia Andrew: They did not specifically say because they were extending their proposal to the Town
in writing. It was February 28th when I requested the site plans from both shortlisted offerors to be
provided to the Town, Steve, which the representative for MacDowell made an in-person visit to the
Town and provided his site plan, but I did not get an email confirmation that he was extending his
proposal. Him providing that site plan, in my opinion, he could have stated that he was still interested
in the lease of the Mighty Midget Kitchen.
Council Member Dunn: What I'm just trying to clear up in my mind is if we, the Town, were not following
the timeline and we're requesting an extension of the time but we're not granted an extension by one
of the applicants, why would we assume that the extension is allowed? Why wouldn't we make a
decision based on keeping to our timeline?
Christine Newton: I can help with that, Octavia. The request for proposal document has a set number
of days that the proposal needs to be held open by the offeror. The Town cannot accept a proposal
beyond that date unless the offeror confirms the continuing validity of that offer/proposal. That is
designed to protect the offerors because there may be a business case for a change in circumstances
where they no longer want that offer outstanding.
It's a requirement that we get their written extension of the offer before we can accept it. The Town is
not compelled to accept any of the offers under the RFP process. The Town was free to accept or reject
any or all offers.
Council Member Dunn: Again, this is all new to me because I'm just reading it from an email that the
applicant or the offerors stated that there were inconclusive decisions made and attempts to
communicate at three different times after February. I understand that there's holidays, but we have a
procurement process that is in place, whether there's holidays or not. COVID, I'm not sure why there
was a big delay due to COVID because this was just dealing with paperwork.
Page 14| August 11, 2020
I'm not sure if we would make any site visits. If that were the case, whether there were people involved
even with the site visit. I just didn't want us to have to make a decision that we're being accused of
being arbitrary and capricious in our delays. It does sound like there were certain assumptions being
made as to what the offeror’s intentions were when we really didn't know. Was the MacDowell's offer
reviewed in the end?
Christine Newton: Octavia, do you want that one? I understand that it was reviewed to a certain point,
and after that point, it was not extended by the offeror. We were left with only one--
Council Member Dunn: What was that point?
Christine Newton: When we asked for an extent-- The Town was not ready to make an award of the
lease and asked the two remaining finalist offerors to extend the validity of their proposals. If the onus
was on them to determine whether that was in their best interest and to provide us with a written
agreement to the extension or not. One of the offers chose to extend their proposal and the other did
not.
Council Member Dunn: What was the date of that?
Christine Newton: I'm going to need you on that.
Octavia Andrew: Particularly, the last extension?
Council Member Dunn: Not the last one. What was the date that the first extension was requested
that you did not get a reply back on? Was that December, February, April?
Octavia Andrew: I'm just looking through my notes here. April 28th, did request additional time. No
confirmation via email, but MacDowell did come and hand-delivered their site plan. That was one in
which it wasn't via email. The next extension through the stay home order of June 10th, I did not receive
a verbal or not an email confirmation that they were extending their proposal to the Town to that date.
Council Member Dunn: What was the date of our original when we're expecting to have everything
done by? What was that date?
Octavia Andrew: 120 days from the proposal receipt day was January 8th, 2020.
Council Member Dunn: Sometime in April then. Is that correct?
Octavia Andrew: I'm not sure what the question is. What was sometime in April?
Council Member Dunn: You're saying that for original date in January, we are allowed 120 days.
Octavia Andrew: No, sir. From the proposal due date or receipt date, which was September 10th, from
that date, the Town has 120 days for a proposal validity date. After that date of January 8th, the offerors
either need to let us know via email that they are continuing to extend their proposal beyond that day
of January 8th.
Council Member Dunn: I'll just [unintelligible 00:55:11] because I'm looking at the email right now
and it says that the Town staff did not render a decision for three times, December, February, and April.
Somewhere, there's a miscommunication here. I don't know if we're ready to award this contract under
these terms. Anyway, thank you for your time in answering my question.
Octavia Andrew: You're welcome. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, do you have any questions?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Page 15| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: No.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Yes. Again, it's just for clarification. I appreciate the timeline given
because that was the only question. I'm not going to question the judgment of why the delays. I believe
the staff made the due diligence. I think it’s unfortunate in this case for whatever number of reasons
that it did drag on as long as it did. Obviously, there's an economic value to both offerors who were
finalists, as well as the Town to gain any advantage that it can.
I would even ask in the future because I think we have a responsibility back to the community as they
ask questions. The questions may sometimes seem to look at our either transparency or our integrity
that a delay of this length that we at least be informed so we’re better able to ask questions rather than
just get letters. Then it seems like we’re battling each other, where I don’t believe that we are. I know
there’s nothing we can do at this particular point.
Obviously, any evaluation committee has the right to make their judgment. Unless there’s a better
reason that we have to evaluate differently, I honor and respect the judgment of the evaluation
committee and believe in the procurement office is just for a bunch of unforeseen circumstances. This
has got on far too long. It’s unfortunate. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Miss Fox.
Council Member Fox: Thanks. As far as from what I’m reading here, I’m surmising that the current
lease is a 40-year lease, 20 of which is up and there’s a second 20-year option. Is that correct?
Christine Newton: No. The initial lease from 1996 was a 20-year lease and it did reference the potential
for additional 20-year terms if approved by Council. That lease expired in 2016 and Council did not
approve a second 20-year term.
Council Member Fox: As far as the site plans, I was listening to Octavia and she was saying that they
did not get a site plan in for the kitchen in time or at least that’s what I heard, at least for where the
kitchen is right now. Why would a site plan be required if it’s going to stay in the same place?
Christine Newton: Just to correct that, I believe she said that we did receive that on time. Although,
we did not receive a confirmation that MacDowell Companies wish to extend the validity of their
proposal, they did bring the site plan in. We asked both finalists for a site plan because in the interest
of fairness we asked both. Because the Mom’s Apple Pie proposal, proposes to move the structure to
a location where it previously stood; however, that was quite some time ago.
While it is certainly the offers obligation to obtain all the licenses and permits, and any other
requirements that are necessary for placement of the structure, we did not want to create mission
impossible if you will if there was some huge red flag from a zoning perspective or the Fire Marshal’s
perspective or something like that, we wanted to do some background due diligence to make sure we
weren’t considering a proposal that couldn’t really be accomplished.
Council Member Fox: Thanks.
Mayor Burk: My only comment on this is if you’ve lived here any length of time, 25, 30 years, you
remember the Mighty Midget being at that location that is being proposed by Mom’s Apple Pie. If you
wanted a hamburger and you want to know what a hamburger really tasted like, that’s where you went
because that was just the place in Leesburg to get hamburger, meet your neighbors, have fun, talk
about it and leave.
To see it go back to that location is just another continuation of preserving the history of where we were.
At that point, we have a motion to award the 20-year lease of the Mighty Midget semi-permanent kitchen
Page 16| August 11, 2020
structure to Mom’s Apple Pie Bakery. It was moved by Mr. Steinberg, seconded by Mr. Martinez. All in
favor indicate by saying, aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Fox: Nay.
Council Member Dunn: Nay.
Mayor Burk: All right, so that is four, two. That passes, the Mighty Midget will be moving to Mom’s
Apple Pie location. Congratulations, Miss Renshaw. The next resolution is the CARES Act of 2020, the
non-profit grant awards. Is anybody talking to this?
Keith Markel: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. You’ll find in your packet this evening
updated resolutions. First on the agenda this evening is for the non-profit award and I’m happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, do you have any questions?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Nope. [inaudible 01:01:04]
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Again, the questions aren’t mine. I just want to make sure the public
understands what we’re doing especially those who didn’t witness a lot of our discussion last night, we
had a million dollars in non-profit and grants to give out. We have requests for a little bit less than that
in terms of allocation. We decided as a Council that we would reallocate the surplus so that all of the
million dollars would be spent and the Council was asked to come back with a plan for that. You haven’t
submitted the exact numbers on a reallocation yet, so the idea is that we will approve tonight that you
will reallocate. Because my big concern is these non-profits and the community needs the money. I
don’t want to delay them getting the money. The question is when will we make the decision about them
being reallocated?
Keith Markel: What we’re proposing tonight in this resolution is that you would make a decision this
evening with the adoption of this resolution for the initial grant funded amounts, so that’s $802,000 and
change would immediately be awarded to these 26 non-profits that had been selected by the community
review panel. Then you have that remaining balance to be distributed about $197,000. That would be
equitably distributed among those 26 selected nonprofits based on their needs, their capacity to spend,
and their capacity to spend within the allotted time.
Council Member Campbell: You’ll do that reallocation ASAP?
Keith Markel: As soon as possible, exactly. It does require us reaching out to each one of those
organizations finding what their capacities are, what their needs are, and then adjusting that across the
full spectrum of all those 26 so that we do an equitable distribution.
Council Member Campbell: Great. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Miss Fox, Mr. Steinberg, Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: No, questions.
Mayor Burk: I’m going to end up voting for this, but I can tell you I’m not really happy with it. I thought
the research that you did in regard to the four organizations that are larger and could take on the
Page 17| August 11, 2020
additional funding, I thought was a good idea. I’m disappointed that they’re now down to $20,000 less
for three of them and about 3,000 for the other but I don’t want to delay this.
I’m going to vote for it, but I’m going to have to hold my nose on it. Because I think we’re trying to be
perfect and we’re ruining the good and the perfect, but we need to get this out so I will be voting for it. I
want my objections on the record because I think the plan that was in place originally was a fair plan
that could actually reach out to the most people.
That being the case, sorry, I had to look at this. Do I have a motion to accept the CARES Act of 2020
Non-profit Grant Awards?
Council Member Campbell: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Council Member Campbell.
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Steinberg. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That passes six, zero. The next one is the CARES Act of 2020 Spending Plan update and
second round funding revised. Are you doing that one too?
Keith Markel: Madam Mayor.
Kaj Dentler: Madam Mayor, while Keith is bringing that up I do want to tell you one thing that we
recommend that you change from what we thought we were talking about last night, and that is in our
discussion about not accepting the second round of money for the $4.7 million. We recommend that
you defer that for 30 days until our next meeting in September.
We received information today that Congress on both houses are considering new criteria in order to
use those funds that could be more advantageous for the Town. Such as possibly even revenue,
covering some of our revenue losses and other rules that are changing.
We would be remiss if we did not tell you this tonight that we just learned that-- Mr. Crim actually told
me about it this morning. We feel that based on this potential new information and criteria that we would
not be making the wisest decision tonight if you rejected the funds and learn it over the next few days
or few weeks that we could have done something different.
It is even possible that the deadlines could change. As you know we have to not only distribute the
money by the end of the calendar year, the receivers of the money have to spend the money by the
end of the calendar year. I’m not promising you that’s going to change, but if it did, you may make a
different decision with that information. We believe on the part of making the decision about accepting
or rejecting the additional $4.7 million, we recommend that you defer action until your September 8th
meeting, in case we learn more news in between now and then.
Council Member Fox: Do you have any information that the deadline would go past?
Kaj Dentler: Nothing is confirmed. We know that both the House and the Senate are discussing
changing of the rules and a different criteria, which could include replacing some of the revenue losses
of government. Other things could change, there are other FAQs that have been updated as of late
yesterday that we just got today, about possibly reimbursements for public safety and health and welfare
services that we may be eligible for.
Long story short, had we known this information last night, I would have made a different
recommendation to you. I think we would be making a mistake if we took this step of rejecting the money
tonight and waiting another 30-days to see if the environment changes, would be to our advantage.
Page 18| August 11, 2020
That part of your action tonight, is what I’m referring to. Everything else, nothing has changed from that.
I wanted to make sure you knew that on the record.
Mayor Burk: You’re recommending that instead of Spending Plan update and second round funding,
instead of declining the second round of CARES Act, that we defer it, that’s the word.
Kaj Dentler: The second part, which is whether or not to accept or reject the second part of funding,
$4.7 million of CARES Act that’s coming from the County, we are recommending that you take no action
on that. We do recommend that you take action on the Spending Plan of the remaining first part of the
money, first part of the $4.7 million. There are two parts to your action--
Mayor Burk: Say that again. The first part, say that again, please.
Kaj Dentler: The first part that you’re considering, and Keith is going to talk about, is how to use the
remaining money from the first $4.7 million we received, which is about $2.3 million that’s still on the
table. He’s going to walk through that with you and that our recommendation hasn’t changed from our
discussion last night.
The second part, is whether or not the Town should accept the additional $4.7 million that’s coming
through the County. Last night, we talked about rejecting that for different reasons and I supported that.
After learning today, new information, I can’t support that position and it’s my duty to make sure you are
aware of that. It’s your choice, if you wish to make a decision. Our professional recommendation is,
defer action tonight and wait until your next meeting. That’s all, until we know more.
Mayor Burk: You’re going to do a presentation?
Keith Markel: I will.
Mayor Burk: Then I’ll need a motion and then we’ll divide it, so that we can do the two.
Keith Markel: You don’t even have to divide, we have two resolutions in your packet for separate
actions. All we’re asking for as staff this evening, is our recommendation is to take action only on that
first resolution, the one with the title CARES Act of 2020, modifications to first round Spending Plan.
The second resolution in your packet, just because this is what you discussed last night so we wanted
to provide what you asked for, was the decline of second round of CARES Act funding allocation. That’s
the resolution that we’re asking you, just defer action, just take no action this evening and wait and we’ll
talk more in September once we know more. Alright?
Mayor Burk: I’ll ask, after your presentation, if we have enough people interested in doing that.
Keith Markel: Very good. Okay, thank you. We’ll go briefly through the discussion points that we heard
last evening and try to capture that in the form of this new resolution here for you this evening.
First, I want to talk about the small business grant, the phase two. We know that there was interest in
having additional tiers to apply to larger section of our business community in Town. What you’ll see in
the proposal here, is now five tiers to replace the two tiers that we had initially in our first phase of grant
distribution. This would be broken out into the lowest tier, starting at businesses that have an annual
taxable revenue of $2,500 up to nearly $10,000, would be a $1,000 reward.
Tier two will be a $10,000 to $24,999, would be a $2,000 award. Tier three, which is the tier we’ve
already had in place, $25,000 to $100,000 would be a $5,000 reward. Tier four, $100,001 to $1 million,
a $10,000 reward. Then our highest tier will be that one million to $2.5 million, would be a $15,000
reward.
We do want to also capture all the businesses who have already applied during our first phase of grant
applications, so we’re proposing that all of those first round phase recipients will receive that matching
funds that would make them whole with those who would apply during the second round. They wouldn’t
Page 19| August 11, 2020
have to apply, they would just get that money, so we just call that the bump. Revenue loss is being
proposed to drop from our current standard of 25% down to 15% for a business to show the revenue
loss during this COVID period. We would allow a business with any number of employees currently at
zero to 50. If they had 51 employees or 60 we not draw that line. That would apply to also for part-time
employees. You look at the restaurant industry, which may have a number of part-time employees, it
would take them over that 50 threshold.
We would extend the window for receiving applications. This past go around like the County, we had
our window of applications open for a week. We would probably go for something like three weeks now
to allow additional time for businesses to apply. We would allow businesses who are not currently in
good standing to come into good standing and then make their application. If they needed to become
current with their business license or any other applications or fees that are outstanding, they could do
so.
Then we would make sure that all these businesses still had to be in business by March 1 of this year.
Nobody could start a business knowing that the grant money is out there for a receipt.
If money is still available after the second phase, we’d propose going to a third phase. We would give
priority to those businesses that had not received any grants previously from the Town. If funding was
still available after that, we would provide a lottery for all the businesses who had applied. The name of
the game here is to get rid of all the money and put it in the hands of the business community who
needs it. We would do that through a phase two and then through that final lottery if need be.
For the non-profits, we’ve discussed this, and that would be recommending giving a distribution of that
$802,561 to those 26 recommended non-profits. The remaining balance of $197,439 would be
distributed equally among those 26 based on need and capacity to spend.
Then we have our Town government response. We’re still proposing up to $200,000 and we would
scale this based on need for our virtual learning center and childcare for dependents of Town staff to
support the distance learning now that the County public schools are going to be in full distance learning
mode for the fall semester. We would use that to strengthen our workforce to make sure that we had a
safe reliable place for their children to be while they’re here working for the Town, taking care of the
Town’s business.
This is the second resolution, what we’re asking for you to hold off on any action for this evening and
wait until September to discuss if and when you received that second round of funding from the County.
Here for your next steps this evening, we’re recommending you adopt resolution one, modifying our
existing Spending Plan. Resolution two we recommend deferral of action.
Mayor Burk: All right. Yes, sir.
Kaj Dentler: Can I provide one clarification for that?
Keith Markel: Sure, yes.
Kaj Dentler: On the childcare discussion last night, just why that’s on there still is because I went back
to the video. At the end of your discussion Mayor, you did say that that motion, that vote did not pass.
We’re not really sure what you want to do this, why I’m telling you here. There were three of you that
supported it and two of you who did not. Mr. Steinberg was not in the room.
It’s your decision obviously, what you want to do, but we were really unsure. Because when you said it
doesn’t pass, I didn’t think anything of it. Then as we kind of prepare for tonight, we realized we’re
actually three of the five of you in the room who said too that you wanted to do it. It’s your decision.
That’s why there versus being struck as we all thought it would be tonight.
Mayor Burk: I do apologize for that mistake. I was thinking with Mr. Steinberg, not being here. I didn’t
catch the third vote. Thank you, guys for catching that. Do we have a motion to accept resolution one
for the annual CARES Act? I’m trying to find it. [crosstalk]
Page 20| August 11, 2020
Keith Markel: It’s the CARES Act of 2020 modification to the first round Spending Plan, is the title on
the resolution.
Council Member Steinberg: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Mr. Steinberg. Seconded by?
Council Member Campbell: Second.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell. Any additional discussion Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Yes. Again, for our community to try to clarify what’s going on. In the first
round of CARES Act funding, we got $4.7 million from the County. We sent out a request for business
infusion grants. We took $3.7 million for businesses and $1 million for non-profits that we talked about
earlier, of that $3.7, we basically spent less than $700,000 of grants were awarded. We have a
significant chunk of change left over. We also gave the Town almost $800,000. It comes out of a balance
of $2.3 million. Given the businesses, the large and small businesses, the grant sizes were awarded
$2,500 and $5,000 of which in a smaller pool, only 6% of the eligible businesses were awarded anything
based on how they applied and only 13% of the larger businesses.
The question that I had was, why would we take more money if we can’t spend the money that we
have? Because that’s not fair to other businesses in the County who may be able to use it, but we did
decide based on staff recommendations that we could redistribute and find a way for second round of
funding for $2.3 million of the first allocation. That’s the first thing that we’re voting on. That distribution
of money does go to help businesses in need right now.
We still feel, I’ll talk to the second resolution later, call the efficiencies of Congress that without any
other changes that we can reallocate this money, the $2.3 million for the businesses. That does or does
not include the 200 that you want to reallocate for virtual learning and childcare.
Keith Markel: That does not include. So that virtual learning center would come from the Town’s
$772,000 allocation for Town relief.
Council Member Campbell: I wasn’t clear on the conversation, whether or not that was approved or
not approved. Maybe a question for Mr. Crim in terms of the physical quorum that we had to have
present for a vote that or even a head nod that that would always include four. Or are we less than a
physical quorum when we only have three.
Martin Crim: Your rules provide that if you lack a quorum at a work session, you continue to discuss
things. Your actions at the work session are simply straw polls and are not binding. There’s no
requirement for any kind of motion to reconsider or anything like that. Your actual action is tonight based
on the motion that would be before you.
Council Member Campbell: Thank you. Tonight, we can take action on giving the staff the authority
to spend to reallocate the $200,000 from their original allocation.
Martin Crim: Yes, sir.
Council Member Campbell: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Miss Fox.
Council Member Fox: Thanks. Keith, can you remind me, you said during the third phase, if we have
a third phase and we don’t allocate all the money during the second phase to our businesses, you said
you’re going to give priority to those who have not been granted. Does that happen with the second
phase as well or no?
Page 21| August 11, 2020
Keith Markel: In the second phase, everyone who received the first grant would get the second grant
and we’d still have money left over for any new applications. We don’t have the need of picking one to
the other. If you are a new business, it didn’t apply during the first phase you apply now and you would
receive, under this new tiered structure that we’re presenting to you. If you’re an existing business, you
would get that additional bump.
I can’t imagine a chance where we’d have more applications than we’d have money on the second
phase. It would be great if we had that situation, but based on the outcomes of applications on the first
phase, I can’t see us getting more applications then we had funds for that second phase.
Council Member Fox: Even with the extension of the tiers, you added two more, actually. That’s why
I’m asking.
Keith Markel: Yes, we have three, we broke down the lower tier into two. We’ve got the lowest tier of
the $2,500 to just shy of $10,000. Then we have tier two and then tier five, which are going to be our
three new tiers.
Council Member Fox: The $197,000 that was left over from this round, you said, you’re going to go
ahead and distribute it, again, to the 26th that just got it.
Keith Markel: For the non-profits, correct.
Council Member Fox: Why would that not roll over to the second round?
Keith Markel: To go back out and solicit new applications?
Council Member Fox: Yes.
Keith Markel: If you all direct us to do that, that’s something that--
Council Member Fox: I just wondered why you would guys would recommend that instead of just
upping everything for the first round.
Keith Markel: I think we’re looking at speed and capacity to spend the firms that have applied to the
Town are the large organizations in the community that have expressed need. They were the ones that
applied for that first round. Likely they would be the ones that would apply for a second round. We
already have them. We have their information. It saves everyone additional paperwork by having to
resubmit a new application. We can talk directly with them.
We know, by just talking to a few of them, that there is additional need and they would take additional
money if that $50,000 cap wasn’t already in place. We feel that to expedite money, getting out into
those organizations that are doing the good in the community right now, we could just redistribute the
remaining balance.
Council Member Fox: I’m not talking about the non-profits. I’m talking about the businesses.
Keith Markel: I’m sorry, I thought you said the $197,000 that’s the non-profit leftover account.
[crosstalk]
Council Member Fox: That’s the nonprofit?
Keith Markel: Yes, ma’am.
Council Member Fox: Got you, I got mixed up there. That’s what I needed to know. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, Mr. Dunn?
Page 22| August 11, 2020
Council Member Dunn: Thank you. Last night, you had discussed that there were 350 businesses that
are what? You said they have no income at all?
Keith Markel: That they reported zero income on their business tax license for the Town, for 2019.
Council Member Dunn: They report no income or they report not enough income to warrant being
taxed at a higher rate? [crosstalk]
Keith Markel: They reported zero on their BPOL license.
