HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020_tcmin0908 COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
Council Chambers, 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,
Town Attorney Christopher Spera, Director of Public Works and Capital Projects Renee
LaFollette, Public Information Officer Betsy Arnett(via WebEx), Director of Economic
Development Russell Seymour, Zoning Administrator Mike Watkins, Management and
Budget Officer Jason Cournoyer, Preservation Planner Lauren Murphy and Clerk of
Council Eileen Boeing.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION was given by Council Member Dunn.
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG was led by Council Member Steinberg.
4. ROLL CALL
a. Electronic Participation
Vice Mayor Martinez and Council Member Dunn requested to
electronically participate in the September 8, 2020, Council Meeting due to the
health and safety concerns associated with the Coronavirus. Mayor Burk,
Council Member Campbell, Council Member Fox and Council Member
Steinberg were physically present at the meeting.
MOTION2020-210
On a motion by Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Fox, the following was
proposed:
To allow Vice Mayor Martinez and Council Member Dunn to electronically
participate in the September 8, 2020, Council Meeting
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 4-0-2(Vice Mayor Martinez and Dunn absent)
1 I Page
•
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
5. MINUTES
a. Work Session Minutes of August 10, 2020
MOTION2020-211
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the Work Session Minutes of August 10, 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 August 11, 2020
MOTION2020-212
On a motion by Council Member Fox, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
Regular Session Minutes of August 11, 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
Council Member Steinberg requested a suspension of the rules to add an item to
the agenda. Mr. Steinberg did not receive unanimous support of Council per Council's
Rules of Order to add the item to the current meeting(Vote 4-2; aye—Mayor Burk, Vice
Mayor Martinez, Council Member Fox, Council Member Steinberg; nay— Council
Member Campbell and Council Member Dunn).
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, 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. Sarah Yeager(EAC Commissioner).
Mayor Burk read a Certificate of Recognition to former Environmental
Advisory Commission(EAC)member Sarah Yeager for her service on the
Commission. Mayor Burk noted the certificate would be mailed to Ms. Yeager.
2 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
8. PROCLAMATIONS
a. National Payroll Week.
Mayor Burk proclaimed the National Payroll Week Proclamation and
noted that the proclamation would be mailed to Ms. Robyn Underwood, CPP,
who is the Treasurer of the Charles Town, West Virginia Chapter of the American
Payroll Association.
b. Constitution Week.
Mayor Burk proclaimed the Constitution Week Proclamation and noted
that the proclamation would be mailed to the Ketoctin Chapter of the Daughters of
the American Revolution(DAR).
9. PRESENTATIONS
a. None.
10. REGIONAL COMMISSION REPORTS
a. None.
11. PETITIONERS
The Petitioners section was opened at 7:11 p.m.
There were no Petitioners wishing to address Council.
The Petitioners section was closed at 7:12 p.m.
12. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Campbell requested item 12.b. —Route 15 Bypass at Edwards
Ferry Road and Fort Evans Road Interchange Project-Virginia Department of
Transportation SMART Scale Application be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion.
MOTION 2020-213
On a motion by Council Member Fox, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
following consent agenda was proposed:
a. Awarding Continuing Services Contracts for Comprehensive Engineering.
Architectural, Surveying, and Related Services
RESOLUTION2020-090
Awarding Continuing Services Contracts for Comprehensive Engineering,
Architectural, Surveying, and Related Services
•
•
• 3 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 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
b. Route 15 Bypass at Edwards Ferry Road and Fort Evans Road
Interchange Project-Virginia Department of Transportation
SMART Scale Application
Council Member Campbell asked Ms. LaFollette questions regarding the
timeline and funding for the project. Ms. LaFollette explained what money is
presently available and what is needed to complete the project. Ms. LaFollette
noted the earliest the funding would be available with the Smart Scale application
is Fiscal Year 2025.
MOTION2020-214
On a motion by Council Member Fox, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-091
Endorsement of a Smart Scale Application to the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the Route 15 Bypass at Edwards Ferry Road and Fort Evans
Road Interchange Project
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
13. RESOLUTIONS /ORDINANCES / MOTIONS
a. Renewal of Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government during
the State of Emergency Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic
Mr. Dentler explained that this is a six-month extension of the Town's
current state of emergency to April 3, 2021, and nothing is changing other than
extending the date.
MOTION2020-215
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2020-0-014
Renew Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government during the State of
Emergency Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic
4 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
Council Member Dunn asked questions about whether or not there are
any known requirements for maintaining a state of emergency in order to receive
federal funds. Mr. Dentler said he was not currently aware of any requirements
but wanted the Town to be well positioned in case it was a requirement in the
future. Mr. Spera confirmed for Mr. Dunn that there are limited circumstances
where a local emergency could be called without a State or Federal emergency
declaration and confirmed the State Code allows electronic meeting participation.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Dunn
Vote: 4-1-1(Fox abstain)
b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to the Planned Development-
Commercial Center-Small Regional Center (PD-CC-SC) District to Allow
Gas Pumps as By-Right Uses
Mr. Mike Watkins gave a presentation on the proposed Zoning Ordinance
text amendments. He stated the purpose of initiating the amendments is to
address the Zoning Ordinance, specifically gas pumps, as accessory to retail uses
in the PD-CC-SC. Mr. Watkins noted that Council included an ordinance
amendment last year to create the PD-CC-SC and the PD-IP and that the only
area in Town with PD-CC-SC zoning is the Compass Creek area. Mr. Watkins
stated that Council also rezoned and mapped several properties within the
Compass Creek development area and that there has been continued interest in
other properties that weren't part of the application coming into Town. Mr.
Watkins showed Council the two properties that were included in the mapping
designation but have not been boundary line adjusted into the Town and noted
that the Walmart property has expressed interest in adding accessory gas pumps
in the future.
Mr. Watkins explained that the proposed text amendments would:
• amend the use table for the PD-CC-SC to include accessory gas
pumps;
• create additional development standards;
• create appropriate use standards;
• amend other sections as necessary when the ordinance is drafted
Mr. Watkins noted that the draft ordinance would go to the Planning
Commission for a review and public hearing and that the property owner would
have to do a boundary line adjustment to bring the property into the Town.
Council discussed:
• whether a boundary line adjustment was an expectation or a
requirement;
• current zoning for the property in Loudoun County would allow for
gas pumps under a special exception;
5 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
• how gas pumps are currently approved in Town by special exception;
• adding this as a by-right use for the PD-CC-SC district only and not
Town wide use;
• potential revenue that the gas pumps would bring to the Town;
• if a BLA or annexation is more advantageous to the Town;
• why the Town would allow this as a by-right use and not mirror what
the County process would be to allow it through special exception;
• expediting the process if it was a by-right use;
• including use standards in the draft ordinance;
• only gas kiosks would be allowed without any food or convenience
aspect
MOTION2020-216
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member
Campbell, the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-092
To Initiate Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 8 to Allow Gas Pumps
as By Right Uses Accessory to a Primary Commercial Use in the PD-CC-SC
District and Amendments to Articles 9 and 18 Use Standards and Definitions
Council discussed:
• whether Walmart should agree to a BLA before the by-right use is
granted;
• potential impacts to existing gas providers in Town;
• previous direction given by Council to staff to pursue these companies
including Walmart
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Dunn
Vote: 5-1
14. PUBLIC HEARING
a. BAR Appeal: Partial Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
401 South King Street(replace historic wood siding with Hardieplank)
TLHP-2020-0036
The public hearing was opened at 7:53 p.m.
Ms. Lauren Murphy presented the appeal to Council. Ms. Murphy stated
that the applicant was appealing the partial denial of the Certificate of
Appropriateness for their property located at 401 S. King Street. The denial was
due to the applicant's desire to replace the existing wood siding with cement
board siding known as Hardieplank siding. The issues identified by both staff
6 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
and the BAR during the initial review of the application were that the guidelines
111 support repair or replacement in kind of wood siding. The proposed material is
not in kind replacement. Ms. Murphy said that Hardieplank siding is generally
only allowed for new construction or non-contributing structures to the Old and
Historic District. Ms. Murphy noted that the subject structure is a historic
building with existing historic lapped wood siding, which appears to be repairable
in most areas and that the Board found the proposal to replace that siding with
new wood siding or new Hardieplank siding was not consistent. Ms. Murphy
said the BAR found that the most appropriate course of action was to repair the
existing siding and replace only those areas which were beyond repair.
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Paul and Kim Baggett, presented their
appeal and asked Council to consider allowing the use of Hardieplank as an
alternative replacement for their siding. Ms. Baggett explained the difficulties
they have had with painting the existing wood; inability to find a local painter to
agree to do the work; and, the overall condition of the existing wood and need for
replacement. Ms. Baggett also noted that there were other historic homes in the
district that have cement board siding. Ms. Baggett said that they believed the
Hardieplank to be a like kind replacement of the wood siding.
Mr. Dale Goodson, Vice Chair of the Board of Architectural Review
(BAR), spoke on behalf of the BAR's decision. Mr. Goodson said that the BAR
follows the Department of Interior Standards on an application like this and for
an old and historic home, you repair first. If replacement is absolutely necessary,
you replace in kind with the same material which means wood for wood and that
repairs would generally be kept isolated to what is absolutely necessary with no
wholesale replacements of siding. Mr. Goodson said to his knowledge the BAR
has never approved cement fiber being used on old and historic structures. Mr.
Goodson also noted that you can visually tell the difference between the two
types of siding.
There were no members of the public wishing to speak at the public
hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m.
Council asked questions to Ms. Murphy, Mr. and Mrs. Baggett and Mr.
Goodson including:
• when the vinyl that was removed was installed and whether there was an
application on file to install it originally;
• any compliance action previously taken;
• resident-generated complaints for non-compliance;
• the state of the property when the applicants purchased the property;
• cost and availability of in-kind wood replacement;
• whether all of the siding needs to be replaced or only where not repairable;
• types of primers and paint to use on wood siding;
• the frequency is which the wood would need to be repainted;
7 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
• whether there would be any type of violation to leave the wood siding as it
is now;
• the previous 2017 Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the vinyl
siding;
• discussion regarding the amount of area that would need to be replaced
versus wholesale replacement which the BAR said was not appropriate;
• the harm of leaving the structure as is unpainted and additional damage to
the structure as a result;
• the common need and availability of contractors for lead-based paint
abatement on historic structures;
• the amount of time a Certificate of Appropriateness is good for and the
mechanism to request an extension from the Zoning Administrator;
• the applicant's ability to request a different material;
• why the vinyl material was removed initially;
• the applicant's desire to replace all of the siding;
• availability of the replacement wood;
• requirements for Leesburg to remain a Historic District;
• whether or not reversing the BAR's decision sets a precedent for future
applications;
• who or what determines if it is impractical to match;
• whether or not the Certificate of Appropriateness carries with the property
or the owner;
• Hardieplank being approved by the BAR for new construction projects or
additions to historic structures;
• if Hardieplank is allowed in other jurisdictions;
• if Hardieplank could be put over the existing wood;
• potential consolidation of historic wood siding to the areas where repair
was needed and relegate the new wood siding, not Hardieplank, to the
secondary elevations to preserve one facade;
• the desire to have historic structures be discernable from new construction
or additions
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Campbell, seconded by Vice Mayor Martinez, the
following was proposed:
To affirm the BAR's decision to deny the material and that Council also grant an
extension of the 2017 Certificate of Appropriateness and agree to work with the
applicant to complete a repair and replacement survey
Council discussed:
• if there was a requirement for painting to be done every two years;
• extending time to the applicants to complete the repairs;
• the expiration of the current Certificate of Appropriateness being two
years from July 26, 2020;
8 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
• the decision of Council will give the applicants a new Certificate of
Appropriateness that is good for two years from September 8, 2020;
• the desire to carry over the conditions from the 2017 approval into the
new COA;
• using the means of the applicant as a measure of practicality
The modified motion was proposed as follows:
MOTION
To affirm the BAR decision to deny the materials and issue a new Certificate of
Appropriateness with today's date and include the references of the 2017 certificate
of appropriateness.