Council Member Dunn: Neil brought up a very good point about a million-dollar business, only having
$50,000. I’m not sure if he said profit or remaining left on tax, but I’m sure our accounting department
knows all about businesses and how they run.
When a business gets income, it spends its money first and is taxed on the remainder. It is not surprising
to me that businesses and smart business people want to make sure that they are not taxed any more
than is needed, and would get their expenses down all the way to the point at which they will be showing
zero income, thereby, not receiving or requiring to pay taxes on the remaining balance.
I think we should not just assume that almost 15% to 18% of our Town businesses that go through the
process of getting a license actually are reporting no income at all. They may very well have had income
or recording zero income but actually did have income. They just got it down to the point where there’s
no taxable income. Who’s that? [crosstalk]
Keith Markel: Yes, this is Keith, that our BPOL tax is based on your gross taxable income. That would
be your gross amount of profit.
Council Member Dunn: Correct, but the key there was gross taxable income. Again, a business
spends its money first [inaudible 01:24:03]. [crosstalk]
Martin Crim: Gross receipts.
Keith Markel: Gross receipts.
Council Member Dunn: The other thing was, I thought that we discussed last night, Miss Fox brought
it up about creating a, I think, fourth tier or a third-tier. I forgot which one it was. Might have been a third
tier that would allow for businesses from zero to, I thought it was 25,000 to be eligible, yet, I didn’t see
that on your list at all tonight.
Keith Markel: That is correct. What we’re proposing is tier-one beginning at 2,500 and you can change
that if you like. Our professional recommendation is when you go below 2,500 that’s going to be
extremely challenging to find businesses that will qualify one, to receive an amount that’s going to be
valuable enough to support them through the COVID issue. Two, they’re going to have a very hard time
finding a justifiable expense that is required by the CARES Act for spending this money. They have to
have those.
When you’ve got a business that’s making $500 a year or $1,000 dollars a year, it’s just going to be an
administrative burden both for the applicant and for finance staff to try to manage that in a reasonable
way that’s not going to expose us to a great deal of liability to make sure that this money is being spent
appropriately under the CARES guidelines. That’s why we’re proposing you to start, at least at 2,500.
Council Member Dunn: It’s the business’ responsibility to show that they spent the money, not the
staff’s responsibility to ensure that they spent the money, is that correct?
Keith Markel: They have to spend it appropriately. Ultimately, as we discussed last night, there is a
liability to the Town if the business spends it inappropriately. If that business ceases to exist, the Town
could be and would be liable to repay those funds to the County.
Page 23| August 11, 2020
Council Member Dunn: If any of these businesses go out of business that we’re providing funding to,
regardless of the amount, you’re saying that we are going to be on the hook for repaying that money if
they go out of business.
Keith Markel: No, I’m saying if they spend that money inappropriately and then we’re not able to collect
from them if they spend it inappropriately or on purpose. Inadvertently, they may spend it on something
they thought was appropriate and it did not qualify and we’re going to find that, I believe, in a higher
percentage with these very small businesses.
Council Member Dunn: I think that one of the areas that people are supposed to spend money on,
business owners was on payroll was a key factor and wouldn’t a business owner be able to pay them
self payroll, and thereby use the funds and that would have satisfied the requirements?
Keith Markel: I will defer to our Economic Development Director or Mr. Cournoyer to answer that
specifically about the payroll use of these funds.
Jason Cournoyer: The payroll?
Keith Markel: Yes.
Jason Cournoyer: One of the understanding it’s similar to the payroll protection program and if you
are keeping employed those during COVID-19 that is a proper use of CARES funding. Again, they
would have to show it has to be between March first and the end of the year and any other new
provisions that come out from Congress, of course, that might be modified. That would impact this
business grant distribution as well if any of that criteria changes.
Council Member Dunn: Again, I would recommend going to the original recommendation that Council
gave to staff. I do find it a little presumptuous of staff to take Council’s suggestion and not even present
it as an option tonight but then present only staff’s recommendation. When Council gave the
recommendation to take it from zero to 25,000 yet staff shows up tonight without even showing that.
Additionally, it is the suggestion that I gave last night is the most simple way of ensuring that you’re
spending the money and everybody gets something. That is simply by taking the funding that we
currently have and the proposed funding and allowing each business to submit if they don’t have to take
it, they would request it that they have been impacted by COVID. Therefore, they qualify for a flat
amount of 2,000 or 2,500 and they have to show that they’ve spent the money in a proper area before
the end of the year.
That is the easiest way. There’s no tears, everybody gets funding and we’re getting money out to the
public. By the way, the next topic that we’re going to be talking about is potentially not taking the funding.
My recommendation would be, because it goes along with the funding that we’re talking about currently,
is go ahead and request the funding from the County. We don’t have to spend it right away but if we
delay requesting the funds from the County that puts us a whole month further behind being able to
allocate those funds.
If we think that there’s money going to be available to the Town to be able to use out of that or we can
evaluate that once we know what the parameters are, but to just to say, “Don’t take money now or wait
a month” I think that’s going to be forcing us to not be able to give the money out to the businesses
when they need it and in a timely fashion for them to spend it. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: No comment.
Mayor Burk: Miss Fox, you said you had additional questions?
Page 24| August 11, 2020
Council Member Fox: Just one additional question, it’s a clarification. Did I hear you correctly that you
said the 26 businesses that were awarded this round are automatically going to receive something in
the second round?
Keith Markel: In 26 it was the non-profit again, so we had I believe 30 some on the low tier, the 2,500
tier.
Council Member Fox: I’m just mixing it up.
Keith Markel: You’re correct in that. What we’re proposing and what’s in this resolution is that bump,
so everybody who was selected for a business grant in the phase one distribution would automatically
get that second round funding so if they made 2,500 in that first grant they would go to 5,000. If they
were a 5,000 award in that first phase, they would go to 10,000.
Council Member Fox: Okay, thanks.
Keith Markel: That’s spends another roughly $670,000 of these funds.
Mayor Burk: Today, I did hear from two businesses that are in the top tier that were very grateful for
the opportunity. I felt that that was a really good addition and they appreciated it. They did not qualify
before because they were considered too large but as we talked about before, what’s too large? You
end up having to spend so much money that you’re not as big as it seems. They were very grateful for
that opportunity to be able to apply for it. Do I have a motion for the Spending Plan update and second
round?
Martin Crim: You’ve already done that. You already had a motion. Mr. Steinberg moved that and Mr.
Campbell seconded.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg moved it and Mr. Campbell seconded?
Keith Markel: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Sorry, I did not write that down. All in favor indicate by saying, aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Chair.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Tom.
Council Member Dunn: I would like to offer an amendment to the resolution of the motion. That is to
remove the two bottom tiers and combine those into one tier that is a zero to $25,000 income, with an
award of $2,000.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second? Yes.
Council Member Fox: I’ll second it.
Council Member Dunn: You need me to repeat that?
Mayor Burk: Yes, sir?
Vice Mayor Martinez: We just started to vote.
Council Member Dunn: Do you need me to repeat that Madam Chair? [crosstalk]
Vice Mayor Martinez: Is it allowed for them to [inaudible 01:32:20]. [crosstalk]
Page 25| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Excuse Mr. Dunn, Mr. Martinez has a point of order that he would like to have answered.
Once the voting has begun, is it appropriate for someone to make a motion?
Martin Crim: That’s the ruling of the chair. If the chair rules that person has the ability to make that
motion, amendment at that time, and that’s the ruling of the chair.
Mayor Burk: I would take the idea that, yes, because he’s on electronically. Otherwise, I would have
stopped him, but electronically, it’s so hard to hear what’s going on and to get on. I would accept his
amendment that Mr. Dunn made to change the tiers to-- Miss Fox, do you know what the--
Council Member Fox: Yes. Will be to combine the [inaudible 01:33:15]. Sounds like he wanted to
combine tiers one and two, take that from zero to 24,999, and offer $2,000 for each and just have four
tiers. It sounds like to me.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Martin Crim: 24,999
Mayor Burk: Anyone wish to discuss this further?
Council Member Steinberg: Point of information, are we simply voting on the amendment?
Mayor Burk: Simply voting on the amendment at this point. All in favor of the amendment indicate by
saying aye.
Council Member Campbell: Aye.
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Council Member Fox: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dunn, and Miss Fox. Opposed?
Council Member Steinberg: Nay.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Nay
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg, Miss Burk, and Mr. Martinez, all right, that does not pass, we’ll go back to
the original, that was moved by Mr. Steinberg, seconded by Mr. Campbell. All in favor, indicate by
saying, aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That’s five-one.
Martin Crim: Who was the nay? Who was the one?
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn said, aye? Boy, I can’t hear Mr. Dunn. I’m sorry, Mr. Dunn, that’s the second
time I’ve gotten your vote wrong. You said aye to it, correct?
Council Member Dunn: That’s correct.
Page 26| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. I really am having trouble with hearing Mr.
Dunn tonight. Then that takes us to declining of the second round of the CARES Act 2020 funding
allocation.
Council Member Steinberg: [inaudible 01:34:45]
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg moves to move to our September meeting, and Miss Fox seconded. Is
there any discussion at this point?
Council Member Campbell: Yes.
Council Member Dunn: Yes.
Mayor Burk: I got three lights on. Mr. Martinez, do you have discussion points?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Yes. As I mentioned before, staff has recommended that we don’t take any
funds, that’s going to be one month where funds are just sitting out there dormant. If we accepted the
full funding, which is what staff is suggesting, and frankly, they were very unclear about what the
potential is, other than there’s a potential for Town government to get more money out of it.
Therefore, when we wait a month, that’s just now a pile of $4.8 million that Town government can draw
on much faster than we were able to allocate that to local businesses. I think that that would be
completely improper to at least not remake the request of the County for the full funding.
If we find at our first meeting September, and staff finds that, “Oh, we can’t use that much money,” then
we return it quickly to the County. Or we decide at that point, we’re going to reallocate it to more
businesses through a better system, but to just sit on it and not do anything with it for a month, I think
is a travesty to the businesses. If that’s what we’re going to do, you should just give it away back to the
County. Again, unless staff is going to clear up tonight what it is they think they know about what they
might get possibly [unintelligible 01:36:34]? Because that’s all what we said. We might be able to get
more money as a revenue stream for government from funds that are designed to help the businesses
in the community. Guess what Town staff, it helped the businesses in the community, your revenue
streams are recovered, but going for a money grab on this and delaying this for a month is completely
wrong. I will not be voting to delay this.
Mayor Burk: All right, Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: I won’t be voting to delay it for different reasons. Let’s have a vision of a
community in need, businesses suffering, population is hungry, people facing rent shortages and
possible evictions, job loss, business loss, and we have money to distribute to be helpful as much as
we can. We know we learned some things from the first round of funding about how to either be more
efficient on our side or what some of the needs are.
We expanded some categories to give out more money. We’re doubling our efforts to give businesses
money, we’ve given to before. We know non-profits are doing the heavy lifting in our community. Part
of the resolution last night was to instruct the County to take $1 million out of that $4.7 million and use
it towards the non-profits. I object to giving it all back and delaying all of it.
We also talked about our inability to spend it all. Do we have to delay it all or we hold back some that
we think we might want to be able to use for businesses? Again, the speed and efficiency of Congress
is outstanding these days. They’ll probably meet again before we will, but the reality is that’s nothing to
depend upon.
Page 27| August 11, 2020
We’ve seen that in terms of any legislation that may or may not change on how things come down the
pipeline. I do agree it would be highly inefficient of us and irresponsible of our responsibility as a vision
to how we serve this community, to just sit on it. That cannot be the answer.
Despite other things that may or may not happen, I still believe $1 million to dedicate to our non-profits,
if we want to hold $2 million, which again we take. If we want to let the County keep $1.7 million, I’m all
for that, but to delay it all is irresponsible. I will not be voting for the resolution that has passed and at
the proper time we can put another motion on the table now but I’ll wait.
Keith Markel: May I just add a few points of process clarification?
Mayor Burk: Sure.
Keith Markel: The money is not in our possession now. We have to request that of the County. The
County has to formally take action by their board, which will not happen until September one, I believe
is their first meeting. Because, they’ve been in recess now for August.
There is no money for the Town, the Town can’t make interest on it. The Town can’t spend it. We don’t
have an adopted spending plan if you did want to accept the money. That’s what we discussed last
night, if you all want to accept the money, you also have a Spending Plan. Because, the County will not
distribute funds to any of the towns until they have an approved spending plan.
I just want to make sure that it’s clear that we’re not sitting or wasting any money or any time. None of
the towns have any of this money yet. None of the towns will have any of this money until the board
takes formal action at their first meeting in September.
Council Member Campbell: I basically disagree what you just said, because we can’t take action again
until our September meeting. There will be a delay on any action. We take action tonight. It’s in front of
the Board of Supervisors at their first meeting on September first. There would be a real delay in timing.
Keith Markel: I was just clarifying when you said, “We’re sitting on the money now.” We’re not, sitting
on any money.
Council Member Campbell: It’s not necessarily sitting on it, but we’re sitting on action, which in case
is sitting on the money. There is a distribution plan that can be done to present to the County that
basically the Spending Plan no different than how we intended it the first time.
I don’t think, there’s little tweaking that has to be done to a plan that’s already been accepted, already
been presented, especially with the million dollars and we’re asking the County to spend that for us. I
don’t think that’s a problem of having the rationale of what needs to be accepted for the County between
tonight’s meeting and anything that could be on their desk by September 1st.
Keith Markel: I just want to clarify what staff heard last night was that, the majority was to not accept
any of the funds and you were directing the County to keep all the funds at their discretion, and you’re
requesting them to direct of those funds that they would be keeping that could have been going to the
Town, a million dollars to be used for non-profits to be distributed by Loudoun County.
Council Member Campbell: That’s not what’s in the work plan I have here, the staff report.
Keith Markel: That’s the staff report prior to last night’s discussion. The discussion we heard last night
was that there was consensus to leave all the money with Loudoun County and ask them to spend a
million dollars of what they would have allocated to Town so for non-profit relief.
Council Member Campbell: The edited that I have in my packet tonight with the blue lines is incorrect.
Keith Markel: What you should have is the resolution, that’s the resolution there.
Page 28| August 11, 2020
Council Member Campbell: It says, “The Town Council,” in section two, “respectfully request the
Board of Supervisors to allocate $1 million of the funds that would have been provided to the Town.”
Keith Markel: Correct.
Council Member Campbell: There is a provision to take $1 million out of that $4.7 million.
Keith Markel: Would have been provided. It has not been provided [unintelligible 01:42:09].
Council Member Campbell: I get that. Now, section three says, “Allocate the remaining $3.797 million.”
Either I’m reading this wrong or it was written wrong, but we did instruct for a million dollars to go to
non-profit programs, not the whole $4.7 million.
Mayor Burk: Yes, that is true
Keith Markel: Here’s your request saying, “County keep the money but we’re asking you of the money
that you would have given to the Town. County we’re asking you to consider putting that towards non-
profits at the County level and putting it towards business relief at the County level.” That was the intent
of the wording.
Council Member Campbell: Again, you’re asking us to defer all $4.7 million. We had a plan last night,
not to defer all $4.7 million.
Keith Markel: No. You agreed last night from what staff heard was all $4.7 million would remain with
Loudoun County. [crosstalk]
Council Member Campbell: Remain with Loudoun County, but be distributed $1 million for non-profits
and then for them to take the other $3.7 million.
Keith Markel: That’s still a viable option, you could take action last night. We’re only raising the issue
that we’ve heard just today that US Congress is looking at modifying and relaxing some of the spending
criteria. We don’t know how far or how relaxed that will get. We know this is a very fluid program, but
we just want to bring that to your attention in case you were looking at a way to do revenue replacement.
That may be something that’s available within the next month.
Council Member Campbell: We have one or two choices with the million dollars. I’m focused on non-
profits right now. Again, we had serious conversation about the Town’s ability to administer another
program, or what was the fastest way to get relief to the community.
We decided, at least among some head nods, at the fastest way to bring relief to our community was
that the County keep the million dollars, designate the million dollars, and then they would put it in their
program to spend on behalf of Leesburg residents. Now, we’re saying, “We want to take that away and
we want to defer any decision on all the money.” That’s what the Town staff is telling us tonight.
Kaj Dentler: Generally correct. The only message that I tried to deliver to the Council is that we learn
new information today that we did not know last night. The language in front of you, that you just read
is correct. Based on the direction that you gave last night is entirely your decision how you want to do
it.
My professional ethical responsibility is make sure you have the same information I have. What I don’t
want to occur is that you make a decision tonight based on potentially old information and two weeks
or a month later, we could have done something different and you say, “Kai, why didn’t you tell me?”
That’s the only reason I’ve reported to you.
I apologize. It is entirely your decision, but you are correct that the language in the resolution is exactly
as you used to request it last night, it is your decision.
Mayor Burk: Clarification. I’m sorry. You still have 31 seconds, Mr. Campbell.
Page 29| August 11, 2020
Council Member Campbell: Yes. Again, I’m trying to serve our community. Whether we keep the
million dollars or give it to the County, we had agreed that our community and non-profit community
deserves attention and Leesburg. Whatever happens with the $3.7 million and the Federal government
in new legislation that can be withheld.
Kaj Dentler: Sure. You could make a decision tonight that notifies the County that you want $1 million
of the $4.7 million to be retained by the County and to be placed towards the non-profit distribution.
Yes. Then, you will make a decision either 30 days or even tonight on the remaining $3.7 million.
Correct.
Council Member Campbell: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell, does that clarify the discussion? Do you understand?
Council Member Campbell: Yes. We still have a different resolution to make, but that’s okay.
Mayor Burk: That’s fine. Miss Fox.
Council Member Fox: Quick question here. I understand my colleagues worrying about sitting on this.
I get that, I agree. That’s why we decided what we decided last night. However, I’m very, very curious
about these new Federal regulations. How long do you believe it’ll take staff to get us that information?
Keith Markel: [unintelligible 01:46:41] We have no idea what the action timeline.
Council Member Fox: That could even affect what the Board of Supervisors is doing on September
first.
Keith Markel: They’re spending theirs very much on the same things we’re doing. We mirror each other
very closely in our spending plan.
Council Member Fox: I like what I heard about that $1 million let the County take care of the non-
profits. Madam Mayor, is it true that if we find out some things that are very pertinent that we could
actually have a special meeting on this before the first?
Mayor Burk: We can always have a special meeting.
Council Member Fox: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg, you haven’t spoken.
Council Member Steinberg: I respect Councilman Campbell’s concerns, but we’re really only talking
about a 20-day timeframe here. I think, to proceed, without all the potential information that may come
forward out of Congress would be a mistake. I think we should stick with the idea of making a deferring
this action until we have more information. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, I had asked you if you want to speak before. Have you changed your mind?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Yes. I have.
Mayor Burk: All right. Go ahead.
Vice Mayor Martinez: How long does it take you to put a business plan together to spend the money?
Keith Markel: Our spending plan? It sounds like it would be a similar spending plan to the first round if
you all want to accept the money so we could do that-
Vice Mayor Martinez: Like now.
Page 30| August 11, 2020
Keith Markel: -in a very short period.
Vice Mayor Martinez: When’s the earliest if we were to request the money, we would get it.
Keith Markel: I don’t know. The County’s, they would have to approve the spending plan. They say
they take five days to review. If the Board moves to distribute this money as they said they will at their
first meeting in September. You could be looking at it being the Town’s coffers by the end of the first
week of September.
Vice Mayor Martinez: The first week of September. When’s our first meeting in September, what day?
Keith Markel: It’s the 8th, the day after Labor Day.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I guess, what I’m looking at is I didn’t raise any objections last night to defer
them or give the money back to the County, let them do all the work. I was also of the mind that I would
rather have the money now and work on it. Even if we have it, if we get it on the first week of September,
I guess, we’ll only lose seven days if we wait till the first meeting in September, is what I’m guessing at.
I still would like to see us have all the money on hand and/or at least request it and then have an
opportunity to give it back if what you’re saying does not come to fruition. In other words, there are no
changes. We’re still stuck with what we have.
I’m of the mind that with all these different changes and stuff is to go ahead and take the money and as
we can do the million-dollar non-profit or have the spending plan. At least if we do get the money, we
can hand back $3.7 million and use the $1 million that we can allocate to who we want to allocate to
this, as we have before. It won’t be as easy and simplified by giving it back to the County and letting
them do all the hard work.
I think we owe it to our residents that we take the money and we do the hard work to make sure our
residents are fully getting the benefit of this money. If we want to just ask for the million and then defer
the $3.7 million to a later date, I guess, I’m okay with that though I would support us asking for all the
money now.
Mayor Burk: You already spoke.
Council Member Steinberg: Point of information.
Mayor Burk: Point of information.
Council Member Steinberg: If I can ask Councilman Martinez.
Mayor Burk: No, you may not. You may ask me and I will ask Mr. Martinez.
Council Member Steinberg: Will you ask Councilman Martinez if he’s planning to offer a motion to
accept the entire amount?
Mayor Burk: Well, I haven’t spoken yet. Can you hold that-
Council Member Steinberg: Sure.
Mayor Burk: -point of information until I’m finished? I’m getting two different vibes here that I’m
confused by. At this point, we could make a motion and ask for the County. What I’m trying to figure out
is how to use that million dollars? What the gist of the argument I’m hearing is that the million dollars is
what we want to get spent as soon as possible for the non-profits that are dealing with all the issues
that we’re dealing with. To do that we would have to tell the County that we would give them the million
dollars, but we want them to put it towards the nonprofit's, is that correct?
Page 31| August 11, 2020
Keith Markel: As discussed last night, yes.
Mayor Burk: And then we would say if we took the rest of the money, we would have to have a plan in
place, and then that would be for the businesses, but we would have to honor that plan. If something
changed in Congress, we've accepted the money-- We've asked for the money. We haven't accepted
it and we've asked for it. We've got a plan that County accepts the plan, gives us the money, and then
we find out that we can use it for something that would be even more beneficial. We won't be able to
do that because we have--
Keith Markel: You are. You're allowed to modify your spending plan at any time so long as it's being
modified for another qualified expense. They understand that things change, needs change, so we do
have flexibility in the spending plan.
Mayor Burk: Why would we need to defer it? Last night, we talked about it. We were afraid that we
didn't get all the money out to the businesses, not enough businesses applied. It was an arduous
process for the staff, so we said, "Okay. Let’s let the County do it. They already have a program in
place." Mr. Dentler, I don't know if you want to answer this, but why are you recommending that we
defer it?