Council discussed:
• the preservation practice of removing older parts of wood from other
parts of the house and restoring the front end of the house and using
new woods for other elevations and the amount of repairs to the home
being minor and fairly limited
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye.' Campbell, Dunn, Vice Mayor Martinez
Nay: Fox, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Vote: 3-3
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Dunn,
the following was proposed:
To affirm the BAR's decision to deny the application
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Dunn, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg
Nay: Campbell, Fox and Mayor Burk
Vote.' 3-3
As Council was unable to render a decision, Mr. Spera and Ms. Murphy
explained that Council has 75 calendar days to render a decision from the date
when the appeal was filed. The appeal was filed on August 5, 2020. Council has
until October 19, 2020, to render a decision or the BAR decision stands.
b. Supplemental Appropriation of CARES Act Funds and Second Round
Spending Plan
Council Member Steinberg disclosed he was a business owner and may
consider filing for a grant in the second round of CARES Act funding and would
therefore abstain from participating in any discussion or voting for the second
9 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
round business grants. Mr. Steinberg said he did intend to participate and vote
on any items involving the non-profit grants.
Council Member Dunn said he believed that a conflict of interest had a
monetary amount attached to it. Mr. Dunn noted he did not know if he would
qualify or that even if he did qualify that he would apply for a grant. He also
added that he did not think the amount of the grant, if received, would subject
him to a conflict of interest.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:21 p.m.
Mr. Keith Markel reviewed the two actions needed from Council. The
first was the need to ratify and reaffirm Resolution 2020-071 and amended by
Resolution 2020-087. Mr. Markel noted that it was a technical correction due to
when the Town's budget is amended by more than 1%, the Code asks that a
public hearing be held to allow the public the opportunity to comment. Mr.
Markel advised that no changes were requested as Council has already
committed the funds and the funds have been distributed. The second portion of
the resolution was for the supplemental appropriation endorsement for the
second round spending plan for the second round of CARES Act of 2020
funding.
Mr. Markel provided a recap of where the Town is today noting the
following:
• the Town distribution to the Town from the County was $4.797M;
• round two funding to the Town from the County is for an equal
amount and is pending;
• all requirements remain the same;
• funds must spent by December 30, 2020;
• funds must be spent on COVID-related issues;
• cannot be used as revenue replacement
Mr. Markel reported 176 businesses have received grant awards and
account for nearly$1.6M getting into the hands of local businesses. He stated
that non-profit organizations have received over$800K in non-profit funding.
Mr. Markel said the Town is working with those non-profits to distribute the
remaining$197K that was not allocated. The deadline for them to respond back
to the Town advising how much they need is Friday, September 11 at noon and
once the information is received the Town will be able to equitably distribute the
funds to the remaining 26 non-profit organizations.
Mr. Markel noted the Town's full allocation of$770K has been used for
COVID-related costs. Mr. Markel said the Town is going forward with phase two
of the grant program using the remaining amount of round one money which is
supplemented with round two money as proposed in the spending plan. Mr.
Markel stated the continuing unknown is what the Federal government will do in
regard to any modifications to the spending requirements. Mr. Markel and Mr.
Seymour shared statistics on businesses receiving the infusion grants and
10 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
indicators where businesses may be struggling and where some of the grant
money has been spent.
Mr. Markel reviewed the second resolution for round two funding, the
supplemental appropriation, and the endorsement of the spending plan of the
second-round funding that includes just under $3 million for small and medium-
sized business grants to finish out round one and a phase two program which just
opened. He added that the Town is now receiving applications from businesses
that include the expanded tiers for larger businesses for larger awards and smaller
businesses with smaller awards. Mr. Markel noted that Council directed$1M to
non-profits in the second-round grant program. Mr. Markel noted it was
Council's discretion to adopt the spending plan as presented or make
modifications but advised that monies can be moved around within the spending
plan in the future, as needed. Mr. Markel added that new guidance was received
that some Police expenses can be funded through the CARES funding. Staff is
currently evaluating the eligibility criteria.
There were no members of the public wishing to speak at the public
hearing.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:32 p.m.
Council discussed:
• if the Police funding was coming out of the Town's $820K;
• first or second round funding could be used to cover Police personnel
costs;
• how businesses are using the CARES grant funds;
• why revenue replacement cannot be a qualified expense if that is one
of the Town's requirements;
• second round awards being distributed to businesses who received it in
the first round awards;
• percentage of Town staff that did not receive their full pay from full-
time employment during COVID;
• if Council chose to provide funding for Police expenses it would come
out of the $4.7M;
• what expenses of the Police would be eligible for reimbursement;
• potentially not using the funds for Police expense reimbursement and
using them to supplement the economy
MOTION2020-217
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member
Steinberg, the following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-093
To ratify and reaffirm Resolution 2020-071 and amended by Resolution 2020-087
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
11 l Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0
MOTION2020-218
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
following was proposed:
RESOL UTION2020-094
To approve the Supplemental Appropriation and Endorsement of Spending Plan
for Second Round of Cares Act of 2020 Funding
Council discussed the County input and qualification issues for adjusting
the tiers to allow businesses that have less than$2,500 in revenue to receive
CARES Act grant funding.
Council Member Dunn offered a friendly amendment to allow all business
in Leesburg to apply for a grant and receive a minimum of$1,000. The
amendment was not accepted by Vice Mayor Martinez or Council Member
Campbell.
MOTION
The following motion by Council Member Dunn failed to get a second:
To allow all businesses in Leesburg to apply for a grant and receive a minimum of
$1,000
The original motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 4-0-2(Dunn, Steinberg abstain)
15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. None.
16. NEW BUSINESS
a. None.
17. DISCUSSION
a. None.
18. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES AND COMMENTS / ADDITIONS TO
FUTURE MEETINGS
Council Member Campbell said he participated as a speaker with the Loudoun
Youth Leadership Program, he attended the Global Leadership Summit at Destiny
Church, he was a guest speaker on race relations at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in
Purcellville, he was a guest speaker at a Habitat for Humanity Community Development
program and a guest facilitator at the Loudoun County NAACP Town Hall meeting.
12 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
Mr. Campbell congratulated Senator Kamala Harris as the first African-American
woman Vice President selection for a major party. He thanked Parks &Recreation
Director Rich Williams and the historic preservationist for the assistance they have been
providing on Eagle Scout bench project at the Orion Anderson lynching site at Harrison
Street and the W&OD trail. Mr. Campbell offered regrets to the community and the
applicants that the Judge decided to not move forward on a temporary appointment to
Council. Mr. Campbell disclosed he met with Mr. Matt Leslie regarding the Allman
Property special exception application.
Mr. Campbell requested an information memo regarding the security at Ida Lee
Park and the need for security cameras, increased Police patrols and alerts to the
community and tennis bubble participants when there are incidents in the area.
It was the consensus of Council to have staff prepare an information memo(Campbell, Fox,
Steinberg and Mayor Burk).
Mr. Campbell requested an information memo regarding the status of the Town's
response as a secondary public access safety point 911 call center. He noted the
challenges of the 911 system in the County during the drowning incident at Confluence
Park and wants to make sure the Town is doing what it can regarding 911 response.
It was the consensus of Council to have staff prepare an information memo(Campbell, Fox,
Steinberg and Mayor Burk).
Council Member Fox disclosed that she met with Mr. Matt Leslie regarding the
Allman Property and with Ms. Molly Novotny and Ms. Colleen Gillis and the current
owner regarding the old Walmart site. Ms. Fox commented that she was not happy that
the County did not give Council or Town staff any advance warning that it was
committing the Rust Library for other purposes. She noted there are many Leesburg
residents that are not happy with the County's decision.
Ms. Fox requested a Work Session and resolution of support for the Leesburg
Police Department. She wanted to provide affirmation to the Leesburg Police
Department and the Loudoun County Sheriffs Office that the Leesburg Town Council
supports them. Council Member Fox referenced specific points of proposed legislation
that is currently being discussed at the State level.
It was the consensus of Council to have a Work Session discussion with a proposed
Resolution of Support for the Police(Fox, Campbell, Steinberg and Mayor Burk).
Council Member Dunn disclosed that he received a call from someone
representing the Allman Property and that he was asked how the application could be
reconsidered. Mr. Dunn advised the caller that he did not think it was possible under
Council's rules.
13 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING September 8, 2020
Vice Mayor Martinez disclosed that he had a discussion with Mr. Matt Leslie
regarding the CVS/Allman Property.
19. MAYOR DISCLOSURES AND COMMENTS / ADDITIONS TO FUTURE
MEETINGS
Mayor Burk noted that September was Childhood Cancer Awareness
month and thanked the volunteers who placed gold ribbons throughout Town for
awareness. Mayor Burk disclosed that she had a discussion with Mr. Matt Leslie
regarding the CVS project and with Ms. Molly Novotny regarding Leegate.
Mayor Burk said she participated in a ribbon cutting ceremony for Dana's Cake
Shop in the Villages at Leesburg. She commended the owner for opening a
business during a pandemic. Mayor Burk noted that she was also disappointed
that the Board of Supervisors failed to make the Town aware of its decision to
close the Rust Library to provide daycare and student assistance for County
employees. She noted that Supervisor Umstattd was able to retain curbside
service but Mayor Burk expressed concern that the Town was not consulted first.
She said she shared these sentiments with Chair Randall and Supervisor
Umstattd. Mayor Burk said it is an issue the Town can discuss with the County
when the standing.Commission between the Town and the County is established.
20. TOWN MANAGER COMMENTS
a. None.
21. CLOSED SESSION
a. None.
22. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Fox, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Key u ayor
Town of Leesburg
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
2020_tcmin0908
14 I Page
Page 1| September 8, 2020
September 8, 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: I would like to call to order the September 8th meeting of Leesburg Town Council.
If anyone in the room needs hearing assistance, please see the Clerk. Council Member Dunn will be
giving the invocation followed by Council Member Steinberg leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr.
Dunn.
Council Member Thomas Dunn: Do we have to vote for me to actually be in the meeting first?
Mayor Burk: Well, we haven't been doing it that way before. Could you just give the invocation and
then that's the next thing we do.
Council Member Dunn: That's fine. Dear Lord, we thank you for bringing us here this evening. We ask
for your guidance and your wisdom and your knowledge as we go through our proceedings, and we
ask for your healing touch in our nation and our community, in your name. Amen.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Neil Steinberg: I pledge allegiance [inaudible 00:03:05].
Mayor Burk: All right. I would like to move to allow Vice Mayor Martinez and Council Member Dunn to
electronically participate in the September 8th, 2020 Town Council meeting. Do I have a second?
Seconded by Ms. Fox. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That's 4-0-2. All right, gentlemen, you are now part of the meeting. I need a
motion to accept the work session minutes of August 10th, 2020.
Council Member Steinberg: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Council Member Steinberg. Second. Seconded by Council Member
Campbell. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That is six, zero. Regular session minutes of the August 11th 2020 meeting.
Got a motion. So moved by Council Member Fox, second by Council Member Campbell. All in favor.
Opposed? It passes six, zero.
Council Member Steinberg: Madam Mayor before we move to adopt the agenda, I'd like to ask for a
suspension of the rules to offer a motion.
Mayor Burk: All right. Council Member Steinberg is asking for suspension of the rules. Is there a
second?
Council Member Steinberg: I apologies I'd send an email to Council this afternoon. This has to do
with showing support for Supervisor Umstattd in her request to the County Board of Supervisors for
revisiting their noise ordinance.
Mayor Burk: Vice Mayor, did I hear you second it? Do we have a visual? Okay. Yes. All right. There's
a second. Is there anything you wish to explain in regard to this? Why you want to suspend it? That's
what we are talking about.
Page 2| September 8, 2020
Council Member Steinberg: Well, as I said, I had sent the email out this afternoon, I can read the
motion in its entirety.
Mayor Burk: We're just talking about suspending the rules.
Council Member Steinberg: Suspending the rules in order to offer this motion.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Is there anything you want to say in regards to it?
Council Member Steinberg: Only what I've already said.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Is there anybody else that has anything they would like to add at this point? All
right, all in favor of suspending the rules indicate by saying aye. Ms. Fox, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Burk, Mr.
Steinberg. Opposed. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Campbell. All right. We've suspended the rules.
Council Member Steinberg: No. Doesn’t it have to be unanimous?
Mayor Burk: It's majority.
Council Member Steinberg: Then we're good.
Mayor Burk: Okay. We have suspended the rules.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor, suspension of the rules requires a majority, I’m sorry,
unanimous consent.
Mayor Burk: Okay, we're checking but I do believe it has to be unanimous. That's right. The very first
one. I think it's in our rules of orders, unanimous. All right, so that failed. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dunn for
catching that. All right. Now I need a motion to adopt the meeting agenda.
Council Member Steinberg: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Council Member Steinberg, second? Second by Council Member Fox, all
in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed. That's six, zero. We have a certificate of recognition and this certificate of
recognition is going to Sarah Yeager for her dedication and service to the Town of Leesburg
Environmental Advisory Commission from July 19th through August, excuse me, July 2019 through
August 2020. Then we would be, ordinarily we would be presenting it this day, but we will send it to her.
We've already voted on it, we just move on from that. We have a presentation about the proclamation
for National Payroll Week. I will read this, but this also we'll go in the mail to the recipient. National
Payroll W eeks, September 7th to the 11th, 2020, whereas the American Payroll Association, and it's
more than 20,000 members have launched a nationwide public awareness campaign that pays tribute
to the nearly the 150 million people who work in the United States and the payroll professionals who
support the American system by paying wages, reporting workers' earnings and withholding federal
employment tax.
Whereas the Town of Leesburg recognizes Robin Underwood CPP, Treasurer, Charleston, West
Virginia, Chapter of the APA to accept his proclamation for the National Payroll Week. Whereas payroll
professionals in Leesburg, Virginia play a key role in maintaining the economic health of Leesburg,
carrying out such diverse tasks as paying into the unemployment insurance system, providing
information for child support enforcement and carrying out tasks, withholding, reporting, and depositing.
Whereas the Payroll Department collectively spends more than 2.4 trillion annually complying with a
myriad of federal and state wages and tax law. Whereas payroll professionals play an increasingly
important role in ensuring the economic security of American families by helping to identify non-
Page 3| September 8, 2020
custodial parents, by making sure they comply with their child support mandates. Whereas payroll
professionals have become increasingly proactive in educating both the business community and the
public at large about payroll tax withholding systems.
Whereas payroll professionals meet regularly with Federal and State tax officials to discuss both
improving compliance with government procedure and how compliance can be achieved at less costs
to both government and business, therefore proclaimed the Mayor and the Council of the Town of
Leesburg, Virginia hereby recognized September 7th through 11th, 2020 as the National Payroll Week
and hereby give additional support to the efforts of the people who work in Leesburg and the payroll
profession. Proclaimed this eighth day of September, 2020.
We are not presenting it but we read it to go on the record. That will go in the mail to Robin Underwood.
Proclamation again, we're reading this, this will be sent out but this is for Constitutional Weeks,
September 17th, to the 23rd. Whereas it is a privilege and duty of the American people to commemorate
the anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America with appropriate
ceremonies and activities. Whereas the United States Constitution stands as a Testament to the
tenacity of Americans throughout history to maintain their liberties, freedoms and inalienable rights.
Whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition of this magnificent document and its
Memorial anniversary and to the patriotic celebration, which will commemorate it. Whereas we
recognize the Ketoctin Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution as accepting this
proclamation. Whereas the tradition of celebrating the Constitution was started many years ago by the
National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution in 1955, the daughters petitioned
Congress to set aside September 17th to the 23rd annually for the observance of Constitution W eek.
Congress later adopted a resolution to do so and Public Law 915 was signed into law on August 2nd,
1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Therefore, proclaimed that the Mayor and the Council of the
Town of Leesburg in Virginia do hereby proclaim the week of September 17th to the 23rd as Constitution
Week in the Town of Leesburg, Virginia and urge all citizens to study the Constitution and to reflect on
the privilege of being an American with all the rights and responsibility, which that privilege involves.
Proclaimed this eighth day of September, 2020.
Again, this will go to the Daughters of the American Revolution. All right. That takes us to the next.
Sorry. That takes us to, thank you, the next one is our presentations and no, we did presentation excuse
me. Is there a petitioners? Then I'm looking for the wording for the petitioner section.
Council Member Steinberg: Regional commission reports?
Mayor Burk: Do you have a regional commission report?
Council Member Steinberg: No.
Mayo Burk: No, that was after the-- okay, no. Anybody else have a regional commission report? Okay.
Sorry, I'm looking for the wording so I say it correctly. Oh, there it is. Thank you. Ah, yes, right there,
right front. Okay. On the first order 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 doing so, give your address for the taped record. Any public
speaker will be requested to state their name and spell it for the purpose of closed captioning. In the
interest of fairness, we also ask that you observe the five-minute time limit. For those participating in
person or on WebEx, the green light on the timer will turn yellow at the end of your 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. Those participating on the 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 everyone present in the room,
we will hear from the members of the public on the phone or WebEx. The first name on the petitioner
sheet is not there. There is no one that's signed up that wants to speak. I will ask screener, are there
any members of the public online that wish to speak?
Page 4| September 8, 2020
Betsy Arnett: Madam Mayor, we have no one online.
Mayor Burk: All right. Then if there's nobody else in the room that wants to speak at this point, I will
close the petitioner’s section and we will move on to the approval of the consent agenda. Do I have a
motion to approve-- let me read them first, okay? Approval of the consent agenda is 12(a) Awarding
Continuing Service Contracts for the Comprehensive Engineering, Architectural and Surveying and
Related Services.
This is awarding a continuing service contract for those particular services and B, is the Endorsement
of a Smart Scale Application to the Virginia Department of Transportation, for the Route 15 Bypass at
Edwards Ferry Road and Fort Evans Road Interchange Project. Is there anybody that would like to
remove anything from the consent agenda?
Council Member Ron Campbell: Yes, B.
Mayor Burk: B? All right. Do I have a motion to accept 12(a) Awarding the Continuing Service Contract
for the Comprehensive Engineering Architectural Surveying and Related Services, so moved by Council
Member Fox, second?
Council Member Ron Campbell: Second.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Campbell, any discussion, all in favor, indicate by saying, aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That's six, zero. Mr. Campbell, you asked, what is your issue with this
particular--?
Council Member Campbell: I don't have an issue. I want clarification because again, this project is
significantly underfunded, as it talks about in the staff report, may not even see the light of day until
2025 or later. I just want a clear explanation of the timeline, what we hope to accomplish. I know we
need to move forward the Smart Scale requests, but if you could just tell me very quickly what our
expectations are and is there any more that we can do outside of the Smart Scale request?
Renee LaFollette: As directed by Council, we're going after every potential funding source to move
this project forward. Currently we have $5.4 million of NVTA funding remaining in our account with them
for design work, we've requested an additional five million from Loudoun County through their CIP
request. That will fund the design portion. This application for Smart Scale. The earliest that money is
available based on the way the applications are set up is fiscal 2025. If we are successful in getting the
five million from the County for design, it will take us that long to get to the point of being able to begin
construction, land acquisition, utility relocations, and all of that. Since it is as large a project as it is,
we're looking at doing this as a design bid build project.
The design is anticipated to take two and a half to three years. Then you go into right-of-way acquisition
and utility relocation before we can actually start the project. That’s estimates based on what has
happened with other projects, but the earliest this money is available is 2025.
Council Member Campbell: Was there any conversation or consideration given that we did move the
money but this money would have ever been replaced? We’re asking the County to do things. We were
asked to do things to move money so that the Battlefield-- so that the entertaining project would proceed
so borrow from Peter to pay Paul.
Renee LaFollette: Well, that's part of this application is when we moved the money, we knew we were
going to have to backfill that money from somewhere. All of our RSTP money that we receive in future
years is being allocated to this interchange project. That money is intended to replace the money that
was taken for the Battlefield Parkway project. It's in later years we need to find that source to continue
design which is why we're asking the County and also doing this application.
Council Member Campbell: Then this becomes our priority and it's not likely that many other projects
will jump over this that the Town has. This is the next big thing.
Page 5| September 8, 2020
Renee LaFollette: This is the next big project, regional project for the Town, yes.
Council Member Campbell: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Is there any additional discussion? Do I have a motion? Moved by Council Member Fox,
second by Council Member Campbell. All in favor indicate by saying Aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed. Passes six, zero. We are in the resolution section at this point. The first one is
13A which is the Renewal Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government during the State of
Emergency Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic. This is really just to keep us in line with what the State
is doing that we will stay in the state of emergency as long as the State stays in the state of emergency.
Is that correct?
Kaj Dentler: Well, the State remains under emergency order, so emergency. This just extends our
current declaration of emergency for six months, which is the max we can go to April the 3rd, if the State
or in this case the Governor ends it sooner then we would end ours. Instead of trying to do it every
month or every two months, it just goes out as far as we can, keeps us in the position that we are. We
haven't taken any actions on emergency basis. Anyway, the only thing we've done is downtown parking.
It was nothing to do with emergency. That was just to help the businesses. So nothing really changes.
It keeps us eligible for any money that comes through the Feds and through the State that you want to
be positioned for. We would not want to be in a situation where we are not in this situation and money
becomes available and eligibility is an issue for us. Nothing changes other than extending the date out.
Mayor Burk: It allows us to continue to meet like this with four of us here and two on virtually.
Kaj Dentler: Correct. The unlimited participation and remote access continues. We still have to have
four people here on the dais or in the room in order to hold the meeting, but there's no max on how
much people can participate remotely.
Mayor Burk: Okay, great. All right, thank you. Is there a motion?
Council Member Steinberg: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Moved by Council Member Steinberg, second?
Council Member Campbell: Second.
Mayor Burk: Moved by Council Member Campbell. Does anybody else have any questions?
Council Member Dunn: I had a question.
Mayor Burk: Yes, sir.
Council Member Dunn: Kaj, you had said that we have to maintain our state of emergency in order to
get any Federal funds. Under what basis are you making that comment because I didn't see that written
anywhere?
Kaj Dentler: What I'm referencing--
Council Member Dunn: This is not coming from the State.
Kaj Dentler: Sir, what I'm referencing is--
Council Member Dunn: We may be getting it from the County.
Page 6| September 8, 2020
Kaj Dentler: What I'm referencing, Mr. Dunn, is at times there are funds that come from the Federal
government, through the State that requires you to be under certain condition, which a declaration of
emergency is a standard one. Based on how the legislation is written by the Feds, determines that.
Since the State is under a declaration of emergency and all other jurisdictions or most jurisdictions in
the State probably are as well, there's no reason for the Leesburg not to be in that situation to take
advantage of such funds. You certainly would not want to be disqualified because you're not under that
circumstance.
Again, the Town with the powers that I have under the emergency declaration, I've not taken any
actions. I don't expect to take any actions. We continue to operate. It just positions us where we should
be, where we want to be under the situation that we currently have. At some point, the Governor is
going to end the declaration. I just don't know when that is, whether it's going to be within the next six
months or it's going to go further. I can't answer that. All I can do is position the Town accordingly.