Keith Markel: Well, when we left the meeting last night, there was a majority consensus to have all the
money remain with Loudoun County.
Mayor Burk: Right, absolutely.
Keith Markel: We're asking for deferral on that because if the rules change and now you're able to
spend it on new operations that weren't permitted previously by the Federal government, that would be
a new opportunity for you. I know that was a question that Councilman Campbell brought up is, are
there other needs? Are there other expenses out there? Well, we now know that there may be additional
ways to spend this money that you all may want to use it for.
Mayor Burk: Why would we defer it? Why wouldn't we-- are you saying--
Keith Markel: Well, if you give it all back to them, then you don't have it to spend--
Mayor Burk: That's what you're trying to say. Okay. If we were to ask for it--
Keith Markel: You could wait and see and then return it to them if things are-- There's a number of
different ways we can approach this. Nothing is probably going to be known within the next few days,
so we didn't feel that there was a huge need to take any action before your first meeting in September,
but, again, your decision.
Kaj Dentler: He answered it.
Mayor Burk: Okay.
Kaj Dentler: An option could be, you could just go ahead and receive 3.7 or 4.7 and then make a
decision later on how you're going to spend it and we'll learn more information. That's an option for you.
You can ask the County to spend one million of our share on nonprofits. Now, they don't have to do
that. You need to understand that. Just because we say, "This is how we want you to do it," you give
them the money back, it is their decision. We cannot dictate to them how to spend it. We can make a
respectful request and I would hope that they would honor that.
Mayor Burk: Okay. All right. Mr. Steinberg, you had a question. Point of order. I mean point of
information.
Council Member Steinberg: Actually, Madam Mayor, I am offering to withdraw my original motion and
move that we accept the entire allocation, given the new information. With that, we could distribute the
Page 32| August 11, 2020
money to the nonprofits as Councilman Campbell wishes and wait until several weeks to find out what
the new rules may or may not be.
Martin Crim: Madam Mayor, could I jump in there? I did not follow that motion. I think to withdraw the
motion before you would require action of Council to defeat that motion or to permit it to be withdrawn
because once the motion is made, it belongs to the whole Council, not to the individual who made it.
Mayor Burk: He needs to ask the Council that he would like permission to withdraw his motion?
Council Member Steinberg: Correct.
Mayor Burk: Is there any objection to Mr. Steinberg withdrawing the motion? No.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Council Member Steinberg: We now have the motion.
Mayor Burk: Now, what is the motion that you want?
Council Member Steinberg: The new motion is to accept the entire second-round allocation.
Mayor Burk: I'm sorry. I didn't--
Council Member Steinberg: We would request from the County that we accept the entire second-
round allocation of CARES Act spending.
Mayor Burk: 24 hours. Okay. That was seconded by Mr. Campbell. You're taking all of the money?
Kaj Dentler: All of it.
Mayor Burk: Are we going to be directing staff to do something in regard to the nonprofits? Are we
waiting?
Keith Markel: I'll just clarify. You will not receive any funds from the County until you have a real
spending plan. If you're looking to get this money as soon as possible from the County, we could
approve a spending plan. You could adopt a spending plan on the 8th of September or you could adopt
a quick one this evening. That would give something for the County to react to.
Mayor Burk: What's your motion?
Council Member Steinberg: We could direct staff to go through the same spending planning for the
nonprofits in the amount of $1 million and hold the remainder of the allocation in advance until we
understand what the rules are.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Campbell, are you okay with that change to the motion?
Council Member Steinberg: I think we called it.
Council Member Campbell: Yes.
Keith Markel: He called Town revenue or a Town COVID response is what we call that third bucket in
the last spending plan. If you're looking to use those remaining funds for that, we could call it that.
Council Member Campbell: Just to clarify, we already have a spending plan that we use the first
million dollars, so we can use the same spending plan.
Page 33| August 11, 2020
Keith Markel: For the nonprofits?
Council Member Campbell: For the nonprofits. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Okay. [laughs] The motion is that we request from the County the second round of the
CARES Act 2020 funding allocation that we-
Vice Mayor Martinez: - use the current spending plans as templates for the next plan.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Use--
Council Member Steinberg: Use the current spending plan to distribute $1 million to the nonprofits.
Mayor Burk: To distribute the million dollars to the nonprofits-
Council Member Steinberg: - and decide upon the remaining allocation when we have more
information in September.
Mayor Burk: In September. All right. Is that okay, Mr. Campbell? Is that correct? Did you understand
it? All right. All in favor, indicate by saying, "Aye."
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? I haven't heard from Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: It was an aye.
Mayor Burk: Okay, so 6-0. Staff, you know what you're doing? [laughs] All right.
Keith Markel: Legal counsel here. I would confer with smarter minds than mine. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Okay. All right. The next resolution is Authorization of Indemnification, License, and
Easement Agreement, Leegate. Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Indemnification, License, and
Easement Agreement between the Town of Leesburg, Virginia and Stanley Martin Companies, LLC,
for the use of the Town Property. Is there--
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Moved by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Ms. Fox. Is there any discussion on this? All in favor,
indicate by saying, "Aye."
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? I'm going to assume--
Council Member Dunn: That's an aye also.
Mayor Burk: Okay. That passes 6-0. The next resolution, we have deferred to the end of the meeting.
The next resolution after that is a motion to approve the proclamation for Constitution Week. I made
that motion. Is there a second?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Martinez. All in favor, indicate by saying, "Aye."
Council Members: Aye.
Page 34| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Opposed? 6-0.
Council Member Dunn: Abstain.
Mayor Burk: Okay, 5-0-1. A motion to approve a proclamation for Payroll Week? I sponsored that one.
Is there a second?
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Councilman Steinberg. All in favor, indicate by saying, "Aye."
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed and abstained? 5-0-1. All right. We are now two public hearings. All right. The
first public hearing for tonight on the agenda is the continuation of the July 14, 2020 public hearing for
a Ground Lease Agreement Granting the Exclusive Right and Privilege to Lease for a Period of 20
years in Maximum of 2,500 Square Feet of Vacant Land Owned by the Town of Leesburg and Located
Adjacent to the Existing Fuel Tank Farm on the Leesburg Executive Airport, Leesburg, Virginia, for the
Construction and Operation of One or Two Above-Ground Aviation Fuel Tanks.
I reconvene this public hearing of the Leesburg Town Council. Unless there is an objection, I will
dispense with the reading of the advertisement. If you wish to speak, we ask that you sign up on the
sheet in the hallway outside of Council Chambers. If you did not get the opportunity to sign up, then we
will give you the opportunity to speak. We will also provide an opportunity for remote public participation
for callers on the phone or by WebEx.
In all cases, please identify yourself. If comfortable, give your address for the taped record. In the
interest of fairness, we also ask that you observe the five-minute time limit. For those participating in
person or by WebEx, the green light in front of you will turn yellow at the end of four minutes, indicating
that you have one minute remaining. At that time, we would appreciate you summing up and yielding
the floor when the bell indicates your time has expired.
For those participating on the phone, you will hear a bell when your time has expired. Under the rules
of order of the Council for the five-minute time limit, it applies to all citizens. However, rather than having
numerous citizens to present remarks on behalf of the group, if any speaker representing a group, the
Council will allow a spokesperson for that group a few extra minutes. In that instance, I would ask
speakers when they sign up to indicate their status as a spokesperson, the group they represent, and
their request for additional time.
Again, I ask that people that come up to speak will please spell your name for closed captioning. Our
procedure for the public hearing is as follows. First, there's a brief presentation by staff about the item.
Second, members of the public who have signed up to speak will be called and given five minutes to
make their comments. The public hearing on the agenda tonight is for Airport Aviation Fuel Tank Site.
Mr. Scott Coffman.
Scott Coffman: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. If you remember two meetings
ago, we had a bid opening at our meeting and we received two bids. First of all, the lease of the aviation
fuel tank site is at the Airport central fuel farm. Our Airport rules, regulations, and minimum standards
require that any fuel stored on the Airport shall be in a central fuel facility.
We had a tenant on the Airport request to refuel its own aircraft and operate as a fixed-base operator.
Therefore, they requested to lease land for fuel storage. For those of you who don't know what a fixed-
based operator is, it's basically the gas station at the Airport, but they provide many more services such
as hangaring aircraft and customer service. They're really the front door for airplanes arriving into
Leesburg.
In accordance with the State Code, the Town advertised an invitation for bids for the land. The site was
advertised to support either a commercial FBO or for an aircraft owner who desires to refuel their own
Page 35| August 11, 2020
aircraft. The terms offered were 2,500 square feet. This is a pretty small, little footprint of land out on
the south end of the Airport. A lease term of 20 years, the minimum bid price of 60¢ per square foot is
actually pretty competitive.
It's equal to the leasehold that's right next to it. In addition to the lease rate, anybody pumping fuel at
the Airport pays a per gallon fuel flow fee of 5¢. At the end of the lease, the fuel tank shall be remained
property of the lessee and can be removed. That's just a quick picture of the site. We received two bids
at the bid opening, ProJet Aviation LLC was the high bid. They bid $5,000 per year.
The reason for their interest in the space was to support their existing full-service FBO, and then they
also would lease any storage capacity to non-commercial aircraft owners who wish to store fuel on the
Airport. The second bid received was from Kuhn Jet Center and their bid was $1,500 per year. Their
desire is to operate as a full-service, fixed-base operator as well.
Martin can correct me if I say anything wrong here, but the procedure for awarding land leases
exceeding five years is the Council shall accept-- I'm not going to read this whole thing to you, but the
Council shall accept the highest bid, but Council may reject a higher bid and accept a lower bid if there's
a reason affecting the interest of the Town that makes it advisable to do so. I'm reading that on purpose.
[laughs]
After opening the bids, staff did quite a bit of research. During that time, we found that Kuhn Jet Center
is applied to be a commercial-first, full-service FBO. They have applied to the Airport Commission. The
Airport Commission has conditionally approved their application to be an FBO upon the completion of
construction of the fuel tank facility. That's one of the things needed to be an FBO.
Further, if Kuhn Jet Center receives approval to operate as an FBO, they would have to lease additional
space from the Town, which is vacant at this time, which is a 10 tie-down parking spot, which would
generate a revenue of $14,400 per year. Additionally, as an FBO, Kuhn Jet Center would have to pay
FBO license fees, which is 1% of their gross receipts on aircraft maintenance and in aircraft line
services.
That's in addition to fuel flow fees that would be paid. As you heard from some of the speakers earlier
this evening, they favor competition and the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, also favors
competition on airports. It's public airport and they like the level playing ground for all businesses to
compete. They regulate the Airport through grant assurances, which is a document when we receive
Federal money for projects at the Airport.
We basically are stating how we will operate the Airport fairly to all businesses on it. We can't grant an
exclusive right for one business to provide a service at the Airport. We have to allow competition.
Approval of Kuhn Jet Center complies with those grant assurance requirements. Currently, we did find
that ProJet Aviation has some unused storage capacity, so we were a little confused why they wanted
the additional. I think it was more for their long-term future rather than their current needs.
The Airport recognizes ProJet's bid and would like to identify another 2,500 square feet as needed to
meet their needs. The Airport Commission and myself as staff recommends that Council awards this
land lease to Kuhn Jet Center. They are the lower of the two bids. However, they will provide a greater
revenue to the Town. They will help the Airport comply with these grant assurances and they will benefit
the public through competition at the Airport. That is my presentation. I'll be glad to answer any
questions.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Thank you. I already feel like I'm talking too much tonight. I'll just make a
couple of comments and no questions. I think this has been thoroughly vetted by the staff, the
Commissioners that I've spoken with, as well as our purchasing department. I see the Airport again as
a high-level asset to the Town. I've spoken before about competitive practices. I believe that even in
looking at the competitive bid process, we have the ability to make what's in the best interest of the
Town and our community as well as, I think, the owners and our visitors. It's a broad perspective that I
Page 36| August 11, 2020
think that this is a long-term view of what's best for this community to award this bid to Kuhn. Thank
you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox? Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: I just had one quick question. Why can't we have two suppliers at the Airport?
We talk a lot about competition. Why couldn't both entities provide service and then pilots can choose
from either one airport. Is it a space issue or is it not allowed?
Woman on Background: What are you talking about?
Scott Coffman: That wasn't me.
[laughter]
Council Member Dunn: That was my alter ego.
[laughter]
Council Member Dunn: Did you get my question?
Scott Coffman: Yes, sir. By awarding this land lease and allowing Kuhn Jet Center to have the facilities
needed to serve the Airport as a second FBO, there would be two FBOs. ProJet Aviation and Kuhn Jet
Center on the Airport at the same time. It is a plus for competition.
Council Member Dunn: If you could maybe pull the mics closer or stand still while you're talking, I
could hardly hear what your answer was. If you could say that again, please.
Scott Coffman: I apologize.
Council Member Dunn: That's okay.
Scott Coffman: This will allow two fixed-base operators to operate at the Airport.
Council Member Dunn: Oh, okay. It's not one or the other, but it will allow both?
Scott Coffman: It will allow both. It's leasing the facilities needed for the second FBO.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez? I do have a couple of questions for you. You said at the end of your report,
you said you did not ask the other FBO why they wanted the land lease.
Scott Coffman: No. The second FBO, ProJet Aviation, described in their bid that they would use the
fuel storage to support their existing FBO and that they would lease some of that fuel storage to other
private aircraft owners. In effect, that is telling us that-- and I think he further explained in an Airport
Commission meeting that they're looking for that for their future needs. They want a long-term lease for
their future needs. They also have an unused fuel tank under their operational control right now. If we
look into that, they have capacity now. Why do they need it, except that they want it for their future
needs?
Mayor Burk: Is there enough business at the Airport for two? We talked about competition being good,
but is there enough business to support two FBOs?
Scott Coffman: That's not a question I'm supposed to answer. The FAA tells us that it's really not up
to airports to decide whether there's enough competition for one or two or three businesses on the
Page 37| August 11, 2020
airport that were supposed to be a publicly-funded airport and we allow competition to take its natural
course.
Mayor Burk: You've said "competition" repeatedly, so I assume--
Scott Coffman: I'm sorry.
Mayor Burk: No, that's all right.
Scott Coffman: It's a big change for the Airport to have two competing FBOs.
Mayor Burk: Right. Is that the major consideration? The difference in the bids is a lot. [laughs] Is
competition the reason that the Airport Commission--
Scott Coffman: I want to ensure that the Airport complies with the FAA's grant assurances, which really
require us to give a firm reason why we would deny entry to a new business wanting to do business on
the Airport. My biggest concern is that we comply with those grant assurances so that we can continue
to get funding from the FAA.
Mayor Burk: It makes sense. Both FBOs will have to provide mechanical service, repair service?
Scott Coffman: Yes. Both FBOs will have to comply with the Airport's minimum standards. The
minimum standards say what services they must provide, which includes aircraft maintenance and
repair. It describes how much space they need to provide, what kind of facilities so that everybody's
playing on at least a level playing field.
Mayor Burk: Okay, and then just the last question. When you do have one business that's working on
it and no matter what happens, it's important to remember that that business was most certainly a
partner with the Town and did a lot of things with the Town. I hope whatever turns out that if there's two
that they'll both continue to be partners with the Town because there's a lot of good things that have
been happening at the Airport.
Scott Coffman: I would wholeheartedly as a Manager agree with that statement. It's been a tough
position for me to consider two FBOs because we've worked so closely with ProJet Aviation over the
years. They are a big partner and really the front door for the Airport.
Mayor Burk: Was the Airport Commission unanimous in this recommendation?
Scott Coffman: Yes. Only one had to abstain, who is a ProJet employee.
Mayor Burk: All right. Does anybody else have any additional questions? All right. There's anyone that
wants to speak? Yes. Do I have the right one? Okay. It's the same people speaking that spoke before?
Okay. All right. I just want to make sure. Mr. Kuhn, you can come back up again. Mr. Kuhn will be
followed by Mr. Duenkel.
Charles Kuhn: Thank you all again. I don't want to take a lot of your time. I'd like to answer a couple
of the concerns you had, Mayor Burk.
Mayor Burk: Sure.
Charles Kuhn: One, we've always been a good partner with the Town, a good partner with the County.
We will absolutely continue to do so. Although there is a difference, our bid is clearly lower than the
ProJet bid. When you look at the overall income we'll be bringing into the Town and to the Airport, the
difference in the bids will pale in comparison. I think you'll see a large increase in aircraft coming into
the Airport. I think you'll see an increase in fuel sales, an increase in the Commission, or the 1%. You
take off the maintenance and other FBO business. The addition of competition to the Airport is going to
increase the income to the Town and load the difference in the bid. Any other questions from you while
I'm up?
Page 38| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Kuhn. We really appreciate it and we appreciate your interest in the Town
and the Town Airport. Thank you very much.
Charles Kuhn: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Duenkel? I think he left, didn't he? Mr. Gilad followed by Steve-- Steve, I can't read
your last name. S-P something.
Dennis Boykin: Spiewak.
Charles Kuhn: He left as well.
Mayor Burk: He left, okay.
Shye Gilad: Good evening. Nice to see you again. I just had a few comments. Really, this bid from the
beginning has never been about competition. The issue is not about competition, so I just wanted to set
a few of the facts straight and give you our position on the overall feeling about welcoming Kuhn Jet
Center to Leesburg. Something won't be surprising to any of us that call Leesburg home or have
business interests here in Leesburg is that it's not the same thing as Manassas, right?
Leesburg is a more attractive marketplace. It's, in fact, one of the most attractive places to live in the
country. Voted so again and again. Things are expensive in Leesburg. The cost of living is almost 20%
higher than Manassas. Housing is 35% higher. If you're in the labor market, labor is more expensive.
Education, it's more expensive. We have better schools. That's why people want to be here, so it's not
surprising that they also want to park their airplanes here.
The Town of Leesburg right now charges 33% more than Manassas charges for hangar space or tie-
down space. Is that gouging because they can get a premium because they're in a better marketplace?
Is it gouging because they have higher costs than Manassas does? I don't think that it is. I don't think
it's a fair way to represent it. ProJet has been a loyal partner of the Town since 2010. We've been twice
recognized with the Ambassador Award.
In fact, we received a proclamation from this very body in 2018 for our aviation education expo, which
has generated over two million in scholarships over the last decade. If we weren't treating customers
fairly, how would it be possible for our fuel sales to outpace the entire industry's annual growth rate by
22% over the last five years? During that same time in Manassas, an Airport with two FBOs actually
decreased their sales over that period by 2.2%.
How would it be possible if we were not treating customers fairly, that there would be 109 airplanes on
the waiting list to come to the Airport? By the way, as of now, that's a 39% increase on people wanting
to come to the Airport since 2018 alone. How would it be possible that we continue to receive five-star
reviews again and again from our customers over and over again? I ask all of you, how many complaints
did you ever hear about ProJet regarding fuel or customer service?
Before Mr. Kuhn presented tonight, his contractor who built the building for him and before other
members of the Commission that all have small airplanes at the fields were told, "Hey, you know what?
I'll be able to get you cheaper fuel." It's a compelling argument, but we've never received those
complaints before. We've been lauded again and again. I'd actually like to share one of my favorite
quotes for our service. This is from 2017.
"ProJet is an excellent FBO. 30 years of base tenant with two aircraft, they continue to exceed our
expectations. Professional and highly accommodating staff. Overall, great experience." This is from
Chuck Kuhn's chief pilot Larry Phillips. Look, I don't need to convince you that ProJet has been a great
partner to the Town. I think the facts speak for themselves as well as Chuck's pilot.
Chuck himself originally moved his airplane from Dulles because of pricing and some constraints he
had there. He liked Leesburg so much he decided to invest in his own hangar here. That's an inevitable
part of our success, right? Now that he decided he wants to go into competition with us, he's here to
Page 39| August 11, 2020
say that we charge too much to everyone. As far as competition goes, we compete every day with FBOs
in the region to bring more traffic here. That's our job, right?
We're not the least bit concerned with having a competitor, let alone a competitor with zero experience
in the FBO business. What we are concerned about, like Scott was saying, is having a level playing
field. We're concerned about safe operations. The fact of the matter is Mr. Kuhn's already been granted
a side letter from the Town of Leesburg to self-fuel his own aircraft with no input from the Airport
Commission and no approval of Town Council.
The covenants of the agreement include a requirement to have an approved spill control plan in place
10 days prior to fueling his aircraft. As far as we know, as of last week, he has not complied with that.
Now, the storage and distribution of aviation fuel is serious business with potentially devastating
physical safety and environmental impacts if not handled properly. Again, Kuhn has no experience
handling fuel, so it's understandable that he may make some mistakes, but he does have experience
with contracts.
We believe he's not in compliance with his current agreement with the Town. I'm here to ask if you
usually award bids to companies that are not in good standing. Does it seem fair to you that we have
to operate to a different standard? It does not seem fair to us. Our position is not that you disregard the
bid. We welcome the competition. Our position is that you at least take the time to let him come into
compliance. We don't think he should be awarded with a commercial license if he can't even comply
with a self-fueling letter. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak that
didn't get a chance to sign up? Yes, sir.
Scott Kuhn: Hi, I'm Scott Kuhn, part of Kuhn Jet Center. I just wanted to clarify for you all, we are in
compliance. I myself have had six years now working in aviation handling fuel, both at Manassas Airport
at a private facility off-Airport and now at Leesburg Airport. I've gone through all the training myself.
Every year, recertification. The SPCC plan for self-fueling is as requested. We are currently working on
that, but we are not in violation of our agreement. I just want to make sure everyone's aware of where
we truthfully sit.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you.
Scott Coffman: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: I just have a question for Mr. Coffman. I'm sorry. Is there anybody else? I guess
I needed to wait for you to say that. Who wanted to talk? Okay. I'll wait then.
Mayor Burk: Is there anybody online that would like to speak?
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, we do have three people on the WebEx. I believe one of them is waiting
to speak to the next public hearing, but I will inquire from all of them. Callers, if you are interested in
making comments, I will unmute you one by one to allow you to speak. I will start with Mr. Boykin. Mr.
Boykin, did you want to make any comments on this?
Mayor Burk: No, he's saying no. He's telling us no.
Betsy Arnett: Okay. Mr. Bowlds, I believe that you're online to speak to the CVS public hearing, is that
correct?
Steve Bowlds: I have no comments. I'm sorry. I'm just listening.
Betsy Arnett: Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Hamilton, are you here to speak about this public hearing
or the next one?
Page 40| August 11, 2020
Kevin Hamilton: The next one.
Betsy Arnett: Okay. Thank you, sir. Madam Mayor, that is all of the people online.
Mayor Burk: Okay. I'll ask again. Anybody that didn't get a chance to speak that would like to speak at
this point? All right. Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: I just wanted to ask about your knowledge of the fuel agreement and the
compliance with it. We have two conflicting-- Do you have any insight into this at all?
Scott Coffman: A spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan, SPCC, is required for
permanent fuel tanks such as at the Airport's fuel farm. The EPA doesn't regulate them for mobile
refuelers, which is what Kuhn Aviation is currently and temporarily approved to use. A mobile refueler
is a truck.
Council Member Fox: Does that ever go through the Commission or Council? Just out of curiosity, a
letter like this?
Scott Coffman: I'm sorry. Say that again.
Council Member Fox: This letter of compliance, they obviously have signed one. Does that decision
just get made by you or does it go through the Commission and Council normally?
Scott Coffman: They've been given a temporary approval because it's also something that's regulated
by FAA grant assurances that aircraft owners must be allowed to refuel their own aircraft, that they
cannot be forced into buying fuel from the provider on the Airport. Any aircraft owner is allowed to refuel
their own aircraft with their own equipment and their own people, which is what they're temporarily
allowed to do.
Council Member Fox: Do you feel that there's compliance?
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else have any questions at this point? All right. At this point, I will close the public
hearing. Is there any motion at this point? We don't have to make a motion tonight. We can carry this
forward to the next meeting. Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Yes. I'd like to make a motion that we recommend the award to Kuhn Jet
Center to be a new fixed-base operator at the Leesburg Airport.
Martin Crim: Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: Yes?
Martin Crim: It's actually not a recommendation. It would be action by Council to approve the award of
the fuel tank site lease. The FBO would be a separate matter. As I understood, Mr. Campbell, your
intent was to approve the aviation fuel tank site lease as presented by staff.
Mayor Burk: All right. Eileen, did you get the wording? This is a motion to Grant the Exclusive Right
and Privilege of a Lease to a Maximum of 2,500 Square Feet of Land Owned by the Town of Leesburg
and Located Adjacent to the Existing Fuel Tank Farm on Leesburg Executive Airport, Leesburg, Virginia
and Prescribing the Terms and Conditions and Restrictions Pertaining to Such Grant, is that correct?
All right. Mr. Campbell made the motion. Is there a second?
Council Member Fox: Second.
Page 41| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Ms. Fox. Any comments? Mr. Campbell, any comments? Any comments at
this point? Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Not for me.
Mayor Burk: All right. The only comment I will make is I think the request that ProJet is making, we
need to be honest about it and careful. I don't doubt that Kuhn Aviation will take care of that, but let's
make sure that we are doing a level playing field. We've got an opportunity here, but we've also had a
business that has been providing a service to us for a long time and that's been a good partner with the
Town.
I want that recognized. I want to make sure that that's something that everyone realizes. I don't want
this to get to a point where anybody feels that they're not being treated the same and fairly and equally.
I hope that we will work very carefully on that and make sure that everyone has the same requirements
and has to follow the same rules. There's the opportunity here, but let's not lose an opportunity also.
Council Member Campbell: I'd like to make the last comment.
Mayor Burk: Yes, sir.
Council Member Campbell: This is in no way any disrespect to any business owner when we have to
make decisions about awarding bids or contracts. We make decisions all the time to deny the land
applications, leases, programs. What we depend upon is not just our own knowledge or our own feelings
because this goes deeper than feelings, particularly in dealing with a business that our staff. We not
only support our staff, we question our staff. Staff can tell you all the time, we challenge them.
We don't just challenge them from the dais on ways that you can see. We also have individual meetings.
We try to get to the substance of issues, particularly when we try to not just to be fair to one group or
the other but to everybody. I believe very strongly in transparency so what we're trying to take a look
at. If there's compelling reasons to award a bid, we do have compelling reasons to deny a bid. We do,
but in no way, it should this be seen as any sign of disrespect to any of our business partners that we
have and currently want to keep.
We'll continue to work actively to make sure businesses are successful as much as we can. Obviously,
that's not our job either to make business successful. I want to make sure we don't make businesses
unsuccessful. I honestly believe an awarding of this bid is the right direction to go in. Hopefully, both
organizations under the fine leadership of our Airport Director and the Commission will continue to thrive
and grow and prosper. That's the hope. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. All in favor of the motion, I'm not going to read it again, made by Mr. Campbell
and seconded by Ms. Fox, indicate by saying, "Aye."
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn with an aye also? All right. That passes 6-0. All right. That moves us to our
second public hearing. Okay. I call to order the August 11th public hearing of the Leesburg Town
Council. Unless there is an objection, I will dispense with the reading of the advertisement. If you wish
to speak, we ask you to either sign up on the sheet in the hallway outside Council Chambers. If you did
not get the opportunity to sign up, we will give you an opportunity to speak.
We will also provide remote public participation for callers on the phone and the WebEx. In all cases,
please identify yourself. If comfortable, give your address for the taped record. In the interest of fairness,
we ask that you observe the five-minute time limit. For those participating in person or on the WebEx,
Page 42| August 11, 2020
the green light in front of you will turn yellow at the end of four minutes, indicating that you have one
minute remaining.
At that time, we would appreciate your summing up and yielding the floor when the bell indicates your
time has expired. For those participating on the phone, you will hear a bell when your time has expired.
Under the rules of orders adopted by this Council, the five-minute time limit applies to all citizens.
However, rather than have numerous citizens present remarks on behalf of a group, the Council will
allow a spokesperson for the group a few extra minutes.
In that instance, we would ask speakers when they sign up to indicate their status as the spokesperson,
the group they represent, and the request for additional time. Our procedure for the public hearing is as
follows. First, there is a brief presentation by staff about the item before us. Second, there will be a brief
presentation from the applicant. Third, the members of the public that have signed up to speak will be
called and given five minutes. The public hearing on this agenda tonight is for TLZM-2017-0004 CVS
at Allman Property.
Chris Murphy: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. I'm here to present the staff
report for rezoning application TLZM-2017-0004 CVS at the Allman Property. This evening Council is
asked to decide on whether to approve this application with conditions or deny the concept plan and
proffer sought by JEM X, LLC, consisting of 10,300 square feet single-story pharmacy with drive-thru
and 22,500 square foot, two-story commercial building comprised of a maximum of 6,000 square feet
of restaurant, a minimum of 7,000 square feet of retail, and 9,500 square feet of office on the second
floor.
This comes to Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial. That denial is based
on the intensity of the proposed uses, the lack of a proper commitment to construct the office uses, no
commitment on hours of operation, non-compatibility with the design of the character H-1 overlay in the
southern gateway of the Town, and the potential impacts on adjacent residential uses.
This also comes to Council with staff's finding that the application meets the criteria for approval for
Zoning Ordinance Section 3.3.15, except for compliance with applicable Town Plan goals and
objectives. Essentially, this means that the application complies with applicable zoning standards to
develop the property, but staff has reservations of the Town Plan compliance. The subject property is
situated at the southwest corner of the intersection of Greenway Drive at South King Street.
The property measures 3.96 acres, is zoned B-1 with H-1 old and historic district overlay, and is
currently vacant. In 2008, Mr. Allman joined the owner of the Stanfield property to amend the concept
plan of proffers for ZM-1990-0101. That originally established the B-1/H-1 zoning on the property. That
rezoning, ZM-2008-0005, approved the development of 36,000 square feet in three buildings on the
Allman portion of the approved concept plan.
The approved uses consisted of 6,000 square feet sit-down restaurant in Building G, 13,000 square
feet of retail on the first floor, and 13,000 square feet of office on the second story of Building H. 4,000
square foot, Building I, which can be used as either a bank with drive-thru, a pharmacy with drive-thru,
or additional office space. Excuse me for a second. Not too far.
The current application, ZM-2017-0004, seeks to sever the Allman property from the Stanfield property
by establishing a new concept plan and proffers for the development of 32,800 square feet in two
buildings and housing the 6,000 square feet of restaurant uses. A minimum of 7,000 to a maximum of
13,000 retail uses, and 9,500 square feet of office uses in Building A, and the 10,300 square foot
pharmacy in Building B.
This slide compares the approved and proposed site layouts. The approved 2008-0005 on top with this
three-building layout and the proposed 2017-0004 on the bottom with this two-building configuration.
Building H has become Building A with 3,200 square feet less of office space on the second floor. The
combined square foot areas of Buildings G and I have become Building B as intended for the pharmacy
with drive-thru.
Page 43| August 11, 2020
When analyzing the application for Town Plan compliance, we find the property is situated in the
southwest policy area with a planned land use of low density residential. The caveat to this land use
designation comes in objective number six, which acknowledges that the approved zonings for the
Greenway Farm neighborhood commercial center allowing up to a maximum of 100,000 square feet in
that center can be developed.
Although the 36,000 square feet portion of that on the Allman property would be reduced in area, staff
finds proposed uses will be more intensive and thus will adversely impact the surrounding residential
neighborhoods and the integrity of the Greenway Manor historic resource. It is generally acknowledged
that office and bank use is full of typical business hours of Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 5:00.
Whereas retail and restaurant uses normally operate six to seven days a week and into evening in
nighttime hours.
Typical business hours correspond with when most people are also at work. There is less potential
impact on neighbors during these hours. Businesses operating evenings and weekends correspond
with when most people are at home. Thus imposing greater potential impacts on neighbors as a result.
This table illustrates proposed concept plan has a close to even split between retail restaurant and
office and bank uses, leaving 53% or 19,000 square feet up to 36,000 square foot total open during
nights and weekends.
Conversely, the current application proposes to shift that balance more heavily to the retail pharmacy
restaurant use. Thus, 71% or 23,300 square feet of the 33,800 square feet total will be active during
nights and weekends. The corresponding traffic impact analysis indicates a decrease of 300 average
daily vehicle trips from the approved concept plan. Adequate levels of service are maintained by this
development.
As discussed previously, staff is concerned with when these trips will occur and the potential impact
that poses to adjacent residential neighborhoods. So anywhere in Section 11.3 establishes higher
minim um parking space requirements for those use types with more employees or higher turnover rates.
Recent ordinance amendments in the B-1 plus shared parking time a day factors established reductions
to those minimum parking standards that were not available when ZM-2008-0005 was approved.
If those discounts are applied to the approved plan, the minimum parking is reduced to 131 spaces from
172 or 12 spaces more for the 3,200 square feet of the approved plan has of the proposed application.
The cost of difference is not that much. There is argument that the proposed uses are more intensive.
Staff acknowledges the uniqueness of the site zoned B-1/H-1 in a suburban area.
That zoning ZM-1990-101 was established to allow for the development of the Greenway Farm
neighborhood commercial center while also assuring the protection of the character to find historic
resource at Greenway Manor Farm complex. While exterior architectural changes to both Buildings A
and B are more sensitive to the H-1 design guidelines, Building B remains a large box, single-story,
single-tenant-type building.
More typical of a pad site in a suburban corridor shopping center versus a single-family residential
neighborhood commercial center. As such, the three-building layout in the approved concept plan is
more sensitive to adjacent historic resources and a better transition to the adjacent residential
neighborhoods by its more human scale development pattern. As indicated earlier, the application
complies with the rezoning application approval criteria established in Zoning Ordinance Section 3.3.15,
except for consistency with the Town Plan.
From a development standpoint, the applicant has worked diligently to meet minimum zoning
requirements and address issues raised by staff, the public, and the Planning Commission throughout
the review process. This includes smaller delivery vehicles, parking space reduction. There's more open
space. Adding office space, architectural design changes, stormwater management issues have been
resolved.
Site lighting, limitations on delivery hours, hours of operation established, building a construction
commitment, and maintaining all proffer commitments from ZM-2008-0005. A fiscal impact analysis was
Page 44| August 11, 2020
completed that shows application will be fiscally positive for the Town. Staff concurs with that
assessment. A proffer statement has been submitted. It is included as attachment three to the staff
report.
Those proffers will maintain monetary and construction commitments from ZM-2008-0005, including
King Street entrance construction, trail reimbursement, traffic signal reimbursement, raised median
construction on Greenway Drive, and fire and rescue cash contribution. It maintains obligations to grant
necessary easements for a Stanfield development adjacent to it.
Proffer number four establishes or maintains delivery vehicles limited to the SU-30-type vehicle, which
is your typical UPS/FedEx-type vehicle that comes to your house for deliveries, and establishes hours
for delivery limited to 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Proffer number five establishes hours of operation. However,
this only apply to the pharmacy use on the property. As proposed, those hours extend to 10:00 PM,
Sunday through Friday and through midnight on Saturdays.
In addition, the proffer allowance for the reasonable modification or extension above business hours
without any clear indication of what's reasonable or approved by whom. Due to the fact that no
restriction applies to the commercial Building A, it is possible for 24-hour businesses to operate on the
property. This concludes my presentation, ma'am. I have two other slides and those are written out for
you, proposed motions for approval and/or denial, should they be needed by the Council.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Chris Murphy: You're welcome.
Mayor Burk: Is there any questions for Mr. Murphy at this point? Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: What is staff's recommendation?
Chris Murphy: Pardon me, sir?
Vice Mayor Martinez: What is staff's recommendation?
Chris Murphy: Staff's recommendation, we don't really have up or down. We're just pointing out the
fact that from the zoning standpoint, they meet the zoning ordinance requirements to build this property.
However, staff feels that there is a Town Plan issue, compliance with the Town Plan issue, but that's in
the purview of Town Council as to whether you agree with our assessment or not.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I noticed that on the denial resolution, you have several bullet points versus the
approval. I'm trying to figure out why the approval has so little limitations to some of the arguments you
have on the denial.
Chris Murphy: Again, like staff points out, and I think my presentation points out, that those limitations
in meeting the Town Plan criteria, we see that there are serious considerations to look at relative to that
and a real potential impact on the residential neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I guess my concern is on the motion to approve doesn't address all the different
bullet items on the motion to deny. I'll just leave it at that. All I know is that, initially, I was very supportive
of this project. With the Planning Commission recommendation, my Planning Commissioner's
recommendation, and all the other emails I've been getting from all the residents that all of us have
been getting, I'm going to have to question what I do next. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: To follow up with Marty's question, can you pull up the Planning Commission's
reasons for denial? I'd like to know from one of your later slides showing, I think what you were saying,
were the applicant's efforts to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Can you pull up those two
slides? Can we see if the Planning Commission's reason for denial have been met or mitigated?
Page 45| August 11, 2020
Chris Murphy: Well, for the first one is the intensity of the proposed uses. My presentation points to
our position that this intensity of the uses is still present and that the staff feels that there are potential
impacts on residential uses by this development. Lack of a proffered commitment to construct the office
use. They have provided that. There is a proffer that they will build a building, at least the shell of
Building A, which is the building that contains office uses as well as restaurant or retail uses.
That building, the shell at least, will be constructed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
for Building B, which is the pharmacy use. No commitment on hours of operation. They do provide a
proffer for hours of operation. It's limited to the pharmacy and it does not apply to the big commercial
building. Non-compatibility of the design with the character of H-1. Staff feels that that has not yet been
addressed fully. Potential impacts on adjacent residential uses. Again, staff feels that that has not yet
addressed fully.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. On the intensity of users, that was what you're talking about as far as
the 70%.
Chris Murphy: Correct. That's the hours of operation. That's the 70%. It's exactly, yes.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: Yes. I'm using your words from one of the slides because I'm trying to
understand the historical context. I know we've talked about this, but I need you to refresh my memory
from the 2008 Plan to now you talked about the new approval would sever the property from this
Stanfield property. In 2008 was a concept that they were not severed, that there was some compatibility
between uses and design or purpose, and intent of a greater working relationship?
Chris Murphy: At that time in 2008 with an application was made. Whenever property owners are
joined under a proffer, under a concept plan and proffer of statement, they were obligated to-- If any
amendments were to be made, they were obligated to appear together to amend those applications
together. Since that time, the law has been changed to allow property owners sever once under a single
concept plan and proffer statement to sever themselves from each other so long as they only gave
notice to the other. That is the intent of Mr. Allman at least with this application, or pursuing this
application with JEM X, LLC, would essentially sever themselves from that concept plan TLZM 2008-
05, establishing themselves a brand new concept plan and proffer specific to his property only. That'd
be it.
Council Member Campbell: The denial, in effect, would just simply maintain that relationship because
it goes back to the 2008 plan?
Shane Murphy: Right, a denial of this current application would maintain the validity of TLZM-2008-05,
They have proffers and they understand that they need to work together with access, and those are all
maintained even with this development should it be approved, but yes, you're right, if this application is
denied, concept plan 2008-05 remains intact.
Council Member Campbell: Okay. More questions later. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Miss Fox.
Council Member Fox: Thanks. I do have a few questions. As far as, it says Council action requested
a decision to approve with conditions, can you just go ahead and outline those conditions one by one?
Chris Murphy: Conditions are provided in the-- There are not many, but let me get those for you in the
draft ordinance which is attached to your staff report rezoning application is hereby approved subject
to the proper statement TLZM-2017-04. Development of this property shall be substantial conformance
with the plan set, concept plan entitled rezoning concept plan and proffer amendment. If a Court of
Page 46| August 11, 2020
competent jurisdiction declares any provision of this ordinance invalid, decision shall not affect the
validity of the ordinance as a whole. That's really it.
Council Member Fox: Okay. In the proffer statement, proffer number five. There's a proviso that allows
for the reasonable modification and extension of business hours based on State and Federal holidays,
but no other specifics or proffered hours of operation, nothing at all.
Chris Murphy: Nothing.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Let's see. My next question would be, what is allowed there? Could you
just show us again, what's allowed there right now, either by right or by what's been approved?
Chris Murphy: Here's the comparison. On the top is the approved ZM-2008-05. Building G, sit down
restaurant, 6,000 square feet. Building H is 13,000 square feet of office on the second floor, retail,
13,000 square feet on the first floor of that building. Building I is a 4,000 square foot building that can
be used as either a bank with a drive-thru, a pharmacy with or without a drive-thru and/or additional
office space. As proposed, the applicant would come with instead of move Building H to make it Building
A office would be 9,500 square feet on a second floor. Retail uses would range from 7,000 square foot
minimum to a 13,000 square foot max, and restaurant would be either to be a no restaurant to a
maximum of 6,000 square feet. The pharmacy with drive-thru would amount to 10,000 square feet in
Building B.
Council Member Fox: So that's always a possibility no matter what? That is always a possibility no
matter what?
Chris Murphy: The first one?
Council Member Fox: Yes.
Chris Murphy: Yes. If you deny this current application, the approved remains in effect.
Council Member Fox: Okay. The H1 overlay to protect the character of the historic Greenway Manor,
how does that fit into this, the one that's approved already? Did the overlay come after that approval?
Chris Murphy: No. With the 2008-05, that application was approved by Council, however, it had not
gone through the BAR for COA. Technically, it's got Town Council approval but not BAR approval yet.
However, from this understanding of the H1 design guidelines, smaller footprints like more human-scale
development, its staff assessment that that would be more appropriate in this district versus the front
part is consistent, the Building H for Part A versus the Building B, which takes all the square foot area
from G and I, puts it together into one into a single story block type building. That's staff’s assessment.
Ultimately, the decision on design and how it fits is with the BAR, however you as Council can set the
table as to what the BAR will review.
Council Member Fox: Okay. As far as the traffic pattern, one of the things that's-- The intensity factor
was the parking, but I'm worried, I'm looking at the traffic pattern. If I'm looking at this illustrated right
here, the current proposal 2020 on Page 3 down here, I see an in off of King Street.
Chris Murphy: Is that my application or is that the applicant’s?
Council Member Fox: This, I don't know.
Chris Murphy: I believe that's the applicant's presentation.
Council Member Fox: Okay, so can I ask what's been approved as far as ingress and egress? W ill the
egress always come out to Greenway and back out to King Street?
Chris Murphy: Well, there'll be an access via Greenway Drive. It’s approximately where the existing
access point is right now, that will be maintained, it'll be improved. There will be a one-way in, one-way
Page 47| August 11, 2020
out access directly from South King Street. Ultimately, this will tie to the development on the Stanfield
property, which is to the south of it and Stanfield also has a proposal to connect itself with Meade Drive
further to the north.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Got you.
Chris Murphy: Further to the south rather, I'm sorry.
Council Member Fox: Okay. All right. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg. I'm sorry?
Council Member Steinberg: No questions.
Mayor Burk: Oh, okay. I do have a couple of questions for you. The application was last at the Planning
Commission, April 18th, 2019. [crosstalk]
Chris Murphy: Correct.
Mayor Burk: It was recommended denial then. What is taking the application this long to bring it to
Council? Why did it take so long?
Chris Murphy: Well, you probably have to ask the applicant the reason why it took them so long to
come back to us. We did have various meetings with them throughout that time in which the applicant
was fine-tuning the designs, trying to come up with answers to those questions, those concerns raised
by the Planning Commission and the public during a public hearing process. Some of that time could
have been preparing those plans for that, but the specifics as to why it took so long I think is best
answered by the applicant.
Mayor Burk: On April 18th, 2019, staff could not recommend approval. On August 11, 2020, staff finds
the application meets the approval, what items changed to change staffs' opinion?
Chris Murphy: The applicant had made changes to Part A, added the second story and include and
brought the office back. The applicant increased or decreased the amount of parking on the site and
thus realized-- they realized economies by going from initially they had the WB-67 which is a tractor-
trailer as their delivery truck. By reverting back to the SU-30 type delivery truck, they're able to
economize in space, they were able to apply the newly adopted parking requirements in the B1 to see
some economy and numbers of parking spaces there. As a result, improved on some of their open
space areas and enlarge some of the landscaping areas, provided some outdoor spaces, some meeting
space, some outdoor dining areas, et cetera. Based on those, staff’s position changed from outright
denial to that decision that we had back then.
Mayor Burk: Okay. A lot of aesthetics.
Chris Murphy: A lot of aesthetics. Right. Right. As well as the way things work. The going from the
WB-67 to the SU-30 was a very big change.
Mayor Burk: Oh really? Okay. April 18th, 2019, Mr. Boucher explained that the issue was the 9,700
square foot pharmacy and staff's opinion that was just too intense of a use on this corner surrounded
by residential development and didn't meet the intent of the Town Plan. In addition, it's not in keeping
with the H1 character. Why now the building that's even bigger, it's 10,300 square feet, why is the
intensity acceptable now?