Council Member Dunn: Our ability to meet as we are, I don't think that required us to be able to answer
these situations because that was the balance that the Commonwealth put forward and it may be a
stipulation being in an emergency situation. They just referenced the State's emergency situation, not
necessarily a local emergency. Do you know that to be true?
Kaj Dentler: Honestly, I couldn't understand what you're saying, you're breaking up. If some--
Council Member Dunn: I'll try again, unfortunately, I'm using my computer's microphone tonight. What
I said was that our ability to meet as we are is based on the State's emergency, not our local emergency.
Is that correct?
Kaj Dentler: You want to answer that?
Chris Spera: Yes. Mr. Dunn, that is in fact, correct. That is the ability to meet with four in person and
the rest electronically is a function of State code section.
Council Member Dunn: Whoops. Thank you. By doing it for six months, I'm hesitant to want to put
forward such a long time for a state of emergency, but is it true that we cannot be in the state of
emergency unless the State or the County has called the state emergency or can we call our own state
emergency?
Kaj Dentler: Do you know that?
Chris Spera: There is some limited ability to declare a local emergency. There's a specific set of
circumstances that I do not recall off the top of my head, but the powers granted to local governments
do include the ability to call a local emergency. I don't think that's what is being suggested here that
essentially what we're doing is mirroring what the State has done.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. I hope that when the legislators come back, they take up the unlimited
state of emergency that Governors are given in Virginia so that they could ask for renewals on those,
and it's not an endless state of emergency. As it would be good to have justifications given for extending
state of emergencies instead of just a one-time taking authority. Thank you for that information.
Mayor Burk: All right. We have a motion made by Council Member Steinberg seconded by Council
Member Campbell, any additional discussion at this point? All right. All in favor indicate. We are voting
on a Renewal of the Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government during the State of Emergency
Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic. All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Dunn: Nay.
Page 7| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: That's four, one, one with an abstention and Mr. Dunn opposed. The next resolution we
have is a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to the planned development commercial center, small
regional center PD-CC-SC district to allow gas pumps by by-right uses. Who is addressing this one?
Mike Watkins: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, good evening. Before you this evening is an
initiation of a text amendment. This does address the PD-CC-SC. Sorry about that. If this text
amendment is initiated, you all are the applicant in this case. This is an initiation by Council to amend
the Zoning Ordinance. Again, the purpose of this amendment is initiating amendments to address the
Zoning Ordinance, specifically gas pumps, as accessory to retail uses in the PD-CC-SC. Just a little bit
of background. Again, some of the subject properties that were zoned PD-CC-SC stemmed from an
approved zoning map amendments that were done in the County.
Specifically, Council’s actions included an ordinance amendment in last year to create the PD-CC-SC
and the PD-IP. It reflects the development approvals that were granted to properties in the Compass
Creek. This is the only place in Town that the PD-CC-SC exist, the Compass Creek area. In addition,
Council rezoned and mapped several properties within the Compass Creek development area. There
has been continued interest in other properties that weren't part of this application coming into Town.
What I highlighted, if you can see it or not, but the color fluctuating in orange are the two properties that
were included in the mapping designation, but not yet boundary line adjusted into the Town. One
specific property has voiced its interest in this potential text amendment. It's the Walmart property. With
the Walmart property what they are looking at is the ability to add accessory gas pumps in the future.
The proposed text amendments would do several things. Amend the use table for the PD-CC-SC to
include accessory gas pumps. That’s going to create additional development standards.
We're going to create appropriate use standards and then amend other sections as necessary when
we come up with the draft ordinance. The next steps again, staff would complete the text amendment.
It will include a draft by staff, a Planning Commission public hearing and review, and a Council public
hearing and review. Subsequent to that, the property owner would still need to have the property
boundary line adjusted into the Town. Then after that, it would be an administrative site plan for review
by staff. I've included a suggestion motion if you want to continue with this initiation. I'm here to answer
any questions that you may have.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Martinez, do you have any questions? I'm going to assume that's a no. Does
anyone else have any questions, Ms. Fox?
Council Member Suzanne Fox: It's real quick question. You mentioned property would be boundary
line adjusted into Town. Is that an expectation or is that a contingency? Is that something that we are
expecting or they need to agree to in order for this amendment to get started?
Mike Watkins: I think that conversation has taken place in different venues. They're anticipating making
a request whether or not that's a condition. I think that's subject of future Council action.
Kaj Dentler: I can tell you, Ms. Fox, that in order to have the company that look favorably upon coming
into the Town, this is an important item for them. They already have or anticipate getting that approval
if they stay in the County. This is something that's important in order to move forward with bringing that
parcel into the Town.
Council Member Fox: Is there anything else that's important?
Kaj Dentler: I'm sorry.
Council Member Fox: Is there anything else that's important besides these?
Kaj Dentler: I can't hear you.
Council Member Fox: Is there anything else that's important besides this?
Kaj Dentler: No.
Page 8| September 8, 2020
Council Member Fox: Okay. Thank you.
Kaj Dentler: This is it.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: Mr. Watkins, so it's currently zoned into Loudoun County, are gas pumps
permitted under Loudoun County current Zoning Ordinances?
Mike Watkins: They would be subject to a special exception in the County.
Council Member Campbell: It is possible for them to get it not coming to the Town.
Mike Watkins: Yes. They're currently in the County. There's zone PD-CC-SC I think in the County.
They can submit an application for an SE in the County.
Council Member Campbell: There’s a path forward either way. They come into the Town or don’t.
Mike Watkins: Yes.
Council Member Campbell: That was my understanding again that our commitment we would move
forward on these types of adjustments so that we could do the BLAs, which makes sense. I just wanted
to make sure that there was a path forward in the County should they choose not to come. Ok. Thank
you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: I have no questions. I recognize this is another step of the process we
basically agreed to, so I would be in favor of it. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Thank you. In the County, they would require a special exception. Does it
currently require for special exception in the Town to have gas pumps added?
Mike Watkins: The use itself, the PD-CC-SC, does that currently include that use? The PD-CC-SC,
the text amendment was initially intended to carry over development approvals from the County to the
Town. In that regard, the nature of this text amendment would include that as a by-right use subject to
subsequent administrative action by staff.
Council Member Dunn: I should've asked my question differently. Currently in Town, are the properties
which are allowed by-right additions of gas pumps?
Mike Watkins: No sir they’re special exceptions in the Town.
Council Member Dunn: Here, we're going to add a by-right use to a section that currently is not even
in the Town, correct?
Mike Watkins: The ordinance would be specific to the PD-CC-SC and not Town-wide. It's been
specifically narrowed to one particular area of Town. I don't know if that helps or hurts question, but
that's the answer I have for you.
Council Member Dunn: Currently, our existing businesses can't do by-right gas pumps, but to
businesses that we've been trying to get to come into Town and have been asking for their sign-off on
it, and we keep giving, giving, giving, and we don't get, get, get. I just see this as another thing of us
rolling over for folks that frankly I don't see them moving forward to working with us. Now granted, we're
saying you're going to get this is a by-right use. I just don't think that that's fair to other businesses who
may want to add pumps or make addition to existing pumps and they have to go through a special
exception that we're going to do this. Again, we seem to be only acting on show me the money. I don't
Page 9| September 8, 2020
see any other benefit to this. Frankly, there's other ways we could be getting funds into the Town not
through BLA but through annexation, and then we can set the rules as we want. I don't think that this is
fair to our other businesses, and I'm not going to be supporting this. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. Go back to Mr. Martinez. Did you have any question? Thank you. Sorry.
Vice Mayor Fernando “Marty” Martinez: Yes, I do. Initially I didn't have any questions, but as the
Council Member was talking, I had a question about the JMLA. Is this one of the things that would make
it easier for Walmart to want to come to the JMLA? Sorry, come into the Town from the JLMA?
Mayor Burk: He's asking would this make Walmart more likely to come into the Town from the JLMA.
Kaj Dentler: Yes. This is what they need to be comfortable coming into the Town. We've known that
for quite a while. They're ready to move forward, so yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: What is the revenue that would be generated from the Walmart, and can you
separate the financial impact from Walmart and the tanks or the gas?
Kaj Dentler: Can you hear him?
Mike Watkins: He's asking about revenue from Walmart.
Kaj Dentler: I don't know what that revenue is, I don't know if Russell's here. I don't know off the top of
my head, but it's going to be very positive for the Town, obviously. It's a Super Walmart.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. You don't know how much additional revenue the gas station will be
bringing.
Kaj Dentler: I don't know at this time. No, sir. Other than it's just very positive.
Vice Mayor Martinez: To the Town Attorney, as we are laying down arguments or bringing in other
areas from the JMLA into the Town, how does it line up as a positive or negative?
Chris Spera: I'm not sure I understood your question Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Somewhere down the line we're going to be having to be either more BLA or
annexation. My question is, with our work to bring this into the Town, but favorably on future negotiations
that we've got, all of a sudden [inaudible 00:37:21].
Chris Spera: I think that this goes to is whether or not the property owner would consent to the boundary
line adjustment. Consent is not always required, but it does smooth the process if the property owner
consents, the property owner whose property is subject to the boundary line adjustment to come within
the Town. This is another element to obtaining this particular property owner's consent to the boundary
line adjustment. It is not just positive but it is an important factor when you obtain the property owner's
consent. Does that answer your question, sir?
Vice Mayor Martinez: That does, but my question lies into future negotiations down the road, as we're
working with the County and the State, both legally.
Chris Spera: I understand, Mr. Martinez. The fact that the Town has the property owners consent would
in fact improve the Town's negotiating position with the County. Yes, sir. That is correct. With respect
to the boundary line adjustment negotiations.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Thank you, I appreciate that. No more questions.
Mayor Burk: I have a couple of questions here. As I understand it, if this property stays in the County,
the County requires a special exception, but we're saying if you come into the Town, you can do it by
right.
Page 10| September 8, 2020
Mike Watkins: My understanding is that they were likely to pursue this special exception regardless. I
don't know Kaj if you or Russell want to address the timeliness of it, but I think that's the matter here, is
that by making it a by-right use, it expedites the potential of consent of the property owner to come into
the Town.
Kaj Dentler: I don't have the exact timeline they're looking but they're confident that they will get the
approval, the County has been receptive of their development plans. Simply again, to repeat, they
simply want to ensure that they have the same ability if they come into the Town and then it's changed
to give their consent, but I don't have the timeline, but I think it's sooner than later.
Mayor Burk: At the County, they have to do a special exception. If they come into the Town, they'd still
have to do it. Our planning should mirror they're coming in from at the County level. If the County says
they have to do a special exception, why are we saying, you don't have to do a special exception, we'll
let you do it by-right.
Mike Watkins: I think it was in the hopes of expediting the development of the property.
Kaj Dentler: They've already done this in the County elsewhere. They're again, confident that they will
be approved by the County if they stay there, but they want a level of certainty that if they're going to
consent to a BLA, they want to know with confidence that their development plans won't be changed. It
becomes simply that discussion if we want to remove that barrier in order to bring that parcel in the
Town, this is something that we need to have the discussion on.
Mayor Burk: I'm still missing something here, I'm sorry. If they are okay being in the County and the
County says you have to do a special exception and we say we went to Richmond, changed the
legislation that said, if a property comes in from the County, we accept what the County's rules are for
that piece of property. If they have to do a special exception out here, why are we changing it to they
come into Town we don't have to do a special exception anymore.
Mike Watkins: Real good memory. Currently, the concept plan for Compass Creek does not have the
gas station shown there on. The intent of the text amendment would be to essentially ignore and accept
the property with the condition that in the PD-CC-SC they can do a site plan, not a special exception
for the gas station. Just to clarify the gas station, this isn't the Shell on the corner, this isn't the Exxon
in Town, this is supposed to be an intended for accessory to retail users, the Costco’s, the Walmart's
where you've got big box retail. What's been the new norm now where you have the accessory gas
pumps, that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about your normal run of the mill gas stations.
Mayor Burk: I'm still not getting it. I'm sorry. I still don't get to understand why we would change
anything, if they're willing to do it in the County and we accept it.
Mike Watkins: Right. If they stay in the County they would go through the special exception. The Town
Manager was saying they've already had preliminary discussions with the County staff. They're
comfortable in accepting the fact that if they were to stay in the County, they would go through that
process, receive approval and develop the property with accessory gas pumps. W e're negating, this
text amendment would potentially encourage them to BLA into the Town and then expedite the approval
of the property so that they can build the gas pumps without the legislative action of going before the
Council for a special exception. You're eliminating a step.
Mayor Burk: Yes, but we're not asking them for anything. We're not saying, "Okay, we'll do this, but
you got to come into the Town." We're not saying that. Is that correct? Am I missing something?
Kaj Dentler: Well, if they don't come into the Town, then they don't have to. I mean, they're going to
just go to the County and get it for a special exception approval to build what they intend to build.
Mayor Burk: Okay, but why would they care? Why would they care if they have to do it?
Kaj Dentler: Because it's a business model that they don't want. They don't want to lose that.
Mayor Burk: I know but they're not going to lose it because we have said we will accept what the
County does. If you come into the Town we'll accept the County's planning so that they go to the special
Page 11| September 8, 2020
exception at the County, they get their approval, we'll accept it. I don't understand why we're changing
it. I know what your intent is. You're trying to make it more attractive for them to com e in. Is that the
exclusive reason? Because we're not demanding anything of them. We're just giving them an easier
way to do something, which may not necessarily be bad, but I don't understand the reasoning is where
I'm stuck.
Russell Seymour: Think of it this way. A lot of it has to do with timing. They know and Walmart knows
right now if they go to Loudoun County, go through that process through Loudoun County, they have a
known record with Loudoun County, they will get that. They can go through the process for Loudoun
get that changed, then look to come into the Town if and when they'd like to do it at that point. Our focus
right now has been in talking with Walmart saying that if we go ahead and do this now, they then can
go through our process and get into the Town much quicker than going through the County's process,
then turning around and having to come into the Town that way.
For us, for our standpoint, it's a timing issue. It's quicker if we approve it. It gives them clear conscience
to go ahead and move forward with it. It allows them to not basically go through due processes. I
understand what you're saying, but we would adopt the County process. Walmart is very clear saying
they want to do this one time. They want it quick. They're willing to be in the Town if we can make this
go forward.
Mayor Burk: Okay, maybe this is why I'm confusing. I'm thinking that if it gets approved in the County,
then we would automatically accept it as is in the Town. Well, then why do we have to change it? I'm
sorry.
Russell Seymour: No, it's one of those that six one way half dozen the other. For us, if we're moving
forward, we're being very proactive in doing something that we have stood behind in wanting to work
with each of the businesses to bring them into the Town through a BLA process. This is something that
we're looking at doing, putting it out there. That's a request that they've made for us to be able to work
with them from a timing issue. A lot of that has to do with business confidence. They have that track
record, they know they've got a good record with the County. They've not had that same relationship
with the Town as far as doing these changes.
Mayor Burk: The other question is, they'll be nothing but if it's by right, then how do we deal with
parking, setting up parking they have to so many spaces? You said there'll be no food, it'll just be a
kiosk thing.
Mike Watkins: Part of the drafting of the ordinance, if you initiated is to create those use standards.
We would insert them into the Town's ordinance and they would be applied administratively. Those
performance criteria, the parking, the buffer yards, the step all that would be included in the Town
ordinance, and just be administered by right instead of by special exception.
Mayor Burk: Somehow you have a guarantee that this is not going to be a food establishment, a quick
market where you go in and get sandwiches and Cokes and stuff like that?
Mike Watkins: The ordinance drafted is specific for gas pumps and gas pumps only, not for a
convenience store.
Mayor Burk: All right. Do we have a motion to initiate the Zoning Ordinance text amendment to Article
8 to allow gas pumps by-right use accessory to a primary commercial use in the PD-CC-SC district and
amend to Article 9 and 18 use standards and definitions.
Council Member Steinberg: So moved.
Mayor Burk: So moved by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Campbell. Any
additional discussion at this point?
Council Member Dunn: Yes, Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Dunn.
Page 12| September 8, 2020
Council Member Dunn: Thank you. I want to thank the Mayor for her questions. I thought they were
well stirred. We need to keep in mind a couple of things. Throughout this process [unintelligible
00:47:57] negotiations has really been demands and people say yes, [unintelligible 00:48:03]
negotiating. Negotiations in this circumstance would be rather than creating a situation that makes it
more attractive for them to come into the Town, I think that this amendment should be amended by just
saying that upon signing of the BLA, you will be given the ability to have by regular use of gas stations.
Not something that's because, as already been put in there by staff they’re already out there seeking
this measure in the County.
Let's also keep in mind that we've been dealing with Walmart for about a year and a half, maybe a little
less than that. They have had every ability to come into the Town during that time. Nowhere in there,
we said, "Oh, no, no, please don't come into Town, we're just not ready for you. We got to get the rooms
fixed up and make sure you get guest mattresses set out and sheets." No. we've been saying come on
into the Town and they have not been doing it. Now they're saying here's one more condition we need
to see, that as you pointed out Mayor, if the County does it, we’ll automatically do it. Now, we've
"negotiated" a great deal. Here you can have something that we don't even give to our current
businesses.
Let's remember too, these are businesses [unintelligible 00:49:24], but every gallon of gas that
Walmart takes is taking away gas from our current businesses that are already in Town. It's been seen
many times that that hurts those local businesses. My recommendation would be is they can have gas
pumps upon signing the BLA. Don't give them something before they've even agreed to come in Town
because I just see this in a long list of other things we can do in this whole area because they keep
getting stonewalled.
Frankly, I don't see this as a measure of working with the County and showing them that we will work
with the County when the County has already said, we're not working with you. We're not bringing
Microsoft into the Town. That's not even an option. I will not support this amendment in its current
situation. If Council is going to make a change that says that upon completion of the BLA by Walmart,
they will be given a by-right for a gas pump. I'm still hesitant because of the impact on our local
businesses. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: I guess what confuses me is why people seem to be confused. This was
a direction that Council decided three years ago that it wanted to pursue these companies. The
Peterson companies, Microsoft, ION, they wanted these relationships and so badly did they want them
that they had these and we did sign these conditional consent agreements that we would do certain
things and they would consent upon Council doing these certain things. This is not new at all, we wanted
Walmart. Walmart did not pursue us. They didn't come and say we want to come into the Town. This
was a Council approved action and direction.
These conditions, whatever they are, as they come up have been individual, because it's business.
People have a right to ask for something from the Town for whatever their motives are, and I'll leave
that to our business development people as to why they want certain things or don't want certain things.
That I'm not worried about. My concerns upfront were about having all these conditions that we couldn't
enforce. The main one being, and Mr. Dunn just spoke to it, that they actually agreed to come into the
Town. We can't force people to come into the Town. Why are we going to do it now when one of the
biggest prizes that we said that we wanted is on the doorstep? We said we wanted Walmart. We wanted
all the pieces. It was going to be BLA or it was going to be annexation. It was going to be this or that.
We would play hardball. Wouldn't play hardball.
Well, these corporations don't have to play with us at all. If we don't want to do it, do it. I suggest we've
come this far. We put our Town staff out there to have these conversations. They've had them
successfully. They bring us back what they want. We either agree or disagree. I agree that we should
change the use to let gas pumps be by right. This is not new news about a direction that we initiated as
a Council with these individual organizations or developers. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else at this point? I'll disagree with you on that to some extent, Mr. Campbell, I
think the gas station is a new idea, a new concept. I understand what you're saying about that they're
Page 13| September 8, 2020
going to come in and ask for things, but I wanted a clarification of why they were asking for it. If they
could get it in the County and we would honor that same planning, then I didn't understand exactly what
we were doing. The clarification was very important to me and I appreciate it. I understand what we're
trying to accomplish and it is very important. Most certainly it would be quite a coup to be able to get
Walmart into the Town.
If this is something that will help that happen then I will be willing to support it. I do think this aspect of
it was new and so it was worthy of the discussion. Thank you. Does someone want to make a motion?
There's one above you, right there.
Chris Spera: Mr. Steinberg made a motion and Mr. Campbell seconded.
Mayor Burk: Oh, okay. You're right. I'm sorry. We made a motion, Mr. Steinberg made it and Mr.
Campbell second. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed.
Council Member Dunn: Nay.
Mayor Burk: That is five-one with Mr. Dunn being nay. Now we move on to the public hearing. You're
going to have to bear with me because this shouldn't be complicated, but it's going to end up being
somewhat complicated. We have two separate public hearings. The BAR, we're doing that one first?
Let's work with the BAR appeal first. Let me pull that up. Public hearing. I'll call to order September 8th,
2020, the public hearing for the applicant's appeal to the Town Council regarding a partial denial of the
application for the Certificate of Appropriateness by the Board of Architectural Review. Unless there's
an objection, I will dispense with the reading of the advertisement.
The order of the speakers is as followed, a brief presentation by staff. The appellant testifies and
presents its case as to why the BAR decision should be modified or reversed. Number three, the
appointed BAR representative selected by its members to speak on the BAR's behalf testifies on the
BAR's action to the project that it is a subject of the appeal. The appellant will be allowed to provide a
rebuttal. Council may decide to take additional testimony from the appellant or the BAR. All members
of the public are welcome to address the Council on this item before us. If you wish to speak, we ask
that you sign up at the sign-up sheet in the hallway.
Members participating remotely will be given the opportunity to speak. Please identify yourself and give
your address for the taped record. In the interest of fairness, we ask that you observe the five-minute
time limit. Members of the public speaking in person or over WebEx will see a yellow light in front of
you 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 chime indicates your time has expired.
Participating by phone will hear a chime when their 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 the group, the Council will
allow a spokesperson for the group a few extra minutes. In that instance, we would ask speakers to
indicate their status as spokespersons, the groups they represent and their request for additional time.
Council will have five minutes after each presenter to ask questions. Following the public comment, the
hearing will be closed. Once the hearing is closed the Council shall discuss the merit of the appeal and
shall promptly render a decision. In making its decision, the Council will consider the record of the BAR
proceeding, the applicant's written appeal, and the criteria set forth in the Old and Historic District
Guidelines.
Under the Zoning Ordinance in taking action on the case the Council has all the powers of the Board of
Architectural Review and may reverse, it may affirm in whole or in part or it may modify any order,
requirement, decision, or determination by the BAR and make such order, requirement, decision,
determination as ought to be made. Tonight's Board of Architectural Review appeal is for partial denial
of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Board of Architectural Review application
TLHP-2020-0036, 401 South King Street. All right, it is in your ballpark.
Page 14| September 8, 2020
Lauren Murphy: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm Lauren Murphy. I'm the Preservation Planner for the
Town of Leesburg.
Mayor Burk: Would you mind spelling your name for the closed captioning?
Lauren Murphy: Sure. First Name Lauren, L-A-U-R-E-N, last name Murphy, M-U-R-P-H-Y. The subject
property of tonight's appeal is 401 South King Street shown here on your screen outlined in blue. There
was a historic resource on-site circa 1895. It is a contributing structure to the Old and Historic District,
a framed vernacular structure which was previously clad in vinyl siding and is currently clad in lapped
wood siding.
The image you see here on the screen is from May 2018 before the vinyl siding was removed.
The background for this application in April of 2020, a Certificate of Appropriateness application was
filed by the applicant seeking approval to remove historic wood siding and replace it with Hardieplank,
expand the existing front porch based on evidence of a larger original porch, and install a patio in the
rear yard. In June of 2020 the BAR held a public hearing. Staff recommended denial of the siding
removal finding that the proposal was inconsistent with the Old and Historic District Guidelines. Staff
recommended approval of the porch and patio, and those are not a subject of tonight's appeal.