Chris Murphy: I didn't say it was acceptable. I said that, as a matter of fact, in my slide, I talked about
how staff has concerns that the Part B, it’s a 10,000 square foot single tenant, large block building. It's
more typical of a suburban commercial strip or a pad site that you see in a suburban commercial center
versus a neighborhood commercial center.
Page 48| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: On page 365, it talks about easements on the property, but we don't have any
understanding of how these might affect the other parcel. Are they taken together? The easements, is
the other property considered when you consider the easement of those?
Chris Murphy: They've agreed to work together to make sure that each property has the proper
easements to build the development that's approved on their properties. We've had meetings between,
specifically with stormwater management, for one instance, meetings with the applicant, the applicant's
engineers, as well as the adjacent property owner’s engineers, and have ironed out some issues with
stormwater management in particular. Established that any necessary easements for ingress, egress,
utilities and stormwater management are all being worked out.
Our engineering department, our Department of Plan Review, feels confident that the progress that
we've made in this and where we stand today will allow for the adequate development of both properties.
No matter what is approved, both properties have in place the means to provide whatever easements
are necessary to make those developments happen.
Mayor Burk: All right, I will hold my questions to the applicant.
Chris Murphy: Okay.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I appreciate it. We have a short presentation from the applicant.
Chris Murphy: Okay. Bear with me one second. Let me take mine down. [inaudible 02:59:31] I
apologize. [unintelligible 02:59:54] we're having trouble open up the-- Oh, there it is. Okay. [chuckles]
Mayor Burk: Okay, this is the other site. This is the other presentation.
Matt Leslie: It's up on the screen, but it's not-- Oh, you know what, here we go.
Mayor Burk: Oh, I'm sorry. [laughs] Yes, continue. Please introduce yourself.
Matt Leslie: Good evening. My name is Matt Leslie. I'm a Land Use Coordinator with Walsh Colucci in
our Leesburg office. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant, JEM Development. Joining me tonight
are Cory Martin from JEM Development. Andrew Painter from Walsh Colucci, Travis D'Amico from
Bohler Engineering, Steve Beattie from Larson Design, Al Hansen for DBI Architects and Grady
Vaughan from Wells & Associates. I wanted to note my appreciation of staff for working on this
application. I especially want to thank Chris Murphy and Brian Boucher for their work on this project.
We're very happy with where we've been able to get with this project and we certainly wouldn't have
been able to do so without their assistance and guidance. I thank the Town Council for this opportunity
to expand on staff's presentation of the project and appreciate the opportunity to share with you a couple
of points. This property has faced a long road towards development. The applicant's reason for being
here tonight, however simple, we want to make an investment in the Town of Leesburg. One the Town
and the community can be proud of that meets the Town's policy goals, and will be successful in the
short and long term. The lack of development on the property has proven that the currently approved
concept plans limitation of a corner pad site to 4,000 square feet makes the current plan economically
unrealistic.
It's simple that any successful development on this site is heavily dependent on a strong corner anchor
presence. There are essentially no businesses that can fit the allowed uses on the corner path, which
can operate successfully in 4,000 square feet. The plan before you tonight addresses this issue and
much more. We've used the time since this application was originally filed over three years ago, to make
significant changes and the current proposal is almost unrecognizable from the one originally proposed
in 2017.
We have heard not only the concerns of the Town's Planning Commission and the Town staff, but the
concerns and the input from the community and we've taken that to heart. We feel we have addressed
these concerns and that's reflected in our proper commitments and the proposal you're being shown
Page 49| August 11, 2020
tonight. Just to reorient, the property is a 3.68 acre vacant site on the corner of Greenway Drive,
Greenway Drive and South King Street. It's in the B1 community downtown business district zoning,
which would be the zoning you would find it in the heart of downtown Leesburg and is in the H1 overlay
district.
The currently approved plan as staff previously mentioned is a 10-year-old plan and can be built today
pending BAR approval. From an intensity perspective, the uses on the property can operate 24/7.
Currently, there's 36,000 square feet of mixed uses approved on the property. 6,000 square feet of
restaurant without the receding, a two story 26,000 square foot retail and office building and, of course,
the 4,000 square foot bank or pharmacy building.
We've developed the vision for this property over time with staff in the community. I wanted to share
the goals that we've developed together as far as our vision for this property. First, we wanted to make
a substantial investment in the Town of Leesburg. By constructing over 32,000 square feet of
commercial space, we're estimated to provide at least $4 million to $5 million in revenue for the Town
over the next 20 years. We wanted to create a sense of integration within the community and our
surroundings.
We feel that we've provided a site that respects the rural and prominent nature of being along the
gateway into downtown Leesburg. That also respects the historic district intent and the presence of the
Greenway Manor to our south. We wanted to create meaningful inviting spaces that created a sense of
place. We feel we've done this through ample outdoor seating, substantial green spaces and clear
pathways for access. We wanted to enhance the pedestrian network across the site. We've done this
through numerous pathways through the site and around, as well as crosswalks throughout our entire
parking lot.
They want to cover some of the proposals we've gone through from 2017 through 2019 and to today,
in 2017, we started with a very boxy suburban-like focus with no outdoor seating and we've gone
through various iterations as Chris mentioned on the mixed-use building, looking at one and two stories,
ultimately settling on the two stories. In 2019, we made changes to the mixed-use building to mirror the
mixed-use building from the currently approved plan for 2008. We have definitely made significant
increases to building articulation, as well as landscaping and outdoor seating in an open space over
time.
The current proposal before you tonight is 32,800 square feet of total development, 3,200 square feet
less than what is currently approved on the property today. A 10,300 square foot pharmacy with drive-
thru, which increased from our 9,700 square foot pharmacy we had been proposing for quite some time
due to the BAR and staff looking to see a little more articulation on the CVS building, which we were
happy to accommodate.
The mixed-use building is two stories, 22,500 square feet with a maximum of 6,000 square feet of
casual dining with no drive-thru, 7,000 square feet of retail space and as Chris mentioned, 9,500 square
feet of office space. We're providing significant landscaping throughout the property, ample outdoor
seating for any potential restaurant uses, which is particularly important during the ongoing COVID-19
situation, but will also provide a lasting amenity to the property and the community around us. The BAR
has had a chance to look at this proposal and looking at scale and massing had no major issues with
either building and were generally in favor of the proposed architecture, particularly when it comes to
the CVS.
In regards to the transportation plan and improvements, we are constructing the right in, right out access
for Route 15 that will serve our property and the Stanfield property. For Greenway Drive, we're adding
an additional left-turn lane to go north on Route 15 to add some breathing room to that intersection, as
well as adding a landscaped raised median along Greenway Drive, which will increase safety.
We're reimbursing the Town and carrying forward our commitments to reimburse for the construction
of the shared use path, as well as $300,000 for the traffic signal. Giving back to the Town hundreds of
thousands of dollars, which they will not get until something is constructed on this property. We've also
carried forwards limitation on the size of the delivery vehicles.
Page 50| August 11, 2020
This gives you a good sense of the architecture and how it's evolved from 2017 to the current proposal.
I did want to show a zoomed-in photo of this. We've really feel like we've been able to tie in the materials
and the rural character of the neighboring barn and silo. We've done this through routing brick and
siding materials and colors that match the adjacent Greenway Manor and incorporating the roof angles
from the barn. We feel that the CVS building is now much less of a typical corporate CVS, and is a
building that reflects the semi-rural ambiance of the site.
These views provide a street-level view of the property, and I'll go through a few of these with you. This
particular view shows the mixed-use building and is the view that folks will see as they enter the Town
of Leesburg going north on Route 15. This site is along the gateway to Leesburg, and we feel that this
is an image that the Town can be proud of. This image shows the Southwest corner looking north again,
showing the mixed-use building in the foreground and the CVS in the very, very far back. I think this
gives a good perspective on the landscaping that offers us and the Stanfield property, shielding the
Greenway Manor and the adjacent barn and silo from our property.
This shows the view looking west along South King Street. You can see to the left of the screen is a
mixed-use building, and to the right the CVS. It really shows the buffering that we've put along the South
King Street area there to protect the view shed of this historic byway. This view shows the view that
folks coming in and out of Greenway farms will see as they come and go on their daily commute, and
shows the CVS building in the foreground and the mixed-use building in the background. These next
two images show that a similar view going along Greenway Drive as you're making your way out to
South King Street.
Did want to summarize the changes in the commitments we're making. Of course, we've updated the
architecture for both buildings. As Chris mentioned, we have agreements in place for stormwater
management and infrastructure improvements. Prior to the occupancy of the pharmacy, we must
complete this mixed-use building. That's a proffer commitment that we're happy to make.
We're reducing the size of the delivery vehicles to the SU-30. We're reducing and limiting the hours for
delivery and trash pickup. We're reducing and limiting the hours of operation for the pharmacy,
something that the current plan does not do for any of the uses that are allowed on the site. We're also
limiting the height of the light poles and placing automatic controls to reduce lighting after hours.
In conclusion, this is a project that makes a substantial investment in the Town of Leesburg by
constructing over 32,000 square feet of commercial space. It's estimated to provide $4 million to $5
million in revenue to the Town. Retail and office have been struggling in this current environment, but
we stand ready to make this investment. This is a plan that works economically for us, but also for the
Town by meeting Town policy goals and visions for the site that will protect the southern gateway into
downtown Leesburg. It's a plan that works for the community by reducing intensity of use on the site
and providing amenities for the community within walking and biking distance.
We feel that we've created a sense of integration within the community and the surroundings by creating
meaningful inviting spaces through outdoor seating, green spaces, ample open space, and clear
pathways for access. We also feel that we have respected the historic district intent in the presence of
the Greenway Manor through a plan that meets the scale and massing the Town is looking for in this
area, and through the utilization of architecture, materials and colors from the nearby historic Manor
property.
Council Members, we have gone through a long journey to get here tonight, we've held numerous
community meetings with the Greenway Farms and Meadowbrook Farm Estates communities, and
we've made substantial efforts to incorporate their feedback. I thank you again for the opportunity to
share with you the progress we have made, and myself and the rest of our team are ready and here to
answer any questions that you all may have. Thank you for the opportunity.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Council Member Campbell, do you have any questions?
Council Member Campbell: Look, within the vision statement that you talked about, the integration
within the community. I would add a slight change, and you can give me some feedback on the meetings
Page 51| August 11, 2020
you have with the community. It's the integration with the community. That's what's substantial I think
to me, and some of the community members that I've been speaking with. How does this fit differently,
and early I asked about the separation, but let me stop and ask you what feedback did you get from the
meetings with the community, particularly as it regards to the CVS addition?
Matt Leslie: A lot of the feedback that we got focused on the fact that folks really didn't want to see
anything on this site. It was a hard fact to relate to them that there is a commercial development plan
already approved for this project. What we tried to do was make adjustments to our proposal that
address their concerns, and a lot of their concerns were from noise and traffic, and so we've done things
like reduce the parking and the intensity of the use on the site, whereby reducing and comm itting to
hours of operations that are limited, particularly for the pharmacy.
As Chris mentioned, we really feel that we've taken our most intense use as we're willing to agree to
and we've limited that by proffering to limit the hours of operation there. It remains the fact that the
current approved plan has no limitations on the hours of operation. From a noise concern, that's a
concern that exists today. We feel we've taken steps to address that with our current proposal, and
that'd be [unintelligible 03:11:56]
Council Member Campbell: Now, again, as you said, things have changed and I wasn't here in 2008.
I was living in Town, but not there. Obviously, that portion of Town has been the last section to be
developed. As everybody knows, we've had commercial interests that we've actually denied before
because it didn't fit with the balance of the community in the existing Meadowbrook Farms community.
We're going to think very carefully about how we continue to develop that area as we look at resources
and we've talked before what's in other sections of Town, what do we need, what are we trying to build
and develop, because that is the vision.
As your vision as developers of space, but as our-- the vision as developers of a community, and what
fits. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time asking you about design and egress, because the decision
is going to come down to less than that. I agree that you probably working very well together with the
staff. The staff and the Planning Commission has given a lot of feedback and all those things are up to
date., but at the end of the day, is it the right plan for this property in this community? I know you're
feeling it is and I want you to address that. That's what it's going to come down to. Is this right?
Matt Leslie: We certainly feel this is a better plan than what's currently approved on the property today.
We're making substantial investments in the landscaping. The landscaping plan that we have in this
plan is a massive increase in trees and shrubberies that will shield the surrounding residential uses
from us. In terms of our view shed impacts for Meadowbrook Farm Estates, they have a massive berm
along South King Street that really protects not only their view of the property, but also our view of them.
You're really talking about any view shed impacts with Greenway Farms.
We actually had a resident that reached out to us and asked for these images, specifically, of what his
view would look like from his cul-de-sac. We put these image images together specifically for him to
address those concerns. Again, there is a plan that is approved already, that somebody could come in
today and construct that. Now, granted nobody has, and I think that that's for the fact that economically
that site is a struggle to make work for anybody.
CVS is the driving force behind this development, for sure, and that's been one of the things that we've
focused on the most and trying to improve. We're going to try to improve the look of the building
substantially. Again, the BAR referral, they had no issues basically with the architecture of the CVS
building. By limiting the hours of operation to CVS, we feel we've addressed the intensity of the use and
any concerns that might be about folks making noise coming in and out late at night.
Council Member Campbell: Right, but staff still have concerns. Again, I'm trying not to focus on a 2008
plan, but the severing of proffers and relationships also talks about a joint development. To go back to
2008, you'd have to go back to the joint development concept, not just the individual property. I'm trying
to move away from that and where we are today, but what I want to see the joint development is with
the historic nature and what people in a very mature community want and need in their neighborhood
in terms of what we deliver, we deliver as a Council, because sometimes we have to deliver amenities.
Page 52| August 11, 2020
Sometimes they want parks, they don't get a park. There are things that are going on and there's a very
substantial property right to the left of that picture, very, very substantial.
Matt Leslie: A couple things, they have a plan in right now to sever themselves from us. It's not just
like us, we're not leaving the altar as it were and leaving someone else saying they're also looking to
move forward on their own. In terms of our relationship as it pertains to the Greenway Manor property
as it is today, a couple of things we feel this plan does better, we've moved our-- That's not necessarily
reflected in this image, but we have removed the third building, which was the building that was closest
to the Greenway Manor, would have been most impactful to that property in any uses ongoing today or
in the future.
We think that's not a small thing that that's a massive improvement by spacing our proposed
development further away from anything that happens on that property, whether it's what they're
proposing today or if they just continue doing what they're doing now. In addition to that, we have
attempted valiantly to incorporate the architecture from the Greenway Manor property and I'd be happy
to turn to Steve or to Al, our architects are on-hand if you have any specific questions on that.
Council Member Campbell: This a staff report, right? The intensive commercial development will
degrade the established residential character. Architecturally or commercially, how do you answer that
question?
Matt Leslie: I would push back very, very hard that we're-- Yes.
Council Member Campbell: Yes.
Cory Martin: Mr. Campbell, Cory Martin, I'm the applicant for the process, for the project. Intensity
comments, it is something we can debate over. Our project has less square footage, has less traffic,
has less parking. We have limited the hours of operation and the point about the 24-hour operations
with CVS, we've already discussed that with staff, we can take that out for when you mentioned
something to the effect of, to reasonably be changed in the future. We've agreed to take that out. The
hours of the operation for the retail building was just brought up to us from staff last month. We've had
informal conversations with staff and saying we can modify that too, but since we've just heard it now,
we didn't want to change the proffers.
We believe the project works. I think it is somewhat of a false choice with the 2008 plan in this plan. I
don't think the economic factors of this project it's very expensive to develop, being in the H1 with the
architecture, the infrastructure, and the proffers. A 4,000 square foot bank or retail building or a
restaurant or an office, economically, the project's not viable. You can't do what's required to make the
project work.
The elephant in the room is CVS, I understand that completely. Some people don't like CVS, some
people do, and that's their own opinion. I believe the architecture is unbelievably enhanced from what
normally would happen with CVS, we're proud of that. The BAR has had no objection to it. The retail
building, I think, is what was in the original plan. We can build this plan. We're open to suggestions.
We've worked for years now to work on this. We are open to feedback, but we believe we've done a lot
to make this project work, and hopefully we can.
Council Member Campbell: I appreciate that. I know everybody has put a lot of money, time, and
effort to do what is reasonable. It's a business, but yet, it's also an opportunity to partner with the
community. Our job is to vet, answer the questions, or ask the questions that staff ask us to ask and
the community asked us to ask. This isn't adversarial. It's just simply open conversation right now.
Matt Leslie: I would say, just to reiterate what Cory said from an hours-of-operations standpoint, we
didn't alter our proffers before tonight because we just didn't have time to get them approved to legal
form and before you. We're open to having that dialogue. Right now, the CVS hours of operation are
limited, Monday through-- sorry, Sunday through Friday to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and then on Saturday
open till midnight. We're open to just doing seven days 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
Page 53| August 11, 2020
We are also open to the idea of limiting our hours of operation for all of the uses that are proposed
within the mixed-use building. Obviously, for the restaurant, I think we would hope to be provided some
flexibility within reason, and also understanding the nature of where this site is, right? This is not
downtown Leesburg. A timeline for how long a business and a restaurant might be open in downtown
Leesburg is probably much different than how long a restaurant would want to or that it would make
sense for a restaurant to be open in this part of the Town.
I think from all of those perspectives, we're definitely open to incorporating that. In our conversations
with staff, our understanding is that would go a long way towards reducing intensity on the site from
their perspective, and would it certainly address that concern?
Council Member Campbell: I just have one more question. I'll let my colleagues also quiz you. It has
to be a CVS in that spot.
Matt Leslie: They are the driving force behind this application.
Council Member Campbell: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox, have you spoken?
Council Member Fox: I haven’t.
Mayor Burk: Okay.
Council Member Fox: Thanks for your presentation. Just have a couple of questions. I actually, my
colleague asked a few questions that I have written down here. The current proposal and I keep coming
back to that too, and you had reference it a few times to say this is a better plan. The small building on
that quarter lot is just not an economically feasible building for the plan that you need and because CVS
is the driver and that would be the spot, this is why we need something bigger here. Am I correct?
Matt Leslie: Yes, and also we were at 9,700 square feet for a long time. We are at 10,300 to 9,600
square feet increase, not because we're looking to increase it even more, but because we were asked
in our conversations with staff and the BAR and the community we were asked to try and improve the
look and the architecture on the CVS building. When we were able to do that, by was increasing the
building articulation on the CVS. That's where that extra square footage comes from. It doesn't
necessarily preclude that we would necessarily get even any operational square footage increases. It's
just that we're just being honest about what the outline of the building would be there.
Council Member Fox: Okay. You referenced phasing. I didn't seen much about it, but I can't recall.
Are you offering to do everything at one time? Or how's the phasing work, I suppose?
Cory Martin: The phasing. We brought up the comments of from the Planning Commission, one of
them was about the viability or the reality of the retail building. They thought that if we got this approved,
we'd never build that building and only build the CVS building. We took that to heart. We've worked with
staff and revised the proffers. You cannot get a certificate of occupancy for the CVS until we show that
retail building is built, shall have a retail and office building is built. That's a commitment to make sure
that building does get built in conjunction. It will be built continuously.
Council Member Fox: Okay.
Matt Leslie: Also, from a phasing perspective, one concern that we had from the Stanfield property
was access to their property, particularly during construction of our site. Something that we've proffered
is to do the infrastructure improvements during phase one. We can't guarantee that we're going to get
the right in, right out off of South King Street complete before we start putting up any sort of foundation
work on the buildings that we're building. That commitment to do that in phase one was important
because we want to complete that access as quickly as possible for us, but also to provide an alternative
access point throughout construction, so that they are not dependent on the same access point that we
Page 54| August 11, 2020
would be using during construction. I believe we have agreements about not blocking that access during
construction, the existing access for the day care that is there. [unintelligible 03:24:12].
Alan Hansen: Alan Hansen. A few comments about architecture here, because this is a unique area
of the H1. As you all well know, it's not King and Market, and it's not King and Loudoun Street. It's a
farm. It's a manor home, other outbuildings, and a wonderful three-story barn. When it's all said and
done, we can talk about hours of operation and the square footage of this and so on, but I maintain that
these pieces will fit very well with the farm that's there. If you look at those two elevations, well, it would
be really powerful if you had the original proposal with three buildings.
Those buildings got very close to the barn, in my estimation. By creating two buildings instead of three,
we've pulled them away. There's another thing that's important too, is look on the left, there's a hill. It's
working its way up the hill. The barn is three stories and it's up in elevation. I'm trying to remember the
exact number of feet, five feet, something like that. Look at as we work our way down, we go to two
stories and we've actually lowered the roofline a little bit over the 2008 proposal so that it steps. When
you get down to the bottom, you're down to the pharmacy, the CVS building, which is more the scale of
the houses in the area, Greenway Farm on the street, and so on.
I think we've worked really hard to work our way down the hill, using the same materials, brick and
siding, and pull away. What's even more cool is that the space between the retail building and the barn,
rather than just a bunch of cars, if you go to the plan, because the building kicks back to the west a little
bit, just like it did back in 2008, there's these great spaces that are created for tables and chairs and
umbrellas and people have some lunch, sit, and so on, on the south side. I think it's a great neighbor,
really, 360 degrees. I think we work very hard to get the new-- the word is contextual, except this context
is completely different than any other place you find in the H1s. That's just an architectural overview.
Matt Leslie: Thanks, Al.
Council Member Fox: Thank you. It's attractive, I'm going to give you that. When you showed us the
view of all the trees and what the views would be like, I'm going to assume that's about 10 years out
when all the landscaping is more mature. Or are you going to bring in mature trees?
Matt Leslie: Travis our engineer can speak to what the type of landscaping is specifically.
Travis D'Amico: Good evening. Travis D'Amico. That assumes growth. That's not initial planting.
Council Member Fox: That assumes growth.
Travis D’Amico: That assumes some growth. That is what the greenery will look like. There's a
sufficient amount of screening to the housing as you can see from the street-level perspectives.
Council Member Fox: Go back to the one slide where you have the 2017 plan and now the 2020 plan.
I noticed a sign on the CVS on the 2017 plan and none on the 2020 plan, could you tell me what your
plans are for that?
Matt Leslie: We understand that if our proposal is approved by Town Council, that we would be required
to go to the BAR to receive a certificate of appropriateness. One of the conversations we had with the
BAR during our referral process for this public hearing was regarding signage. We understand that
there are very strict requirements for signage in the H1, and we're prepared to meet those. We removed
the signage and any reference to that in our architectural images, because we felt it took away from
what was really important at this point, which is getting the proposal approved.
The signage rules are what the signage rules are, so we're going to have to work within that. To CVS's
credit, big corporate corporations are not always willing to change how they do things. Then with this
particular location, they were willing to say "Okay, we'll give up our typical corporate signage and the
stuff that might identify a building as a CVS. This will be a very, very unique CVS, both from an
architecture standpoint, and certainly, if we're lucky enough to be approved and going through the BAR-
CLA process, it'll be some pretty unique CVS signs."
Page 55| August 11, 2020
Council Member Fox: I'm going to go back to what Council Member Campbell said about integration
within the community. The feedback we've had from the community is a little bit different than what you
have expressed to us that you've had with a community. Again, within, if you look at the surroundings,
this doesn't fit within the community. How would you explain you're going to integrate within the
community?
Matt Leslie: This is a very unique area. We're uniquely zoned and uniquely situated. We are a
commercially zoned property that's surrounded by mostly residential. We have a day care directly to
our west and then, of course, the historic Greenway Manor property, which is currently being used, I
believe, also through for our K-5 facility, for the-- I think it's a dance studio. Of course, they have
substantial plans to expand. How this fits with the overall area and including the Meadowbrook Farms
Estate residential community across the street, we really think that this can provide a community
amenity.
This can be something that folks can walk and bike to, that they can grab a bite to eat, or they can
hopefully patron a small business. Particularly, during COVID-19, being within walking distance of a
pharmacy certainly seems all of a sudden to not be such a bad idea. We've heard that there are lots of
pharmacies within driving distance, and that's true, but having a pharmacy within walking distance takes
cars off the road, and that's a fact. Like I've said, we feel like we have tried to hear their concerns about
architecture and view sheds, and particularly the view sheds by increasing that landscaping.
Also, there have been things that have been asked for, some of which have been incorporated and
some of which we're still really frankly mulling over. One thing that was brought up in a community
meeting was potentially the addition of some fountain water features, which we've looked at and
potentially incorporating in the plan in the two areas, the two blue areas pointed out by the red arrows
there. Our interactions with the community and how we've tried to integrate this. It's a unique situation,
for sure, but we think that we've vastly improved what's currently approved there today and we've tried
to take as much of the community input to heart in this plan as possible and, Cory, anything you want
to add to that?
Cory Martin: To your question, we're going to rely on the BAR. They are the guardians of the H1. We've
met with them over the years, six or seven times, their report says they can work with this to get the H1
standards, there's a different appropriate process, we'll have to abide by their guidelines and they will
get us there. They said this project can work for them. That's how we're going to get the fit. I believe.
That's who we're going to trust to do it.
Alan Hansen: Cory, if I may.
Cory Martin: Sure.
Mayor Burk: Gentlemen, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we do have a very long agenda tonight.
Alan Hansen: I understand. This is very short.
Mayor Burk: You've talked quite a bit. [laughs]
Alan Hansen: One quick comment. I've sat in on all the neighborhood meetings, and I guess I haven't
heard-- I have hand notes of everything that was said, we have recordings of everything that was said,
so I'm not sure exactly what you've heard. I heard the trucks and the hours and so on, but architecturally,
not only we have fewer buildings, but they're broken up into smaller pieces. I think a great exercise
would be to just to take a standard residential home from Greenway farms and put a couple of them on
there in the drawing and see how they fit, because I think you would look, you would see that the smaller
pieces that the buildings are broken up into it's happy, it's in context. Like I say, I'm not sure what you
all were hearing, but ours were hours of operation I didn’t get into the architecture.
Mayor Burk: Thank you.
Alan Hansen: It was good. Thanks.
Page 56| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Has Mr. Dunn spoken? Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: A couple of comments and questions. One prior to COVID, we probably were
arguing how the drive-thru is not acceptable, but drive-thrus made many businesses survive over the
last few months. The architecture is definitely an improvement. The only thing that I would suggest, I
think it was brought up by the applicant just a few minutes ago, and that it's not like a Market Street or
King Street because it's a farm, and farms have a number of outbuildings, the manor house, many
outbuildings.
I'm surprised though that that wasn't a consideration in your designs. Obviously, bigger box operations
want to be contained in a more of a box-type setting and then you'll have elevations added to that box
to try and dress it up. I would have liked to have seen more Federation, fenestration, excuse me, in
your project. In that, in essence, your buildings other than one curve are pretty linear, other than the
fact that you put some elevations on it to make the roof lines look a little different, but you didn't move
the actual sections of those buildings in or out from the next building. It's still got this linear effect.
I would encourage you to consider looking at-- I just went on vacation a couple of weeks ago and crazy
me, when I drive around, I look for architecture and how it looks in that community. I was in Williamsburg
and I went to New Town in James City County. I would encourage you to look at that development, and
they took what you're talking about and made smaller sections within that larger development of
individual retail establishments that had different shapes, designs, and fenestrations, chimneys, bay
windows that were used for sale signs. It really looked like you were going into a community, not a
shopping center.
Frankly, the responses we're getting from the citizens though, they're not saying, "No, we don't want
this because of the architecture." They're just saying, "No, we don't want this." I don't know that any
architecture would make that better. However, I think that if they're looking for, as staff put it, there's an
intensity issue there and it doesn't fit in with the residential. Well, it feels a little boxy, and maybe by
breaking it up more, it could appear less boxy, but anyway, I don't want to belabor that.
I think the architectural- the elevations look good. On my way back from Williamsburg, I drove through
Manassas on south the 28 or off of Liberia Avenue. I forget which one it is. As you go from 28 over to
234, there's another little shopping center there, much like what you're talking about, where different
elevations, but it looks made up because in actuality, the elevations were just put on top of boxes and
it was very linear underneath those different elevations. There's a big difference between the two. I
encourage you to take a look at those. I guess for staff, my question is, if this is not compatible for the
area, why is it still allowed for the area? That's for staff.
Matt Leslie: Chris is making his way to the mic.
Chris Murphy: Sorry, Mr. Dunn. Could you repeat that question? Why is it still permitted?
Council Member Dunn: Yes. Generally what was been said is that this is not really compatible for the
area. If we are generally allowing the uses and the square footage, the massing is less than what is
allowed, then why is it not anything if we're allowing it overall?
Chris Murphy: Well, it's allowed-- Okay, there's an approved zoning on the property that permits the
development of 36,000 square feet of commercial. This is part of the--
Council Member Dunn: Excuse me, I can hardly hear you at all.
Chris Murphy: I'm sorry, sir. There's an approved rezoning on the property that permits the
development of 36,000 square feet of uses. The property owner proposes to revise that development
for 32,000 square feet, some odd square feet for more commercial uses. Staff’s contention that they’re
concerned with the design, the layout of that proposed amendment to the concept plan and the inclusion
of a large box will qualify as a pad site type development more indicative of a commercial or suburban,
traditional suburban commercial strip center versus what one might see in a predominantly single-
family, detached neighborhood commercial center.
Page 57| August 11, 2020
That's our concern with the development as proposed. The uses in and of themselves are permissible
under the zoning. It's just a question to Council as to whether you agree that the amendm ent to the
approved plan is a better plan therefore worthy of approval versus over the approved- over the existing
approved plan. I hope that helps.
Council Member Dunn: Yes, it does. Again though, I think we're looking at overall, it just seems like
the public is, and when I talked to the applicant, I mentioned this to them that if we get just overwhelming
opposition to this, it makes it very typical to say, yes, we're going to push this on the neighbors who
have to live with it. I'm on the other side of Town. I don't get over there much, so I'm not voting on it
based on my use, but I have to consider the neighbors who have to live with this.
As mentioned before, we're getting a lot of opposition to it. I don't know if that opposition can be
mitigated by better designs or breaking up buildings or what the actual uses are other than people are
saying, we don't need another CVS. I'd venture to guess if we've been somewhere that use, they
probably wouldn't want that.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Mr. Martinez, have you had any comments?
Vice Mayor Martinez: You mentioned the BAR a couple of times. Are you telling me you ran this
application through the BAR?
Matt Leslie: We've gone through the BAR referral process per the process that applications go.
Vice Mayor Martinez: It’s strictly as a referral not as the application going through.
Matt Leslie: Yes. We have not received a certificate of appropriateness.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Their comments were that they could work with this. Does that mean that they
gave a tacit rule that this was okay? No?
Chris Murphy: BAR was consulted on referral at the review. The BAR made comments on the design,
they found some things they liked and some things that they realize that if this is approved, the BAR
can work with it. Ultimately the BAR consented to the idea that the ultimate decision on the design once
approved is Council's purview. They will review whatever comes to them through you.
Vice Mayor Martinez: It's still going to have to go through them.
Chris Murphy: Most definitely.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. They'll have a lot of input on what's going, what it's finally going to look
like.
Chris Murphy: Exactly, yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I don't think that was obvious. That should have been something that should
have been stated outright, if not staff, more so the applicant because that gives us another point of
review that's going to make it more compliant to what the Town Plan is and what the H1 is. We've talked
about intensity. I'm looking at by rights versus what you're asking for. What are the differences in
intensity square foot parking and proffers via versus by right? Would that be something that you would
probably need to answer?
Chris Murphy: I'm sorry, sir. I didn't get all of that as I was walking away. Could you [crosstalk]?
Vice Mayor Martinez: That's okay. That happens to me a lot with my wife. She doesn't hear me when
I talk to her. Let's go back to buy right versus this application. We've talked about intensity square
footage, parking, and there are some proffers on this application that we would not get via by right. I
just was wondering what's the--
Page 58| August 11, 2020
Chris Murphy: By right or by the approved concept plan?
Vice Mayor Martinez: The differences between the both.
Chris Murphy: By the approved concept plan, you have 36,000 square feet of commercial uses.
Vice Mayor Martinez: What could they have put up there by right?
Chris Murphy: As a B1? Well, the thing is, it was already a rezoned concept plan on the property. We
had to go way back to the ZM-1990-101. There was a concept plan before that from 1989. By right was
all established by concept plans, one continuous rezoning after another after another.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I get that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there has already been an
approved plan that they could build by if they chose to. As we talked about by right, I'm talking about
the approved concept plan versus this.
Matt Leslie: We're reducing parking. We're reducing square footage. We're proffering to limit hours
operation for the pharmacy and as mentioned, we're willing to work with Council on potentially limiting
hours for all of these that's on the property. We're carrying forward all of the proffer commitments that
were in place from the Allman-Stanfield rezoning as well as of course, adding the ones that I mentioned.
Vice Mayor Martinez: My point in asking those questions is there's a lot of difference between what
you could do versus what you want to do. A lot of those comparisons aren't being made so that we have
a better idea of what we're getting versus what we could have got with the original concept plan. I think
that's what I'm trying to get at, and how that has not been communicated as well as I think it should
have been, especially to some of our residents and talking about our residents, you say you had several
meetings.
Matt Leslie: Yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: How well attended were they? Was there a substantial number of residents or
was it a couple?
Matt Leslie: Our outreach to the community specifically since I been involved with this project since
February of this year, originally, we had been planning to meet with the community at Thomas Balch
Library. That was how I found out COVID-19 was going to be serious when my reservation was
canceled. [chuckles] We held three WebEx meetings, one with the Greenway Farms community, which
I believe have between 20 and 30 residents participating at its maximum. Chris was in attendance at
that meeting as well.
There's a meeting with the HOA board for Meadowbrook Farm Estates. Then another meeting was with
the broader community overall, which was attended by I would say about 20 residents. Chris was unable
to attend that last meeting with the broader Meadowbrook Farm Estate community, but that meeting
was recorded and a recording of the meeting was provided to staff.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Did you have any other way of communicating with the residents, like you have
maybe a mass email or a flyer or anything?
Matt Leslie: We don't. I don't have an email list with the residents' addresses. We sent out notice letters
to all the adjacent properties. Certainly, at the end of all of the community meetings, I made sure to list
my email address and was very open about asking anyone who had any questions. Or were wanting to
continue the conversation to please feel free to reach out to me, pass my information along to their
neighbors that may not have been able to make the meeting. I can say for myself personally, I have
received basically no communication directly, one on one, from the community regarding this project
outside of the community meetings that we've held.
Page 59| August 11, 2020
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay, and what was the feedback on some of the residents? We've already
talked about intensity in parking and other, but was there anything else outside that we haven't talked
about?
Matt Leslie: You've really hit it. Noise was a concern, a lot of the residences that we're talking about
are hundreds if not thousands of feet away from the property and with the landscaping that and other
structures that are already in place today, I think the impact from that would be minimal if anything at
all. Like I said, we've had conversations about including water features, and we're happy to continue
working with Council and the community. We would welcome the opportunity to continue this
conversation and then try to improve this project to a place where everyone can be happy with it. That's
been our goal all along and it remains our goal to make this a project that everyone can be proud of.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. You don't have to keep selling. [chuckles] As far as the hours go,
somewhere in the docket in the presentation was a comment that the hours could end up being 24/7.
Matt Leslie: The currently approved plan has no limitations regarding the hours of operation for any of
the uses, right? The currently approved plan for the restaurant and the retail and the office and the
pharmacy or bank, in theory, all of those businesses were that current plan to be constructed in
businesses to lease all the spaces could operate 24/7. I think particularly of concern would probably be
the sit-down restaurant or the retail operating 24/7.
The question is okay, how are we addressing that? Particularly, we've limited the hours of operation on
the pharmacy, which was the biggest concern for the community was that the CVS Pharmacy was going
to operate 24/7. We heard that concern and so we included in our proffer statement a commitment to
limit those hours. As I mentioned, we're flexible on limiting that even more to make it the uniform 6 to
10 all 7 days. We're also happy to have a conversation about including hours of operation for all of the
uses on our site.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. Then the next item is landscaping. I saw some landscaping. I'm just
wondering, is that enough to buffer the view from 15? I know you're going to have to have a sign
somewhere that says the shopping center.
Matt Leslie: Well, not necessarily. As I mentioned, we are going to be limited by the H1 overlay district
guidelines on signage. I'm not necessarily an expert on that. I think we'll be lucky if we can get a podium
sign if anything at all. As far as a standalone today, it's hard to see but in the image on the right where
you're getting just the front of the vehicle coming in on the left side of the screen, that is an existing
pedestal sign for the Greenway Farms community that exists there, that stone structure and fencing
exists today. Again, it would be unlikely to get an addition to that.
You asked about landscaping, as far as buffering between South King Street and our property. This is
the view that you would see if you were standing in the middle of South King Street going south.
Obviously, not advisable during rush hour, but you can see that there is the street tree, shared-use
path, additional street trees, a fence, shrubbery, then the parking lot then the buildings. There is a lot
between us and South King Street. We understand that's a historic byway and we wanted to really do
our best to respect the viewshed from that byway.
Vice Mayor Martinez: What was the Planning Commission's biggest concern about not recommending
it, not recommending the application?
Matt Leslie: I've only been involved with this project since February. I will say, as Chris mentioned,
Planning Commission, and maybe Cory can speak to this a little bit too. I do want to respect your time.
There were numerous issues that Planning Commission had. I feel like we've done a lot to address
those issues. Intensity was one, committing to constructing the office, we've taken care of that, limiting
hours of operation. We've done some of that. Like I said, we're willing to do more of that.
As far as the H1 overlay district, I think that will be taken care of by the BAR Certificate of
Appropriateness process that we will have to go through if we're so grateful to be approved by the
Council. Then the last concern was the impact to residential, which I think ties into the first issue of
Page 60| August 11, 2020
intensity, but we're really talking about what is- how this plan compares to what's currently approved
there and I keep coming back to that because I think it's the central argument of what we're trying to
make here is that this is objectively a better plan.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I personally would have felt better if you had taken his back to the Planning
Commission and covered all those issues with the Planning Commission and got their okay on it
because I value their opinion, and especially my own Planning Commissioner, I value her opinion highly.
That probably is going to be something I really have to consider in any decision I make. Anyway, I think
I have asked quite enough questions. Thank you. Chris, thank you for all your help.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg, have you asked questions? Do you have questions? Okay. I'd like to hear
from the public if there's any of them left. I don't know if any of them are still here. All right. Our first
speaker is Greg Winfield followed by Mr. Hansen. Are you speaking?
Greg Winfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Town Council. Thank you for this hearing. I feel like
I have five minutes to say something really important. I am one of the owners of Greenway Manor
property. We've owned that property now for 16 years. We've had so many dreams about what that
could be. It is one of the last frontiers in terms of something that I think is extremely important to
Leesburg, to our Town.
Just to give you a real brief history on this. When we bought the property, we knew that it was a B1 H1
property. We understood that. We felt like that was valuable, especially with the H1 overlay. When we
finally came back with a concept plan in 2012, it was actually approved. That was a two-year process
between us and the Allman family. We had to come up with something and we had to do this together.
We were mandated to go through the process together.
The reason it took us two years is that we insisted on having a concept plan for the Allman property
that would, at the very least, work well with the Manor house and the barn and the property that we
wanted to do work with. It was nightmarish to get there. At the end, while we really weren't extremely
excited about it, we had a concept plan on the Allman property that we felt well couldn't hurt us that
bad.
The restaurant was a beautiful structure, the bank that could be a pharmacy was small. It wasn't going
to be disruptive. The retail while not defined, it had some limitations on it and then the office on top. The
way the building was laid out, it had character. At that time, we knew that nothing could change that
plan without our approval. That held fast until the Cornerstone lawsuit and the subsequent change
where we could no longer-- No property owner could have any control over another adjoining space
legally. We lost our protection.
I still thought that since this was an H1 corrido that we would still be safe. Even when I first saw the
plans from CVS, I was like, "Well, that'll never go anywhere." I was really mistaken. It has gone farther
than I thought it would. We are totally opposed to this. What we are hoping to do with the property and
this was just probably a 30,000-foot level comment, I do feel like this was one of the last places in
Leesburg that we have that could really be a fantastic property. There's a reason why this overlay was
placed specifically on this area.
What this could be, what I believe should be ought to be something beyond my generation when people
come into Leesburg, they're going to look at this and say, "Oh my gosh, that is gorgeous. That is
wonderful." It's what I'm hoping for with this property. That puts pressure on our property and on the
Allman piece. We're both in the same boat. We all have to perform for this and I think for our community,
we have to give this our very best.
Mr. Martinez, you wanted to know what the Planning Commission thoughts were on this. The very last
words that were spoken, if it's recorded you can go and listen to this, the Chair of the Planning
Commission said, "This drugstore just does not belong here." It has nothing to do with architecture, it
has to do with the use. It has to do with--
Page 61| August 11, 2020
Here we've got a big box pharmacy national product that's going on this property and then a retail center
that hasn't been very well defined. They don't know what's going to go in there except they want to put
in now a fast-food restaurant. It's going to be just like everything else that can happen to a community
if we're not paying attention. My hope and prayer is that this thing gets killed. It's just killing me. Thank
you.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you. Is there anybody online at this point that's waiting to speak?
Betsy Arnett: Yes, Madam Mayor. We have four people who are on the WebEx who would like to
speak.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Betsy Arnett: Callers, I'm going to unmute you one by one to allow you to speak. When I unmute, you
will hear a tone, that will be your signal to make your remarks. You will have five minutes. I'm going to
start with Brian McAfee, as soon as you hear the tone, Mr. McAfee, please state and spell your full
name and address for the closed captions. Sir, I am unmuting you now.
Brian McAfee: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. My name is Brian McAfee, I reside in
Greenway Farms, 204 Lawn Hill Court Southwest. Hopefully, you've had an opportunity to read my
email along with the others that have been delivered. I'll refrain from repeating what I've already included
in that email and I'll just actually repeat an observation from the last Planning Commission public hearing
from over a year ago in April of 2019.
During the Commission commentary, Ad Barnes held up a stack of papers and he spoke to the
applicants. I couldn't find the video itself so I apologize for paraphrasing him in here but he said holding
up a stack of papers, "These are all the emails that we've received in regards to your application, dozens
and not one of them is in favor of your application, not one." He told them, "My entire time serving on
this Commission, I've never seen that before. Whatever outreach you did or did not put forth, clearly it
failed to reach the residents," so I'm asking you the Town Council, please listen to your Planning
Commission.
As a complete sidebar, I find this process to be suspect where applicants are able to alter their
applications in between a Planning Commission hearing and a Town Council hearing. This feels like a
loophole and my obvious concern here is that the ability of the applicants to dismiss Planning
Commission recommendations is outdated or no longer applicable. I digress.
In any case, we know and understand that this land is going to be developed, there is no doubt but the
existing plan, while not perfect, is far more preferable to the surrounding residential neighborhoods than
what is being proposed here. We respectfully request that you motion to deny this application and keep
in place the already approved concept plan. As always, thank you all for your time and your service to
our Town. And a very special thank you to Mr. Chris Murphy who has been a wonderful resource to my
resident outreach over the three years of this application. Thank you again.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. McAfee. The next speaker.
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Kevin Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton, I am going to unmute
you, you will hear a tone and that will be your signal to make your remarks. Once again, please state
and spell your full name and address for the closed captioning. Mr. Hamilton, I am unmuting you now.
Kevin Hamilton: Good evening. My name is Kevin Hamilton, K-E-V-I-N H-A-M-I-L-T-O-N. I reside at
210 Wilson Avenue Northwest in Leesburg. I am here tonight to express my support for the CVS at
Allman property rezoning application. The proposed proffers reduced traffic compared to the existing
zoning and improved fiscal impact also compared to the existing zoning combined to make this rezoning
a far superior alternative to the property's existing zoning.
I also welcome the CVS and associated retail and restaurants to the west side of Town. On another
note, I find the CVS a valuable addition to the community. I have two small kids and CVS and their mini-
Page 62| August 11, 2020
clinic model has become a primary healthcare provider for my family. I really welcome CVS to the west
side of Leesburg. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Our next speaker?
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Louise Zwicker. Ms. Zwicker, I am going to unmute
you. You'll hear a tone. That will be your sign to make your remarks. Once again, please state and spell
your full name and give your address for the closed captioning. Ms. Zwicker. I am unmuting you now.
Louise Zwicker: I did not sign up to speak on this application. My apologies. I am here in support of
the doggy day care application. I don't want to have anything to say about this one. I'm sorry.
Betsy Arnett: No, that's fine. Ms. Zwicker. Thank you very much.
Louise Zwicker: Thank you.
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, our final speaker is Steve Bowlds who has been on the line this whole
time. I'm not sure if he wants to make any comments. Mr. Bowlds, would you like to make comments?
Steve Bowlds: Hello. This is Steve Bowlds. I don't have any comments. Thank you.