In June 2020, the BAR also conducted a site visit to inspect the siding which was the subject of the
application and generally found that it was in good condition with some areas requiring repair. In July
of 2020, the BAR continued this item to a work session, and ultimately voted to approve the patio and
porch but deny the siding based on the finding that the removal of wood siding for replacement with
Hardieplank is not consistent with the guidelines. In August of 2020, this appeal was filed which is the
subject of tonight's public hearing. The subject structure as you see today, this is with the wood siding,
the vinyl having been removed.
The applicable guidelines, the full text of which is included in your packet, are pretty clear that historic
details including siding should be retained and repaired or replaced in small sections rather than
replacing in whole. When areas are beyond repair, the guidelines call for the replacement of material in
kind, meaning that the new material should match the original in texture, material dimension, and
design. The guidelines do allow for the introduction of cement fiberboard siding like Hardieplank, but
generally, that's reserved for new construction projects or non-contributing existing structures in the
district.
The issues identified by both staff and the BAR during the initial review of this application was that the
guidelines support repair or replacement in kind of wood siding. The proposed material is not in kind
replacement. Hardieplank is generally acceptable for new construction projects but not for the wholesale
replacement of historic wood siding. The use of Hardieplank as a replacement for historic material
affects the historic integrity of the contributing structure and ultimately, the district. Summary of the BAR
findings, which again are included in your packets in their full text, one, that the structure at 401 South
King Street is a historic structure and is contributing to the Historic District.
The architectural survey of the property last conducted in 1999, notes that it had wood German siding
at that time. The guidelines specifically call for the retention of historical details including siding, and
when repair is no longer possible, the guidelines call for existing historic material to be replaced in kind.
The guidelines specifically note that peeling paint is a repairable condition and note that fiber cement
should not be used if it is incompatible with the structure. As the subject structure is a historic building
with existing historic lapped wood siding, which appears to be repairable in most areas, the Board found
that the proposal to replace that siding with new wood siding or new Hardieplank siding was not
consistent.
In this case, the Board found that the most appropriate course of action was to repair the existing siding
and replace only those areas which were beyond repair. The Board voted seven-zero to deny the
proposed material change but did approve the remainder of the application. As you've already noted,
Madam Mayor, there are three alternatives available to the Council in this case to affirm wholly or partly
the BAR's decision denying the material, to reverse that decision or to modify the decision of the BAR.
Staff has provided some draft findings and the Board of Architectural Review will be represented tonight
by Dale Goodson who is the Vice Chair. That's all I have.
Page 15| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Thank you very much. Is the appellant here tonight? You're next.
Kim Baggett: Good evening. My name is Kim Baggett. K-I-M, Baggett, B-A-G-G-E-T-T. Paul is not in
Town. I'm not sure. He was going to try and get online. I don't know if he's online or not. We moved into
Leesburg about three years ago. I come from New Orleans, a very historical Town and love historical
architecture. Something I've always wanted to do was buy a historical home. This house that we
purchased at 401 South King Street was in pretty disrepair. We have done over $200,000 worth of
renovations to this home from the inside and now we're trying to focus on the outside.
As any historical preservation, when you do any kind of renovation, things come up that you don't
necessarily plan for so we didn't get to finish the outside of the house when we first started the
renovations. Now we're asking, and we originally did want to repaint the outside and we did try to paint.
We did the back half of the house. Now in doing so, within less than a year, the house paint started
peeling. Now, I know that they say that they can replace it, but in doing a lot of research and trying--
Because I financially cannot afford to paint my house every two to three years. It's just not financially
feasible for me, which I wouldn't think it would be for most people.
My intent is to restore the home so it matches and looks nice in downtown Leesburg. I interviewed over
12 painters. After having the experience that I had with the first one, with the paint from the back of the
house, I learned a lot about restoring old wood. Now, you can paint it but because it's an old wood and
because it has multi layers of lead paint, there's all kinds of oils that have been absorbed in the wood
over the years. This wood is not replaceable. You cannot get wood like this. Today's wood is actually
less superior than what it was built with. Painting it really isn't the best option. We believe that the Hardie
board is like-kind, we don't think that it is not.
If you look in the guidelines for Section 6, A, number one, it says, "Retain original and historic wood
features that define the overall character of Leesburg." The Hardie board that we are proposing to put
on, you can't tell if you walked in front of my house. We're using the exact same reveal. We're using
smooth finish. We're not doing anything that is not going to be like-kind. It is going to look exactly like it
does now. It's just going to be a lot more-- I'm sorry, I'm trying to find some notes. I'm sorry. Paul, do
you want to interject in here?
Paul Baggett: The same reveal and the same smooth finish. Therefore, it's architecturally compatible
with what we're proposing since it is architecturally compatible. According to the guidelines
[unintelligible 01:07:01] 4, paragraph C, it doesn't say not to use cement fiberboard, but it goes on
and say, "Do not use cement fiberboard, other synthetic or alternative materials if it is architecturally
incompatible with the historic structure." What we are proposing is not something that is architecturally
incompatible. It'll have the same feel and you will not be able to tell the difference and actually, it's
superior to--
Again, our first argument is that we have to replace the wood. It has holes in it from the multiple layers
of siding that's been on it previously. Siding, belt, insulation board, all those created [unintelligible
01:07:57] attachments there was nails associated with that and there are hole cracking that has caused
that overall wood, in our opinion, to be not something that can be restored. It has to be replaced. What
we're now proposing is something that, according to the guidelines, it is architecturally compatible with
what we have there. We're not proposing any lavish-- Generally, we're again interested in preserving it
and making it last for another 40 years or longer, decades longer.
Kim Baggett: The house also does not have the German siding. If you look at the examples of the
wood siding profiles, we have the lap siding, we do not have the German. We're not trying to change
the look of the house. We're trying to preserve it to make it look exactly how it does now, but something
that will last longer. Materials change over time, and they become better. This will help preserve the
house. We haven't put a huge addition on. We have not really changed the look of it. I personally,
obviously, I think we're making improvements to it to make it look better. When we first moved in that
house, we had raccoons, mice, bats.
We've had everything in that house. We're just trying to restore the look of the house. We're trying to
use up-to-date materials and have it look exactly the same that is more financially for a homeowner to
be able to afford because it's not realistic asking a homeowner to have to paint their house every two
to three years. It's just not. The old wood with all the siding that was on the wood, with the oil based
Page 16| September 8, 2020
paint, and even trying to find a contractor that is lead-certified, it's really hard. Most people don't want
to do it. I had six people tell me no. They were not interested in my project. They wouldn't even give m e
a price.
No matter how high it was, they wouldn't even give me a price. There's also other homes in the Historic
District that do have the cement board siding. I'm not sure how they got approved. I don't know if it's
who you know to get things done, but if you walk around Town there's certain houses that they'll have
a board here and there or the whole house is done. There's examples. I believe in your paperwork
because I received a copy of it also of some homes that have the cement board siding. I know one's on
Liberty. There's another one on Loudoun. There's a couple on South King, not the whole house, but it
does have some of the cement board siding. Paul, do you have anything else to say?
Paul Baggett: No, I think that's [sound cut]
Mayor Burk: I think you gave your case pretty clearly. Nice job.
Kim Baggett: I try. I'm very nervous. Sorry. I'm not used to speaking [crosstalk]
Mayor Burk: I know. It's hard but you did very well. Thank you.
Kim Baggett: I'm sorry, what?
Mayor Burk: You did fine.
Kim Baggett: Thank you. Do you have any questions?
Mayor Burk: Not at this point. We're going to ask the BAR. When it's all done then we'll have the
questions. The BAR representative.
Dale Goodson: Good evening, Council. Dale Goodson. D-A-L-E, G-O-O-D-S-O-N, Vice Chair of the
BAR. I think as Lauren mentioned, our guidelines are very clear. It's certainly not arbitrary. They come
directly from the Department of Interior Standards on something like this. For an old and historic home,
you first repair. If replacement is absolutely necessary, you replace in kind and that does mean same
material, wood for wood. The repairs would generally be kept isolated to what is absolutely necessary.
No wholesale replacements of siding.
As far as cement fiber being used on old houses, to our knowledge, it has never been approved by the
BAR for cement-fiber to be put on an old and historic structure. Cement fiber siding is allowed in the old
and Historic District for new construction or additions to an old structure. If there is cement siding on an
original structure, it got there without approval. Our guidelines have been very consistently interpreted
and applied. Old and historic dwellings, we do not allow the replacement of original materials with
synthetic materials. With that, I really don't have anything else. I'm here for questions.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. The appellant, you have the right to speak again if you disagree or you want
to add anything that you didn't state before?
Kim Baggett: This can be an argument. You can go round and round as far as like-kind. I don't know
how the Hardie board is not like-kind. We're doing the four-inch reveal. We're doing the lap siding. We're
doing the smooth finish, which is all exactly what we have now. The color has been approved by the
board. It is like-kind. Unless you go up and tap on it, you're not going to know the difference. I honestly
believe that. That could be an argument. Whether what your definition of like-kind is or my definition of
like-kind, it's still going to look exactly the same. It has got three of the four requirements that are on
the website of the home.
Number IV, A, where it says, "Match the original material, texture, dimensions, and design." Well, we've
got texture. We've got dimension. We've got design. It's got three of the four items that you're asking
for. I think that's very subjective of whether it's going to be like-kind or not. Like-kind, to me, it's going
to look the same whether it be wood or cement fibreboard. Times change. The house will be better
preserved with a cement fiberboard versus a wood, to be honest. It'll last a lot longer and the house will
stay better looking. Paul, do you have any other comments?
Page 17| September 8, 2020
Paul Baggett: Keep in mind that, first of all, this house had two separate layers. When we bought the
house, the house had vinyl siding on it, underneath that was a sheet or another cement type shaped
siding. Then the argument of replacing with today's wood is not nearly superior to the old-growth wood
is and that's even acknowledged in the guidelines that old-growth wood is far superior to today's wood.
The argument is we can't replace it. You can't go out and realistically replace in kind. What we've done
is the material are the same architectural look as the siding we currently have, and we're proposing it's
superior to any wood that's available today.
It's a superior product. It will provide a much better means or method. That's what a siding is for a
house. The purpose of siding on a house is to preserve the house itself. This is a far superior way of
preserving the house and maintaining an architectural look with the same than-- Unfortunately, there
was a number of layers of siding on there. Again, it's just not realistically able to be rehabilitated and
restored.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. You're done at this point unless the Council chooses that they would like
additional testimony. Would the Council like additional testimony from the BAR or the applicant?
Dale Goodson: The comment made that you can't tell the difference, obviously, you can tell the
difference. You can walk around Town, from the sidewalk you can see houses that have cement fiber
that tell you how you were able to identify that there are some houses that have cement fiber siding
added to it. You can see the difference. You do lose character of the property. Again, this is not anything
that is not asked of every other requirement, every other property owner with an old and historic home,
same standards apply. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. There is nobody that has signed-up from the public to speak tonight. Is there
anybody online that is interested in speaking? In that case, then I will close this public hearing. The
Council needs to take action at this point. Does anybody have any questions? Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: Thank you. I do have a couple questions. Staff first. Obviously, this home was
purchased with vinyl siding and vinyl is not an approved material for the downtown. When did that
happen?
Lauren Murphy: We believe some time between 1999. I believe when they submitted the application
was 2018 to remove the siding. It was handled by a previous Preservation Planner, but in my own
research, I was not able to find any application where the Board approved the installation of vinyl siding
on that structure.
Council Member Fox: The Board was intact in 1999?
Lauren Murphy: Yes, ma'am.
Council Member Fox: There's never been any action taken saying they're not in compliance with
what's going on downtown?
Lauren Murphy: Not to my knowledge. That would typically be generated from a complaint of a
surrounding property owner or a Town resident that would contact Mike's office or the Zoning
Administrator at the time depending on when it happened. I've not seen any complaints in our system
that would have been filed when the vinyl siding was installed so because of that, nobody was ever
asked to remove it.
Council Member Fox: The vinyl siding was there when the house was purchased. Then if I understood
correctly, there's something else underneath and then the wood?
Lauren Murphy: I believe that's what the applicant has indicated, yes. That there was an additional
layer of siding. Oftentimes when vinyl siding is installed over wood siding, there's some sort of barrier
that's added that can sometimes cause more damage than good because it can trap moisture into the
wood siding. It's done with good intentions, but can actually sometimes cause more harm than good.
Not having seen it, as the vinyl siding was being removed, I don't know if it was the barrier that was
installed or if there was indeed a third type of siding.
Page 18| September 8, 2020
Council Member Fox: This question would be then for the applicant. When you purchased the home,
were you aware of what the home was made of?
Kim Baggett: No. Because it had the vinyl siding. We assumed it was wood because it was a historical
home, but we applied for-- Our architect, he does a lot of historical homes in Georgetown in Washington
DC. We hired him to help us with the renovations of it. We did not know what was underneath the vinyl
at the time.
Council Member Fox: What was underneath was something else and then the wood.
Kim Baggett: Correct.
Council Member Fox: I have one more question, it would be for Mr. Goodson. The applicant made a
really good point that old wood is superior to today's wood and so replacing it in kind would be difficult.
How difficult is it to restore this wood and how expensive would it be?
Dale Goodson: That's a fairly loaded question. Generally speaking, old-growth wood is good. That's
why you do not want to replace it if at all possible. You do not want to remove that wood. It tends to
have a tighter grain. It has more resins. It's harder. It's more rot resistant. You can get new woods. New
woods are variable in quality and it really depends on the species you get. You can go from a very
cheap siding that's finger-jointed. New growth pine generally will come apart fairly quickly or you can
go up to some more exotic woods. You can get into mahoganies, some cedars, which are naturally
much more rot resistant and do hold up well.
It's a question of just understanding what your application is and applying the right material to it. There
are woods that will hold up. You just can't necessarily call it, "Oh, I bought wood siding. Good to go." It
could be a very low-grade wood siding which will not hold up.
Council Member Fox: My question was though, can the current wood be restored? It sounds like from
the contractor she brought in that that can't happen. Can this current wood be restored?
Dale Goodson: In the BAR's opinion, and again, it was a unanimous seven-zero vote. We did go on a
site visit. We did look at it. The Board felt that there wasn't anything unique or difficult or deterioration
in that wood siding that was unusual, or untenable to deal with. There were a few cracks and
checkpoints that again would be replaced in small little pieces. It's probably a painting problem. Painting
issues can come up in a number of places. Moisture in the wood. The wood is not properly prepped.
You don't use the right topping paint. Paints are extremely good these days. They've made vast, vast
improvements in paint, but you do have to get the right materials.
Even the primers, there are primers specific for old paint, old wood, have more binders in them, work
with the old oil-based finishes. It's like so many things, especially with paint, it all comes down to the
preparation, can make or break.
Council Member Fox: The applicant told us and she basically said her contractor said they'll have to
do this every couple of years, which is not feasible for any homeowner is that--
Dale Goodson: That wasn't shown to the BAR to be the case there. When we begin we did a site visit.
We saw nothing in there that is unusual or unique. We saw no reason that that house couldn't be
properly painted and for it to hold up quite well.
Council Member Fox: Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else have questions? Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: I'll probably start with Ms. Murphy. Thank you. I'm trying to get to the
human element because I have no disagreements with the preservation rules or guidelines. They are
what they are, but it's the application. We have a situation where vinyl was taken off. We're not sure
what type of damage or-- The surface I guess right now is unfinished. It is what it is. Would there be
any type of violation to leave it the way it is?
Page 19| September 8, 2020
Lauren Murphy: That's a good question. I think, technically, yes. The way that the Board approved the
removal of the vinyl siding was very specific in that section should be removed, scraped, primed, and
immediately repainted. At this point, all of the vinyl siding, I believe, there may be some small areas,
and I can let the appellant speak to that. All of the vinyl siding has been removed, but the full structure
has not been scrapped, repaired, and repainted. That initial Certificate of Appropriateness approval to
remove the vinyl siding has not been completed in accordance with the conditions of that approval.
Council Member Campbell: To that specific point, has there been any judgment that it wasn't done
properly? Again, I'm not putting you on the line.
Lauren Murphy: Only in the staff report for this most recent application to point out. If someone were
to complain about it now, the Zoning enforcement staff would have a stay of enforcement because this
application is in process. No, we've not received any complaints.
Council Member Campbell: I'm only asking because part of what I heard Mr. Goodson say and I read
in the staff report as well, is that you don't recommend wholesale replacement. You don't recommend-
-
Lauren Murphy: Replacing just what you need to.
Council Member Campbell: Just what you need to. One of the things I would have hoped we would
have gone back and say, this is what you need to replace, this what you need to repair, but you really
can't even consider replacing it all because that's not even a possibility.
Lauren Murphy: That was part of the Board's discussion during that July work session after their site
visit where they did find that there were small areas that might need replacement with a new patch of
wood siding, but that wholesale replacement, even with wood siding, would not be appropriate.
Council Member Campbell: There was no inspection when all the vinyl was first removed.
Lauren Murphy: No, it's just a big [crosstalk] or anything. Correct.
Council Member Campbell: Again, I'm just looking at the situation where you find yourself in a
situation. All of a sudden it's all gone. It wasn't supposed to work that way. I get it, but now here we are.
If no further work is done other than to leave it the way it is, they're not in compliance with something.
Lauren Murphy: Correct.
Council Member Campbell: Is it just because the house is supposed to look better and in compliance
with the Historic District, the paint has to be a certain grade or quality or?
Lauren Murphy: In this case, painting the wood siding is essential for the protection of the structure.
To leave the exposed wood siding unpainted would actually be damaging for the structure. It would take
on further moisture, which could then potentially affect the structural foundation of the house.
Council Member Campbell: Would that be a violation where someone would receive a notice that your
home is potentially historically damaged?
Lauren Murphy: Does the zoning [crosstalk] currently say that? He has indicated that, yes, it would
potentially be a zoning violation.
Council Member Campbell: This doesn't end. It continues because some work has to be done.
Irregardless of whatever decision Council makes, work has to be done. Is there a problem with lead
paint abatement in the sense of not just an additional cost, but finding someone to do the work?
Lauren Murphy: The applicant did note that during the BAR public hearing, that they were having a
hard time finding a painter that was lead-certified. That's the first that we've heard of that. Most painters
who work with historic homes are certified in lead paint abatement because it's something you
encounter frequently.
Page 20| September 8, 2020
Council Member Campbell: I would imagine this is not the only home in Leesburg that has had this
kind of--
Lauren Murphy: No, sir. There's plenty of lead in Leesburg, I'm sure.
Council Member Campbell: Replacement of the vinyl siding is not an option.
Lauren Murphy: No, that's not likely to garner approval from the Board, although this Council could
modify.
Council Member Campbell: Just wanted to make sure we rule that out. Then the Hardie board is not
an option. The only option is, I'll call it section wood paint replacement, where it has to be repaired and
where no repair is possible it has to be painted. Is that correct?
Lauren Murphy: Where no repair is possible then it'd be replaced.
Council Member Campbell: It doesn't need to be repaired, then it has to be painted.
Lauren Murphy: Oh yes. Where it's in good condition it doesn't require repair then it would just be
repainted.
Council Member Campbell: But if it's not in good condition, it must be. Has that work been done to
look at how much needs to be replaced?
Lauren Murphy: Like what percentage?
Council Member Campbell: Yes. I'm just wondering.
Lauren Murphy: Not to my knowledge.
Council Member Campbell: Because one of the conditions I think to uphold is then what is the
obligation of the homeowner? Not just not to use Hardie board, but there is a cost factor in painting,
and repair.
Lauren Murphy: Certainly.
Council Member Campbell: I think there's some work that needs to be done on that side. Again, I don't
have any problems with the preservation rules or the guidelines. They are what they are for a very
specific reason and purpose.
I'm just looking to see that we actually leave somebody in a condition of which it is doable in terms of
whatever our guidelines are and in a compliant way. The last question I have then, in terms of any level
of compliance, is there a timeline or a timeframe? Is it whenever they can afford it, get to it? Is it two
years, three years?
Lauren Murphy: Typically, a Certificate of Appropriateness is valid for two years. They can request
extensions of certificates of appropriateness from the Zoning Administrator. I believe that you can ask
for an additional six months or perhaps a year. Mike could speak to that. In this case, the original
approval to move the vinyl and restore the wood beneath, I'm not sure if it's reached that two year period
or not.
Council Member Campbell: They could ask for an extension of that original COA.
Lauren Murphy: Yes.
Council Member Campbell: If within the time frame of the extension, I'm just dealing with these
possibilities because rules and guidelines change, they certainly then could appeal to use a different
material if something should change?
Page 21| September 8, 2020
Lauren Murphy: Yes, absolutely.
Council Member Campbell: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else have any questions?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Yes, I have.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Can I ask the applicant a couple of questions?
Mayor Burk: Of course. The applicant, would you mind coming to the mic?
Kim Baggett: Yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Can you answer me why do we need to replace all the siding on the house?
Why did you feel that was a need?
Kim Baggett: We feel it's not repairable because of the multi-layers of siding and--
Mayor Burk: His question was why did you feel you needed to remove the siding to begin with?
Kim Baggett: Well, that was always our intention to remove it. We removed it in the back of the house
to restore the house because vinyl siding doesn't look nice. That's not historical looking. To restore the
house.
Vice Mayor Martinez: The question after that is you've done some damage, and apparently it's about
damage that the Board of Architecture rules says that you could replace without replacing the whole
siding. My question there lies, have you found out or is it possible that there is damage to the siding
that the Board could not see?
Mayor Burk: Was there damage to the siding that the Board could not see when they did their
inspection?
Kim Baggett: Well, I think so. To me, it's all in the eye of the person looking at the house.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Now if we did find replacement via the BAR's direction, would you be able to--
First off, do you have any idea what that would cost? Then you'd have to find a painter or you'd have to
find somebody to install it. How big an issue are those?
Mayor Burk: To do what the BA wants you to do? To do what the BA wants you to do, do you have
any idea of how much that would end up costing?
Kim Baggett: I do not. No, because I have not been able to find a contractor. I did reach out to one of
the ARB members who said he had a contractor. I called that gentleman and he said he was not
interested in doing my house. There's four local painters that I called, they do a lot of work in Leesburg
and they would not do my house.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Is that because it's piecemeal or?
Kim Baggett: The scope of the work.
Vice Mayor Martinez: My concern is being able to find the quantity of wood that you then have to buy
to replace the whole house and the cost. If you found a financial reasonable replacement-- I don't know.
I'm just making a comment about how sometimes feel the BAR is-- A request can be financially hard on
people. Can I speak to Lauren?
Mayor Burk: Sure. Ms. Murphy.
Page 22| September 8, 2020
Lauren Murphy: And I’m getting my steps in tonight.
Mayor Burk: I know. Definitely.
Vice Mayor Martinez: My watch is going to be happy.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Lauren, how are you?
Lauren Murphy: I'm good Marty. How are you?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Pretty good. A question. Did you find the applicant's wood replacement that was
close to the look of the original?
Mayor Burk: You're going to have to ask that again.
Lauren Murphy: Yes, I'm not sure I heard you.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Was the applicant's replacement close to what the BAR wants?
Lauren Murphy: Let me just make sure I understand. You're wondering if I find that the applicant's
proposal to replace with Hardieplank is similar to what the Board of Architectural Review was asking, is
that your question?