Betsy Arnett: Thank you, sir. Madam Mayor. That is everyone online.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that didn't sign up to speak that would
like the opportunity to speak at this point? No. Okay, then I will close this public hearing. Is there a
motion from the floor? Anyone? Therefore, if there's no motion at this point, this will carry on to the next
meeting, correct? If there's no motion.
Martin Crim: If there's no motion, you can bring it back at any time, but it would require action of Council
to put it on a future agenda.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Does anyone have a motion that they want to put forward? Yes, Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: Sorry.
Council Member Dunn: Point of order.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: I think that we actually can leave an item without a decision and the Town
Manager would automatically put it on the old business.
Mayor Burk: All right, but we have a motion. Mister?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes, Madam Mayor. I'm going to offer a motion that we deny the
application in its present form.
Mayor Burk: All right. Are you using the motion that was provided to us?
Council Member Steinberg: I believe staff provided us with two motions. Did they not want to accept
one to deny? Is that correct?
Mayor Burk: Then the motion from staff for the denial is I recommend denial of TLZM-2017-004 based
on the following points explained in the August 11, 2020 staff report. One, inconsistency with the Town
Plan, Southwest policy area objective number three and six. Two, pursuant to TLZO Section 3.3.8,
inconsistency with the Town Plan is a reason for denial of the rezoning application.
Page 63| August 11, 2020
Three, proposed uses are more intensive than the existing approved uses, imposes adverse impacts
on the adjacent residential communities. Four, inconsistency with chapter five, community design at the
Town Plan. Five, proposed site design is not compatible with and will degrade the character of the
historic Greenway Manor property. Six, the more intensive commercial development will degrade the
established residential character along Leesburg southern's gateway into the Town. Is that your motion?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there a second?
Council Member Campbell: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Campbell. Is there any comments at this point? Yes, Mr.
Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: This is a tough one because of what's right for the community. It just
comes down to the CVS is not right. If there's any flexibility that we have of getting it right, we only have
one chance to do this. I can't wait. I won't be alive for rezoning or redevelopment of this area. It has to
work now for the community, for the historic nature of this Town. This is our only Southern exit. I think
as designs go and feel and look, the reality is, is what lives within the buildings that does make a
difference.
We do this whether we're talking about people want to do day care in our neighborhoods. We're going
to talk about doggy day care in our retail neighborhood next, and it is appropriateness. I have to go
along at least with what the staff has recommended at this particular point that we deny this application.
Mayor Burk: All right. Anyone else has any comments at this point? Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Well, I want to support it. One of the reasons I didn't make a motion, I was hoping
that this would carry over and that maybe we could move it to the next plan, have them go to the
Planning Commission again. What I'm going to do is abstain from the vote, but just know that it's not
that the denial is not a bad solution, but I would just like to see them go back to the Planning Commission
for another shot and have the Planning Commission resolve, understand that they've resolved some
other issues and then see where we go from there.
Mayor Burk: All right. Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: I guess I just have a few things. To me, this is not about the architecture which
is absolutely beautiful. It really honestly is. I think that piece of it was well done. It is about the use.
Ultimately, it is about our Southern gateway and our historic district overlay ultimately. You referenced
the COVID situation right now and how it might be a good thing to have it there. I'm a little worried about
existing business as well. This is more of the same that we have and some of our businesses are even
struggling right now. To me, it's about the use, and so I will probably have to support this motion.
Mayor Burk: All right. Has everyone spoken that wants to speak?
Council Member Steinberg: No, I haven't. Thank you. Closing comments. I know, this has been a
really long process for this particular parcel and this particular project. It's no secret that it's been zoned,
the B1 and the H1, since 1990. There shouldn't be any surprises there. In a lot of these applications,
there's a common refrain that we hear and that is that the Town Plan is not financially viable. That leads
me immediately to the question, well, if the Town Plan is not financially viable, how are we supposed to
plan?
If everything has to bow to the whims of the market, that doesn't seem like it gives us an opportunity to
plan at all. I recognize we have a responsibility to the residents in the immediate area of this particular
project but we also have a responsibility to the Town in its entirety and the Town Plan. That's one of the
main reasons we're here. Honestly, I just don't believe this project is yet there.
Page 64| August 11, 2020
This Council, prior to my taking a seat here, denied a commercial project across the street for similar
reasons. This is a very sensitive gateway into the Town. We've just completed our gateway overlay with
the intent of making sure we protect these gateways. I don't understand how this application in its
current iteration would merit approval, given our intention to keep the gateways as our scenic entrances
into the Town. Those are a number of the reasons why I'm recommending denial. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Chair.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Tom.
Council Member Dunn: I would just add that it was mentioned a number of times tonight about the
next step would be to have it go before the BAR. The BAR is very good at historic preservation in the
H1. There are very few opportunities for development within the H1. Unfortunately, because they deal
with primarily preserving what's already there, or using materials for development and the fact that we
have really no design standards, I don't know that the results would have been much better than what's
currently been proposed by going to the BAR. It might have been different but I think that when we have
our design standards out there, we may be able to give better direction to that. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. I too will be voting denial of this project. While again, I agree with everybody's
comment that the architecture is a big improvement, it's a huge improvement over what it was, it's still
a strip mall and it's got a long ways to go to incorporate into the historic aspect and into the community.
With that, I will call the question. All in favor of denial. Indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed and abstain. That's a five zero one. All right. That takes us to our next part. Our
next item, I've got to find the page. I've lost it a long time ago. Here we go. Okay. We're now on the
Doggy day care. This is unfinished business and we are at TLOA 2020-001, amending the Doggy day
care use standard to allow overnight boarding and to amend cattery uses in various zoning districts.
Still hate that term.
Mike Watkins: It's up, start the slideshow. Got it. Madam Mayor, Members of Council, good evening.
I'm going to try to make this as short and concise as I possibly can.
Mayor Burk: We would [crosstalk].
Mike Watkins: Especially the text amendment for the Doggy day care was continued to address three
items. First is the understanding of what doggy day care operations look like. The second is possible
use standards for accessory boarding, and then lastly, an update to the cattery definition. In the staff
report, I provided some floor plans that the applicant provided to me. In addition, there were some
pictures that illustrate what the interior of a doggy day care looks like. In terms of accessory boarding,
the Council requested that we look at opportunities to amend the ordinance to maintain the accessory
use.
I proposed three possibilities for you to include in your ordinance. The first one is the maximum ratio of
administrative play areas to the boarding area. Essentially creating again a ratio for those two uses.
The third option would be establishing a maximum number of dogs and then lastly, a ratio of dogs to
gross floor area. Then lastly, with the definition for the cattery, there's two options. Essentially, no
change to the definition. Then you could add a new term. I threw in cat lounge but essentially you could-
- The new term could be defined as a cat establishment, adoption establishment facilitating the adoption
of stray cats. Accessory uses may include retail, and then boarding is limited to only those cats that are
up for adoption.
In summary, you have three items that you need to take care of this evening. The first is choosing an
ordinance to go with. The draft ordinance that's in your packet, it was based on the Planning
Commission's recommendation, and that was to exclude cattery in the B4 and the PRC. The alternative
Page 65| August 11, 2020
ordinance proposes to include cattery in the B4 and the PRC. You all need to make a decision as to
whether or not you want to amend those ordinances to include new use standards for doggy day care.
Then lastly, do you want to change the definition or the term for cattery?
I provided three motions for you of the first one is a motion to approve. Again, you'll need to note which
ordinance that you're choosing the draft ordinance or the alternative ordinance. The second motion,
again, would be to choose an ordinance and list the amendments to that ordinance. Then lastly, would
be a motion to deny. That's the end of my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Burk: I do have a question. Can you tell me you had pictures there of dogs in the kernels, in the
crates at night. There's not going to be and I called a couple of vets and I talked to a couple of them. I
talked about the overnighting of animals. It's my understanding, I may be wrong about this, but would
the animals be roaming around at night with no attendant? Or would they be required to put them in a
kennel and separate them out?
Mike Watkins: The ordinance does not include that restriction. You have two options. You can add that
to the ordinance this evening. Or you can make that a reasonable condition of approval with a special
exception. Again, both of these uses, the doggy day care and the cattery, are special exceptions.
Council can create reasonable conditions of approval at the time of special exception.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: I just want to bounce off of that question. If we put this use as an accessory use
or a standard in the ordinance right now, that means it's okay in the special exception. They would still
have to go through that process, but they can point to this and say, "Well, it's your accessory use." Am
I correct?
Mike Watkins: Exactly. The action you're taking this evening is establishing the permission to submit
a special exception for this use. At the time of special exception, you get to look at all the nooks and
crannies of the application and make reasonable conditions of approval. One of those could be limiting
the number of dogs, the area used for the overnight boarding, or other reasonable conditions to make
sure that that use is accessory to the principal use.
Council Member Fox: I think that's where I have my misgiving is even putting it in as an accessory
use. I agree with a special exception process, but that particular use, I have an issue with. I just want
to mention that. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else have a question?
Council Member Dunn: I have a question or two.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Thank you. If we do nothing because I've gotten a little confused about the
different options. If we do nothing, what is the current status?
Mike Watkins: Council Member Dunn, the current status would be that doggy day care with no
accessory boarding would be permitted in the B2, B3, B4, and not the PRC district. Cattery would only
be allowed in the B2, B3, and I1.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, so the end goal here, we have an applicant that by passing this in some
form is hoping that the day care can be allowed in the Village at Leesburg?
Mike Watkins: Correct, the--
Council Member Dunn: Village [unintelligible 04:19:19].
Mike Watkins: Right.
Page 66| August 11, 2020
Council Member Dunn: That is not allowed currently.
Mike Watkins: In the Village at Leesburg, the doggy day care is permitted, however, not the accessory
boarding. This text amendment would allow them to do the special exception for the overnight boarding.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, and I guess that's where I have a little bit of an issue is we're calling it
doggy day care, but in reality, it's not really just day care. It's overnight boarding. Do we have different
guidelines for kennels that allow or accommodate overnight boarding? If that's the case, why don't we-
- Let me just ask, do we have those guidelines already established for overnight boarding at kennels in
the Town?
Mike Watkins: Okay. Just to clarify, the ordinance does differentiate doggy day care, separate from
doggy day care with accessory kennels. Those uses are separated in the use table. They're separate
and distinct. In this instance, you could do doggy day care without overnight boarding at the Village at
Leesburg. If the ordinance passes this evening, then the applicant will be able to submit a special
exception for the doggy day care with accessory kennel. As far as the kennel use is concerned-- Sorry.
Council Member Dunn: No, I'm sorry. Go ahead, you're probably going to answer my next question
about what the kennel could--
Mike Watkins: As far as the kennel's concerned, it's restricted to two districts only. That's the R1 and
the RV. There's a two-acre minimum requirement for the property and then the kennel itself has to be
located more than 200 feet away from a property line. That would not work at the Village at Leesburg.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, in reality, what we're doing is the accessory use. We're really just
redefining what a kennel would be doing because there really is not much difference between this and
a kennel other than the kennel has a little bit more room for the dogs to roam.
Mike Watkins: I think that's the- your last comment is what the Planning Commission opined on as
well. That is, what really distinguishes a doggy day care with accessory boarding from a kennel. I think
the ordinance is trying to achieve a balance where this use can be asked for, but again, subject to
review, and conditional approval by Council.
Council Member Dunn: I think that's where the line really is. It makes it tough for me to vote for this
because you're asking for use to be in a highly residential commercial area that I can understand sort
of people hearing dogs barking throughout the day where they would otherwise not in their business or
living environment without knowing that they were living or working next to a kennel.
But now we're going to extend it to be not just day care, but they may have to put up with barking and
noise even at night in their work and living environment. It causes the pause for the day care to be there
at all, never mind allowing it to be at night. As far as the cattery goes, I don't really have a big issue with
the name. We have wineries, we have breweries, we could always call it the cat place. I'm not going to
get too hung up on the cats. Again, I don't know if I would add more animals to an environment that's
really designed for humans to do shopping, working, and living. Thank you.
Mike Watkins: Madam Mayor, if I could just add one clarification to Council Member Dunn's statement.
The ordinance does include a provision for noise attenuation. There is a standard by which an acoustical
engineer has to certify that the place of the establishment has attenuated the barking noise.
Mayor Burk: Okay and that's good to know. Thank you. Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Dunn: Does that mean you won't hear any noise?
Mike Watkins: The standard is in reference to a common one and I believe we cited 55 decibels. I can
tell you what it is, just a second.
Council Member Dunn: Which is still probably loud.
Page 67| August 11, 2020
Mike Watkins: 65. Excuse me.
Council Member Dunn: Yes, I think a lawnmower is what, 75?
Mike Watkins: A little bit higher, but in that ballpark, yes, sir.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: Thanks for thoroughly confusing me. I appreciate that. We're here
because the retail shop owner in a B4 PRC district wants to add an allowable use. The first thing is to
allow it or not allow it in a B4 PRC. There's a question I have about the doggy day care. Can we put a
condition and I think we can probably put a few conditions that we limit the number of nights because
I'm looking at a very distinct use between a kennel and a doggy day care to be a conditional use, but
also means it's not open for overnight kenneling 365 days a year. A limitation on the number of nights
overnight boarding would be allowed would be a condition I would put.
Mike Watkins: The only thing I'll add in response to that is you're obviously entitled to create as many
or as few conditions as you like. With respect to specific days, on an enforcement standpoint, it would
be difficult for staff to enforce that saying how we don't do it on the weekends. During the week, we
would have to schedule off times in response to complaints to address that issue.
Council Member Campbell: Yes, we could ask for monthly reports and the number of nights you used
it, but at some point, we have to have some documentation. That's what you do. That's, again, an
upfront condition only because if the business owners are going to have a retail space, they should
know the limitations of their business operation upfront. Again, what I don't want us to do in the end is
chasing noise complaints and creating another nuisance enforcement policy for us, if that's what we
anticipate. We should eliminate it upfront as much as possible.
Again, I have no problems with the cattery and I think we have enough ideas about ventilation and
waste and water. Again, all those conditions would have to be met before we would approve a special
exception. Anyway, so I guess I have no problems including it in the B4 and the PRC because that's
exactly why we're considering this in the first place. If we don't want to consider these uses to be allowed
in these zones, then we wouldn't be talking about doggy day care and catteries. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: Thank you. The first thing I'd like to say that the vision of cat lounge is
very intriguing. I have these pictures in my head now of cats lounging on loveseat smoking cigarettes.
That might be an interesting name. When this whole thing first started, I have to admit, I was prett y
much against the idea of overnight stays in these situations. I took some time. I spoke with my vet. Then
I visited two different situations, one here in Leesburg and one in Purcellville.
Speaking with my vet, first of all, small vets board dogs for various reasons. They do not necessarily
have 24/7 staff to monitor the animals. Obviously, the emergency animal hospital here in Leesburg
does, but that's a different situation. Philosophically, my vet didn't have any particular issues with a
situation like this, so long as the standards weren't abused, I guess.
Then in visiting the two situations, the one here in Leesburg, which has been here, I think close to 30
years over next to or near. Actually, it's next to a dry cleaner in Town center shopping center, I guess
that is, that's a very-- I guess you might refer to it as a slightly older model of this kind of business and
that they have a large common area for the dogs. They do training and so on.
They have the ability to walk the dogs outdoors. There's plenty of space and they do not board. Actually,
a good friend of mine takes her dog there all the time. She happened to be there while I was there so
that was an interesting point. Then I visited this new place in Purcellville, called Dogtopia. That seems
to be based on a much newer model. One of the first things they do is they have, as I think one of our
Page 68| August 11, 2020
speakers mentioned at our last meeting, they screen the dogs. Not only for health issues but also for
behavioral issues.
If a dog is not going to get along socially with the other animals, that dog would not be permitted. Then
of course, as dogs become acclimated to certain situations, they fit in better. They also divide their dogs
up into different play areas based on sizes of dogs and whatnot. There's less opportunity for – ah card.
There's less opportunity for larger dogs to overcome smaller animals. There are also a number of other
interesting points. I'm not going to bother all the details about that.
They will board and what this owner is doing is he has 24/7 video and audio monitoring of the facility.
There are ways to deal with the absence of staff on-site 24/7 and still be able to monitor the situation.
All that's a long way of saying I've come around to actually be more accepting of the concept. The
question I have is we don't have to define all of our points that we would expect to see in any given
application. Those can happen as we visit each application that comes to this Council or any other
Council. We don't have to actually put down everything now in writing.
Mike Watkins: That's actually staff's recommendation because with a special exception, you're looking
at each individual instance on the merits of what they're proposing and not collectively. You're able to
craft those specific reasonable conditions of approval.
Council Member Steinberg: You're saying staff's recommendation is that we not list all of our
requirements at this stage that we deal with each application separately.
Mike Watkins: I think the ordinance as presented has tried to encapsulate most of the nuisance
elements of this use and then you obviously look at more details.
Council Member Steinberg: So with each application, we could, for example, consider ratio of the
business in terms of what is doggy day care versus boarding. We could say, "Okay, you can board, but
you can only dedicate 15% of your space to boarding or things like that." If at all possible you could
exercise dogs outdoors, if they're going to be boarding. One of the points made was the dogs who
acclimate themselves to the doggy day care are also perfect candidates for boarding because they do
not then have to acclimate to an entirely different situation, so short version is I've come around. I think
I can support the doggy day care with the kenneling the overnight operation. I've no problem with the
cattery. I would certainly include it in them, especially in the PRC, Planned Residential Community,
because these are services that residents would potentially expect to find in a PRC development, so
thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Martinez, have you spoken?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No, sorry about that. Is it a safe assumption that the applicant is not going to
take dogs that are not already part of their establishment that are aren't already registered with their
establishment?
Mike Watkins: I can't speak for each of the businesses, but one of the speakers that came before you
said that they do have a screening process for the dogs that they board.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay, great. Again, as I'm was going through all this, I really have no problem
with it. My only concern was that the overnight kenneling not be a primary function of the doggy day
care, it's day care. I understand the need for an emergency weekend or emergency couple overnights,
things like that. I just don't want that to be a primary function. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Okay. If we wanted to put a condition on that the nighttime kenneling would be done in
crates as opposed to letting the dogs run around and without supervision. That could be [crosstalk]
okay. Thank you. All right. Everyone has had time to speak. Does just anybody want to make a motion
at this point?
Martin Crim: Madam Mayor, Mr. Shane Murphy was here at citizen's time and we put him off with the
idea that he would be able to speak if the Council still wants to hear from him.
Page 69| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Right. That's right. That's right. I'm sorry. Thank you for reminding me. You were very
patient. No wonder you wanted to do it sooner.
Eileen Boeing: Ms. Zwicker is on the line, does she need –
Shane Murphy: No. She's just watching, Ms. Mayor, Members of the Town Council. I know it's late. I
don't want to belabor the point. Shane Murphy again with Reed Smith 7900 Tyson's One Place on
behalf of the proponent of this which is a Rappaport. You all know very well, Villages at Leesburg, you
know it's had a difficult time stabilizing from a retail perspective. We have an open spot here. It's been
open for over a year. The only interest we've had is from first off, Dogtopia, which then relocated to
Purcellville. They've just opened as a Councilman Steinberg mentioned. I'm in the second potential
tenant, which is also open in Fairfax Station. They do overnighting there.
Let me just say very clearly, obviously, we know there are going to be conditions associated with this.
If you approve this tonight and we make an application, it will be very much vetted through staff,
Planning Commission and Town Council. In terms of noise, we've done one of these in DC. We've had
a noise study. I would remind you that there is a movie theater at the end of the block, that movie theater
on the inside can get up to 135 decibels. For bellwether, a federal Q-siren on a firetruck is 126 decibels,
that movie theater's louder than firetruck. You can't hear that movie theater outside. We can deaden
this. We can cause this to be not a problem from a noise standpoint, and if we can't, that's on us to
prove that.
I think that a normal conversation is 60 decibels, and a lawnmower somewhere around 90 if you're right
up near it. 65 decibels, we think is fairly reasonable and it's usually a bellwether that folks use for outdoor
uses or being able to hear things outside. This is a very competitive use. There's a huge market for it.
We've done it, the Town of Herndon, and Fairfax, Loudoun, Purcellville obviously; across the river, DC
and Maryland.
It's a very competitive use. It's used that most jurisdictions have become comfortable with particularly
the overnighting on-- The opportunity I used was if Jack Ryan has got to get in his helicopter and go to
Afghanistan, he might have to pick up his dog first and so he needs to call the doggy day care and say,
'Hey, can Fido stay overnight?" Again, these are the kinds of reasons that you would use this.
Somebody's got to go out of Town unexpectedly. They've got to stay late at work. I will tell you, some
human day cares, we get people who call these places and vet them. This very highly competitive.
These guys have got to be on top of things, and they've got to run a decent, smooth, clean operation in
order for them to be successful.
They're doing that currently in Fairfax Station. I'm glad to hear Councilman Steinberg say he visited one
of the competitors in Dogtopia, which again, was one that we had hoped to land as well. I would say
very clearly this is our saying we want to have you approve our ability to ask for permission. This
application we understand would be very well-vetted. This tenant has stayed with us despite having
several hurdles that they've had to get over.
Even before COVID, that was a space that we really needed to fill. We really haven't had a lot of interest
there. Again, it's been empty for a very long time. It's run by the Rappaport Companies, which is one of
the most notable and successful retailers in the area. For them to be having so much frustration trying
to get these spots filled is really saying something. Again, the reason we're going through this very
intense and costly process is because we believe that these folks can be an integral and long-term
tenant that provides a lot of service to the folks at Village at Leesburg.
We do anticipate a lot of the residents of Village at Leesburg will want to walk down, have their dog,
and do what they need to do. Lastly, I would just say they do offer webcam. That's one of the things
that makes people more comfortable with leaving them overnight is, "Hey, I get to go look and see what
my dog's doing." I get to see that the dog is not being mistreated or that the dog is not having fun.
Again, they do have a very rigorous process upfront to make sure these dogs are going to be able to fit
within the whole situation. I would say, we really just want to be able to make this application. We
wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think that at the end of the day, we can craft acceptable conditions
Page 70| August 11, 2020
that will make this being an integral use within the center. I would again, respectfully ask for your
approval. I've mentioned to Mike earlier that I thought that the Cat Lounge was a pretty cool name, but
we thought it ought to be Cool Cat Lounge. We think that would be the only way we could improve the
ordinance. I do appreciate your listening to me. I know it's late and I'll hopefully yield the rest of my 30
seconds back unless anybody's got questions for me.
Council Member Fox: Real quick questions. Thanks for what you just said. I appreciate that. I took a
look at your Fairfax Station location and of course, there's no residence around it at all. It's in a pretty,
not secluded but, apart from residence. I can't picture this specific one. How far are you from the closest
residence?
Shane Murphy: It's on the Wegman’s side. There's a street in between, and it does not have residential
above. It's partial above. We were very careful to make sure that it was one of those blocks. What I will
say is we're seeing a lot of these come in and mixed-use areas because it makes a good use for people
to be able to walk their dogs down, not have to drive in, and then they can come back at the end of their
day. We're seeing a lot of these. We've done a couple of in DC that are in mixed-use with residential
above. This one doesn't have it but we have done that before.
We've been able to create all what we need in terms of noise deadening, sound deadening, and that
sort of thing because as you know the residential is a very integral part of this. We do not want to have
a situation where the residential cannot survive because something's going on in the retail. I will tell you
that the folks who own the residential are very protective of their territory as well. We would not be doing
this if we sensed any sort of concern from them on that. In fact, they think it's a pretty good amenity.
Council Member Fox: If we went ahead and did the overnight component, allowed that as the
accessory use, you said-- Not Jack Reacher, whoever you said, you go out to Afghanistan? Well, that's-
Mayor Burk: Ryan.
Council Member Fox: Jack Ryan. That's it. [laughter] Reacher, Ryan, whichever. There was a cap,
say two nights, you know for someone. How would we know that's being honored?
Shane Murphy: We can certainly figure out a way to do that. I don't know off the top of my head how
we would do it. If it needed to be two nights, Councilman Campbell's point, we would have to probably
have some certification or some-- Quite frankly, a lot of this is complaint-driven as you know. If we're
not getting complaints, typically, what it means is that we're not having people who have problems with
the use. We can certainly talk about that, how we would do it. I can't off the top of my head. We can
certainly put some time into thinking about it.
Council Member Fox: Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else have questions at this point? All right. Is there a motion?
Vice Mayor Martinez: I would like some help with the motion. I want to make the motion that okays
everything to the ordinance. I don't know if I want to do the draft ordinance or what was the other
alternative ordinance?
Mike Watkins: If I get a pulse of the Council, you want to use the alternate ordinance that would allow
it in the B4 and the PRC. Then if you wanted to make any alterations, you would use the motion on this
side, but if you want to keep it simple tonight and approve the ordinance as drafted, you will not use
draft ordinance. You'll use the term alternate ordinance.
Vice Mayor Martinez: So I move to approve TL0A-2020-001 based on the alternate ordinance on the
basis that the amendments further the objectives of the Town Plan and that the proposal would serve
the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice.
Mike Watkins: Perfect.
Page 71| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Can there be anything added? Is this the point at which you add or we wait? I'm talking
about the doggy day care having them required to go into kennels as opposed to wandering around at
night.
Mike Watkins: Again, this motion as stated by Council Member Martinez would be as drafted. This
motion would be where you would insert an amendment to the alternate ordinance. That's the distinction
between these two slides is that this one is as drafted. The other is where you would need to insert the
change that you'd like to request.
Mayor Burk: All right. He's already made a motion.
Council Member Fox: Madam Mayor, may I ask a question?
Mayor Burk: Yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: There's a motion that hasn't been second.
Council Member Campbell: Second.
Council Member Fox: I like the use and I want to go ahead and put it in B4 PRC but I still have
misgivings about the overnight, so is the motion that's being put on the table a conglomeration of it?
Mayor Burk: It does include that. Yes.
Council Member Fox: I'd like that separated.
Mayor Burk: We got to vote on his. Oh, he's got a second.
Vice Mayor Martinez: A question on that. If we were to pass ordinance as I stated, when they come in
for that special exception, we can then add our list of requirements to that special exception.
Mike Watkins: Reasonable conditions of approval.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Approval. Correct. All we're doing by doing the other resolution is doing that
beforehand. We don't really know, we're making some assumptions on the list of amendments of the
ordinance.
Mike Watkins: Potentially, yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: If we put that list of assumptions in this ordinance, we may list something that
we might regret and that it's probably better to list those changes in the special exception when they
come forward.
Mike Watkins: You will be bound by the ordinance that you adopt. If you include specific conditions of
approval, those carry through for each subsequent application that comes in before you.
Vice Mayor Martinez: If we don't want that list or that change in the special exception, it doesn't matter;
we're stuck, we're bound by it. The one I pass gives us more flexibility in the long run.
Mike Watkins: That's one point of view. Absolutely.
Mayor Burk: Any other questions?
Council Member Dunn: Yes I have one.
Mayor Burk: Yes?
Page 72| August 11, 2020
Council Member Dunn: Because I'm not seeing what the screen was being pointed to for the actual
wording of the ordinance. I'm looking at one in my packet that's- I'm not sure if it's the one you're talking
about. The one you're talking about half the line in the first, whereas overnight boarding dogs is limited
to kennel with overnight boarding of cats is currently limited. Is that the one you're looking at?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Mayor Burk: No. Mr. Dunn. The motion is exactly as read by Mr. Martinez.
Council Member Dunn: Where is that in the packet? If somebody could point me to that so I know
what I'm voting on. Do you have a page number?
Mayor Burk: We're looking, just a second.
Martin Crim: It's in the PowerPoint, Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: It's in the PowerPoint presentation that you should have.
Martin Crim: On page four, the bottom slide.
Mayor Burk: Page four, the bottom slide. Motion to approve.
Council Member Dunn: Just a moment, please. This is going to take me a little bit. Is there wording in
that motion that addresses the overnight option?
Mayor Burk: No. Mr. Martinez is doing it so that each individual one that comes before us; we can
make conditions as they come before us.
Council Member Dunn: There is nothing addressing overnight at all?
Mayor Burk: No.
Council Member Dunn: Even your point, Madam Mayor, of the kennels because obviously that would
be a requirement that would not exist because we're not saying that there's overnight allowed, correct?
Mayor Burk: We are saying that overnight would be allowed.
Council Member Dunn: That's what I'm asking though, is in the resolution are we allowing for
overnight?
Mayor Burk: Yes. Sorry, we misunderstood.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. That's fine. I think this is what Suzanne was asked where I'd like to
divide the question on that.
Mayor Burk: All right, you're trying to- you want the motion--
Council Member Dunn: The overnight to be a separate vote from the rest of the resolution,
amendment.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Crim, is there a problem doing that?
Martin Crim: No, as I understand the motion is to divide these existing motions as a subsidiary motion,
to divide Vice Mayor Martinez's motion so that we would vote first on whether the overnight stays would
be allowed and then on the balance of the ordinance with or without the overnight stays. Did I correctly
state that, Mr. Dunn?
Page 73| August 11, 2020
Council Member Dunn: I can only assume, yes. Because, again, I don't have the wording in front, but
yes, it would be to separate the overnight stay from the rest of the resolution.
Mayor Burk: All right. The overnight stay, do we have to have a new? Mr. Crim, do we have--
Council Member Dunn: You just have to have two votes. One on the general resolution and one for
the overnight stay.
Mayor Burk: I know they're discussing something very intently, so excuse us for a minute.
[background conversation]
Mike Watkins: Council Member Dunn, just to clarify, currently the ordinance has in it that doggy day
care is permitted as a special exception without the overnight boarding. The text amendment this
evening is adding that use to the ordinance.
Mayor Burk: That's really the only thing we're looking at?
Mike Watkins: Yes, ma'am. You've got the cattery component. You've got the performance standards
that we added. Council could elect to delete or not approve the use table portion of the proposed
ordinance and adopt the performance standards that we don't currently have for dogg y day care.
Vice Mayor Martinez: May I?
Mayor Burk: Yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. What you're saying is, this ordinance does not have overnight day care,
just the opportunity for the applicant to ask for overnight day care at a special exception?
Mike Watkins: Yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: We're not approving overnight day care, we're just saying or allowing the
applicant to have the opportunity to ask for overnight day care.
Martin Crim: Madam Mayor, if I may?
Mayor Burk: Nice job.
Martin Crim: However, I think Mr. Dunn's motion is not the same as just moving to deny it because
there are other elements in this cattery and doggy day care motion. It's just that the focus has been on
the overnight stays. What I would suggest we do is if Mr. Dunn's motion to divide was seconded, then
take that up.
Council Member Dunn: It doesn't require a second.
Martin Crim: Doesn't require a second? I stand corrected.
Mayor Burk: He wants to divide it. The first thing that we're voting on is allowing the doggy day care to
apply for the ability to have overnight stays, am I correct? Am I wording that somewhat correctly?
Council Member Dunn: It's close enough for me.
Mayor Burk: Okay, close enough for you? Now I have to get a vote if people want to take out the
overnight day care or night care?
Martin Crim: Which is in several sections. Which would be in several sections but you're voting on
whether to address the overnight stays separately.
Page 74| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Okay that's what we're voting on now. [crosstalk] He said there is no need for a second.
I don't know why there is not a need--
Vice Mayor Martinez: He is dividing the question.
Mayor Burk: He is dividing the question.
Council Member Dunn: Dividing the question is automatic.
Martin Crim: It does require a vote. It does require a vote.
Council Member Dunn: Correct. You only have to vote on it separately.
Vice Mayor Martinez: What has been said is your desire to divide the question-
Mayor Burk: Has to be voted on.
Vice Mayor Martinez: -has to be voted on.
Mayor Burk: Do we have the majority that would like to divide the question?
Council Member Dunn: Point of order, that is incorrect. According to our rules of order, any member
requesting to divide a question is an automatic. We cannot be forced to have to vote on something you
don't want to if you want to divide the question.
Martin Crim: Do you know what section that is?
Council Member Dunn: Automatic now you just vote on whether you agree to have the overnight stay
or not, but dividing the question is not a vote.
Martin Crim: I did not know that.
Mayor Burk: I've always had it in where I've had it so it's been a vote.
Council Member Dunn: Look in our Council rules.
Martin Crim: I'm looking at them. Page three.
Mayor Burk: It is there, okay.
Martin Crim: On the demand of any Council Member before the question is put by the Chair the
question shall be divided if it includes propositions so distinctive substance that one being taken away
a substance that proposition shall remain. Then-
Council Member Dunn: Thank you.
Martin Crim: -it would be appropriate to have a vote on first whether to have overnight stays be added
to the ordinance.
Mayor Burk: We are voting on whether the overnight stay should be added to the ordinance. All right.
We're voting to add the overnight stay. Everybody understand that? All right. I don't need a motion.
Martin Crim: You have a motion it's just now being divided. If you're in favor of adding the overnight
stay, you'd vote yes; if you're opposed to overnight stay, you'd vote no.
Mayor Burk: All right. All in favor adding the overnight stays indicate by saying aye.
Page 75| August 11, 2020
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That's Mr. Campbell, Mr. Steinberg, Ms. Burk, Mr. Martinez. Opposed?
Council Member Fox: Nay.
Council Member Dunn: Nay.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox and Mr. Dunn. Now we go to the motion that Mr. Martinez made.
Martin Crim: There's the alternate ordinance without amendments.
Mayor Burk: The alternate ordinance okay.
Martin Crim: It's already been moved and seconded, so you don't need to do that again.
Mayor Burk: All in favor of this one indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That passed 6-0. Thank you all.
Mike Watkins: Thank you Members of Council. Have a good night.
Mayor Burk: Do we want to take a five-minute break? [crosstalk] Does anybody want a five-minute
break? Okay, five minutes and we'll keep it to five minutes.
[Break]
Mayor Burk: 15B is a Potential Appointment of a Temporary Council Member. Mr. Dunn, did you have
a motion? Is he here?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Who?
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Yes, I had to get back to the screen. Yes, I would just like to make a motion
that we offer up potential appointees for a vote, and if you like, I can start with a name.
Mayor Burk: Go ahead.
Council Member Dunn: Does that need to be a motion or-- If it does, how it gets to [unintelligible
05:03:12] second but--
Mayor Burk: Sure. Well, let's make it official. Yes, make a motion?
Council Member Dunn: Yes, I would make a motion that names be submitted by Council in an effort
to select a member of the public to fill the open seat vacated by Council Member Thiel.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second?
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Fox. All in favor? Opposed? All right. That's 5-1. All right.
Council Member Dunn: I'll start off with the-- if I may, I'll put out the name of Nick Clemente.
Page 76| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: All right. Nick Clemente.
Council Member Fox: Does that need to be seconded?
Mayor Burk: It's a motion, so yes, it needs to be seconded.
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Fox. Mr. Dunn first off, Mr. Clemente all in favor indicate
by saying aye.
Council Member Fox: Aye.
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Council Member Campbell: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Okay Mr. Dunn, Ms. Fox, I'm forgetting everybody’s name. Mr. Campbell. Opposed? Mr.
Martinez, Ms. Burk, and Mr. Steinberg. Is there another motion?
Vice Mayor Martinez: [inaudible 05:04:37].
Mayor Burk: [crosstalk] Wait a minute. Excuse me. No. Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Yes, I didn't have my mic on. My apologies. I'd like to nominate Gladys Burke.
Mayor Burk: Okay Mr. Martinez is nominating Gladys Burke, is there a second?
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Steinberg. On favor indicate by saying aye.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Aye.
Council Member Steinberg: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg, Ms. Burk, and Mr. Martinez. Opposed? Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Nay.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn and Ms. Fox? Any other names being offered?
Council Member Dunn: May I?
Mayor Burk: Well, let Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: I'd like to throw there for consideration Mr. Eric Christoph.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Eric Christoph. Is there a second? Oops, no second on that one. Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: I would like to put forward the name of David Miles.
Mayor Burk: These are all the same. Okay, Mr. Miles. Is there a second? Ms. Fox? All in favor of Mr.
Miles indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Page 77| August 11, 2020
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Fox. Opposed? Mr. Martinez, Ms. Burk, and Mr. Steinberg.
Any other names?
Council Member Campbell: I'd like to make a motion that we close this process and that the process
go to the Courts for selection of the temporary appointment.
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: Okay. That's offered by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Ms. Fox. All in favor indicate by saying
aye.
Council Member Campbell: I'd like to comment on the motion.
Council Member Dunn: Point of order.
Mayor Burk: Yes, sir, Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Only that I didn't know if anybody had any comments on it, but I would like
some clarification on what that process is. I think the public and especially those who might be interested
in filling that seat should probably hear at this point what that process is for going through the Court.
Mayor Burk: All right. Do we have anybody to explain that at this point? Mr. Crim, do you?
Martin Crim: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Let me just scroll back up to the Town charter. The charter
provides that if the Council does not fill the position within 90 days that the Circuit Court shall fill the
position. It says, "Such vacancies shall be filled by appointment of the judge of the Circuit Court of
Loudoun County, Virginia." Since there's more than one that presumably means a majority of the judges
of the Circuit Court.
Council Member Dunn: A slight follow-up question.
Mayor Burk: Yes. Then Mr. Campbell has--
Council Member Dunn: Do we know what the timeframe is of that or whether the Court accepts names
from the public? Do we know any of that?
Martin Crim: No, we don't have any information about the process that they would follow. [crosstalk]
Council Member Dunn: Can I make an amendment to the current amendments on the floor?
Mayor Burk: I guess you can.
Council Member Dunn: I would like to ask the first and seconder to consider just one slight change to
it that it is at the end of 90 days that the measure will go to the Courts.
Martin Crim: Mr. Dunn, I don't think that's necessary because the Court doesn't have any authority to
act until the 91st day.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. All right, thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right, Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: I think it's important for the public to know, and probably for this Council
to hear, this process is almost an embarrassment. We've talked about it before, and it was said, it's not
an embarrassment, it's not a dysfunction, it's just politics. Well, I'm not sure what politics are being
played with people's lives, and to just throw out name after name as what happened at the last meeting
when there could have been a better opportunity to hear from candidates themselves, to have a careful
Page 78| August 11, 2020
review of the considerations, and even to engage in dialogue to come to some reasonableness as to a
selection.
This Council has refused to vote on that favor in that matter that it leaves in making this motion with no
choice except to stop it from continuing to go nowhere, embarrassing people by throwing names out,
and just admit we cannot come to a resolution because we will not discuss a resolution and move it
then to the Courts. It's a shame for the Town, to witness this, but this is the reality, and that's why I put
forward the motion.
Mayor Burk: All right. Anyone else? All in favor of closing the Appointment of a Temporary Council
Member, and after 91 days it would go to the Courts. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? Ayes are Mr. Campbell, Ms. Fox, Mr. Dunn. Opposed or nays, Mr. Steinberg,
Mr. Martinez, Mr. Burk.
Council Member Fox: Mr. Steinberg was an aye.
Council Member Steinberg: [inaudible]
Mayor Burk: You did? Thank you. Man, you’re keep me straight today, Suzanne. Thank you. That does
close at this point and we move on. We have Council Disclosures and Mayor Disclosures and the Town
Manager comments. Do you want to move those two after closed session or do we want to do those
now?
Council Member Dunn: Actually, I would rather I would say do away with it.
Mayor Burk: Do away with it?
Council Member Dunn: For tonight.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Defer them to the next meeting.
Mayor Burk: Okay. We can do that. Mr. Martinez made a motion to defer these until our next meeting.
Is there a second?
Council Member Dunn: Second.
Mayor Burk: By Mr. Dunn, all in favor.
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Anybody opposed? That's 6-0. We now are in a closed session. Well, no, I got to move.
I move Pursuant to 2.2-3711(A)(7) and 2-- no, 2.2-3711(A)(8) of the Code of Virginia that the Leesburg
Town Council convene in a closed meeting for the purpose of consultation with the legal counsel and
briefing by staff members pertaining to the pending litigation of the Town of Leesburg et al versus
Loudoun County, et al Loudoun County, Circuit Court number 19-7068, where such consultation and
open session would adversely affect the negotiations or litigating posture of the Town and the consultant
with legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by said counsel
and pertaining to a potential annexation and/or boundary line agreement with respect to the JLMA. Is
there a second?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Seconded.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Mr. Martinez. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Page 79| August 11, 2020
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Dunn: Nay.
Mayor Burk: Okay, that's 5-1. All right. Now, is Mr. Dunn able to participate?
Martin Crim: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Okay.
Martin Crim: We just need to make sure everybody else is off the WebEx.
[closed session]
Mayor Burk: All right. 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 Virginia Freedom of Information Act and such public business
matters for the purpose identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard,
discussed and considered in the meeting by the Council. Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Yay.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Yes.
Mayor Burk: And Ms. Burk, yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Madam Mayor?
Mayor Burk: Yes?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Since we did a lot of discussion--
Mayor Burk: Do you want to make a motion?
Vice Mayor Martinez: --on serving Microsoft Phase II I’d like to make a motion that we extend service
to Phase II.
Mayor Burk: All right. Conditional Approval of the Water and Sanitary Extension to Serve a Portion of
the Property of Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Phase II.
Page 80| August 11, 2020
Council Member Steinberg: Point of information. Is this still conditional at this point or did we agree
to serve them [unintelligible 06:31:45]
Martin Crim: It is still [crosstalk]
Greg Haley: Customer service--
Martin Crim: It is still conditional, Mr. Steinberg. Section 1, paragraph number 12 on page 219 of your
agenda says that it’s conditional either on the BLA or the revenue-sharing agreement, as an
expectation.
Mayor Burk: All right, all in favor?
Council Member Campbell: I’m sorry. I just have to get that point clarified. Again, to have agreements
with Microsoft that are enforceable and us fully understanding that we’re willing to serve them without
this condition is a primary point. If this is going to be a battle with the County over we either stick to
these conditions and fight over this BLA or we let this go--
Martin Crim: Right.
Council Member Campbell: if it is not going to be an enforceable provision. And the County has
already said they’re resistant.
Martin Crim: So let me clarify that. The conditions are laid out in Section 1 of your draft resolution
before you, and there is a number eleven of that, I didn’t mean twelve, number eleven of that has the
language that the Town anticipates that we will either have the BLA or will enter into the revenue-sharing
agreement. So, that’s the language that provides for what our expectations are going forward.
Council Member Campbell: So BLA, annexation or we’ll get a revenue-sharing agreement--
Martin Crim: That’s our anticipation and we’re laying down that [crosstalk].
Council Member Campbell: but none of these conditions are enforceable against Microsoft. That’s
with the County.
Martin Crim: That’s with the County. Yes, sir.
Council Member Campbell: We’re just agreeing to serve. We put these things in this resolution but
this has nothing to do with Microsoft, this has everything to do with the County.
Greg Haley: There is one condition with Microsoft and that is that the Town and Microsoft agree to a
service agreement because Microsoft has some extraordinary services.
Council Member Campbell: Sure, absolutely. I expect that. So, my question is then, does this
condition remain in this motion?
Martin Crim: I’m sorry. Which condition are you asking about?
Council Member Campbell: Either the BLA annexation or the revenue-sharing agreement. You’re
saying it should.
Martin Crim: It is phrased in terms of an anticipation, not a condition.
Mayor Burk: So should the words still say “conditional approval of water and sanitary sewer
extension”?
Page 81| August 11, 2020
Martin Crim: Right, and Section 1 does provide for conditions and Section 2 says “the Town shall not
provide water and sanitary sewer service until all conditions set forth in Section 1 are met and those
are the ones you see listed in front of you in pages 217 through 219 of the agenda and those are mostly
technical issues.
Council Member Fox: May I?
Mayor Burk: Yes. Go ahead.
Council Member Fox: Mr. Crim, would you recommend we keep that wording in there?
Martin Crim: I recommend that you adopt the resolution as presented tonight.
Council Member Fox: Okay.
Mayor Burk: All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor, I didn’t have a chance to speak.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Just briefly. Again, staff telling us that this is a good deal for ten years is just
a false premise. By giving up on requiring Microsoft to come into the Town through the BLA and
agreeing to just provide water. That agreement can only last as long as it takes Loudoun Water to be
the supplier of Microsoft’s water. This is not a good agreement for the Town and I will not be supporting
it.
Mayor Burk: All right. So, all in favor indicate by saying “aye”.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That is Mr. Campbell, Ms. Fox, Ms. Burk, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Steinberg. Opposed?
Council Member Dunn: Nay.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn. All right. Before we make a motion to adjourn I would like to acknowledge
Mr. Crim, who has been--
Martin Crim: Oh, thank you. It’s been an honor and a privilege, Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Crim you have done a yeoman’s job for stepping in in the middle of all the--
Vice Mayor Martinez: Don’t mind the tears.
Mayor Burk: --so thank you very much. We wish you all the best. I guess I’ll take a motion to adjourn.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Motion to adjourn.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Ms. Fox. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?