Vice Mayor Martinez: In look.
Lauren Murphy: In looks. Professionally speaking, no. From a preservation perspective, I would not
say that the replacement of old-growth historic wood siding with new Hardieplank siding to be-- I would
not consider it to be in kind, and I would not consider it to have the same appearance.
Vice Mayor Martinez: How hard would it be to find the exact replacement for the applicant?
Mayor Burk: How hard would it be to find replacement?
Lauren Murphy: Replacement wood siding?
Mayor Burk: Right.
Lauren Murphy: It's usually readily available. Especially in this case, the Board is advocating for only
replacing those areas which absolutely must be replaced. In that case, it wouldn't be a wholesale
replacement even with wood siding. It would be a replacement of only areas which are beyond repair.
We do find that wood siding is readily available. In fact, we do have some applicants propose it even
for new construction.
Vice Mayor Martinez: My last question. If the applicant were to put that siding on that she wants, other
than the BAR and you, how many people could tell it was not an historical equivalent?
Lauren Murphy: I'm not sure. It's hard for me to say because to me, it would be very noticeable that it
was no longer clad in a historic material. I'm not sure I could say for somebody else. I'm sorry.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Would you say you'd have to pretty well know your history and your stuff to be
able to tell the difference?
Lauren Murphy: No. You could look at a house that was clad with wood siding and then look at a house
that was clad with Hardieplank siding, and you would be able to discern that they are different.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Thank you. I appreciate --
Page 23| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: Anyone else? Anyone else at this point?
Vice Mayor Martinez: My only comment, I can't see the clock, so I don't know how much tim e I got left.
Mayor Burk: You've got two minutes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: My only comment is this, sometimes I found the BAR could get a little too detailed
in stuff. I wanted to help the applicant find a way for this to work. I was glad to see that the patio and
the porch approved. I really want to vote for the applicant, but again, the BAR has its rulings and I really
respect what they do and what our Town planner does. I find the applicant at a disadvantage since the
applicant bought the house with vinyl siding on it. I don't think we as a Town should if that happens we
need to be a little more observant and do something about it. I just want to tell the applicant that I really
feel for them. I probably will support the BAR's denial, but I don't do it happily. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else at this point?
Council Member Fox: Yes, I have one more question.
Mayor Burk: Wait a minute. Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Can I have Lauren back please? More steps.
Lauren Murphy: One step. Also, more cracking knees so pretend you didn't hear that.
Council Member Steinberg: No problem. Just stand still. We are a registered Historic District. Is that
not correct?
Lauren Murphy: That is correct.
Council Member Steinberg: Our guidelines to be a registered Historic District come from where?
Lauren Murphy: They are based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
Council Member Steinberg: Do those guidelines say you're a registered Historic District, but if you
want to do this or that, you can still be a registered Historic District, it doesn't really matter?
Lauren Murphy: No, I would not say they say that.
Council Member Steinberg: I would not say so. In the end, the objective is historic preservation. Is it
not?
Lauren Murphy: Yes, sir.
Council Member Steinberg: It is not historic recreation. Those are things that we leave to places like
Disney World and whatnot. I feel for the applicant, but it is not that it looks the same. Historic
preservation, for all intents and purposes, is that it is as close as possible the same. This is not the first
situation of this nature that we have seen before this Council. As I recall in a not too distant past, we
had a gentleman on Market Street who replaced roof material and was told that is in direct contradiction
to the spirit and the intent of the Historic District, and this Council voted, at some considerable expense
to the owner, to uphold the BAR.
We're entrusting the decisions about this district to the BAR. There are many professionals on that BAR.
I know Mr. Goodson is well-versed in restoration and preservation. I know Mr. O'Neill is a preservation
architect and they do not take these decisions lightly. It boils down to are we going to have a Historic
District or not? I understand the house was purchased with vinyl siding, but an architect was involved.
It just seems to me a certain amount of due diligence would have immediately told them what they were
facing if the appropriate investigations had been done. I recognize the vinyl siding however it came to
be and obviously it came to be after the Historic District was created. It was a mistake. It wouldn't be
Page 24| September 8, 2020
the first time we have seen that happen and certainly we know things happen in the Historic District
without the appropriate applications and approvals.
We also know that the Town does not make a habit of sending out the BAR police to start tapping and
houses and say you did this, you did this unless it's something so egregious, obviously. The BAR voted
7-0. This is a talented, adept BAR. I have to take them at their word that they've done their due diligence
in examining this project, they did grant the porch. That seems with great reason and the patio but the
guidelines clearly state the wholesale replacement of the wood siding is not allowed under the
guidelines. Perhaps if I were to direct the question to the Town Attorney. I know we can do what we
want but in the end, if we overturn this BAR decision, then why will not the next applicant come to us
and say "Hey, you granted this exception to this applicant. Why am I different?"
Mike Watkins: Certainly Mr. Steinberg, there are elements of precedent that have to be considered.
You sit as the appellate reviewer but you are essentially applying the same standards as the BAR.
There's not a different standard for you sitting as the appellate reviewer. Essentially, when you interpret
the Historic District ordinance and Historic District standards, you're doing the same thing as the BAR
and it has precedential effect.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Thank you. Again, are we going to have a Historic District or are
we not? If we are, then I believe it's incumbent upon us to uphold the guidelines and the regulations.
Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn, are you okay?
Council Member Dunn: Oh, yes, thank you. What is in the guidelines, I'm looking at what is page 194
in the packet. It's page six in the BAR appeal. In the guidelines for wood, section four, item C, it says if
the applicant demonstrates that it is impractical to match, what do we mean by impractical?
Mayor Burk: Lauren, do you have the answer to that?
Lauren Murphy: I do not have an answer to that. I would say that that is one of those sections of the
guidelines which are up to interpretation of the person who is responsible for administering them.
Council Member Dunn: Well, then the administration there was with the BAR and/or staff up to this
point. Is that correct?
Mayor Burk: That's correct. Yes.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. What did the BAR and/or staff use to determine that it was practical?
Dale Goodson: Mr. Dunn it's Dale Goodson. If I understand you correctly, what we did is a site visit.
We looked at the siding. When we did the site visit, the vinyl siding had been removed so we were
looking at the original wood siding to the house. Again, to a member 7-0, we came to the conclusion
that that siding was viable, that there was nothing unique about it that wouldn't prevent it from being
properly painted and preserved. Spot repairs as necessary.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. In practicality, do you consider the means of the applicant?
Dale Goodson: That is not part of our guidelines.
Council Member Dunn: Well, I just heard from Lauren that it was up to interpretation, so interpretation-
- I guess where does our guidelines state what practical or practicality means? I'm hearing one that's
not in guidelines and the other one is that it's up to interpretation, so that's what I'm guessing trying to
figure out. Everything that's been said, I agree a lot with tonight except that I'm trying to figure out that
the applicant has to prove that it is impractical to match, and match is the keyword in matching materials.
When I'm talking about it looking, but it has to match. If they're saying that it's impractical, what are we
basing that on? If we're saying it's up to interpretation, I'd like to know if we are using means as a
measure of practicality, yet according to the dictionary, means is a definition of practicality.
Page 25| September 8, 2020
Lauren Murphy: In the past, financial decisions are not something that Boards of Architectural Review
have typically relied upon when making preservation decisions. I'll give you an example where someone
has previously shown that it would be impractical to match the Townhomes over in Chesterfield, which
are technically part of the H-1 Historic District were constructed some brick and some of a certain kind
of composite siding that's no longer made. You can't purchase it anymore. You can't find it in lumber
yards anymore. They have successfully made the argument to the Board of Architectural Review that
Hardieplank is a sufficient replacement for this other composite siding that's no longer available for
purchase. In that instance, the Board found that it's impractical to find the original siding material
because it's not available anymore, and so one composite material with a similar profile was deemed
to be a similar replacement for that material. That's just one example I can think of where the Board has
used that guideline.
Dale Goodson: Tom, I believe practical would be for an applicant to make a case of why it would be
impractical. In this case, again, it was looked at the wood siding was found to be viable, the existing
wood siding. There is replacement in-kind wood siding available if repairs need to be m ade. That ended
the practicality portion of that.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. We do not have it written where the means of the applicant is considered
or not considered. Though I think that because it is not written as a consideration, I don't know if that
disqualifies that for consideration. I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear with-- because I can see it. It
says that it must match except one has been demonstrated that it's impractical.
I would think that means should be a measure of practicality. However, I would also say that when
people purchase in the Historic District where the own in the Historic District that they have to recognize
as has been noted by Neil tonight is that you do not preserve to looks, we preserve to materials because
if we preserve to changes today, then tomorrow's preservation will only be as good as today [inaudible
01:51:02]. We cannot preserve to the changes that took place. Does the Certificate of Appropriateness
carry with the property or with the owner? For example, if it's good for three years and the applicant
sells the property, does the certificate pass to the new owners?
Lauren Murphy: Yes. It would travel with the property.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. Lastly, I would say that to have sympathy for the owners in this situation
because it is a very costly venture that they have taken. It is so important to know that when you decide
to purchase in the Historic District that you are being held to a much higher standard than you would in
other locations because again, as has been noted already, once you change your ideas of preservation,
you can only preserve to that change. If we decide to make these changes, the whole nature of this
property [inaudible 01:52:39].
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn. Your time is up. Thank you very much.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. Thank you
Mayor Burk: I have a couple of questions. Originally, when I was elected to the Town Council in 2004,
I was the representative for the Council to the BAR we were talking Hardieplank back then. It was
actually approved and I thought it became a standard. I'm really surprised. I thought it became an
acceptable standard to use in regard to historic buildings.
Lauren Murphy: It is readily approved now by the Board for new construction projects. It's been
generally decided over the past several boards that Hardieplank siding is consistent with the guidelines
for new construction or for additions to historic structures.
Mayor Burk: The whole concept of how do you replace hundred-year-old wood with is what we have
now is not really the big deal because they only have to replace it in certain parts. The issue is the
painting that the BAR says that the wood is intact well enough, there's some places that need to be
repaired but that the building needs to be painted. The applicant is saying that the paint does not stay
on and that would end up making it very difficult to, you'd have to paint the house every three years.
We all know if you've got houses that need to be painted, that's a very expensive endeavor. Do other
localities, other Historic Districts, do they accept Hardieplank?
Page 26| September 8, 2020
Lauren Murphy: As a replacement for historic wood siding? No, not generally.
Mayor Burk: You sure? Because I thought Alexandria did.
Kim Baggett: May I say something. [unintelligible 01:54:25]
Mayor Burk: No, excuse me.
Kim Baggett: I'm sorry.
Mayor Burk: I'll ask you in a minute. In the end, there's two things we're trying to accomplish. We're
trying to accomplish saving the wood that's there. By leaving it exposed, that's really the worst thing for
it. Right?
Lauren Murphy: Yes, that's very damaging.
Mayor Burk: Could Hardieplank be put on top of the old wood or does the old wood have to be
removed? I don't know that.
Lauren Murphy: Essentially I have in another jurisdiction, I have had someone proposed that. I don't
know that it was ever successfully executed. I think with the right contractor, you could maybe find a
way to do that. Dale, I don't know if in your experience if you've encountered that before. It's honestly
not something I've commonly been asked.
Dale Goodson: I've never encountered that before. I would have no comment on that.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you. The applicant, you wanted to add something.
Kim Baggett: I just wanted to say that Mike McFarland who is on the ARB of the Town of Herndon,
they do Hardie board in the Town of Herndon, and they also do Hardie board in Alexandria.
Mayor Burk: I thought Alexandria had approved it. I really do think that a while ago. Anywa y, could a
compromise look like that if possible that the Hardie board be placed on the three sides, the back and
the two sides, and the front remain painted? Would that be a compromise that would retain the look
and also preserve the wood if, in the future, someone moved there and wanted to change that aspect
of it?
Lauren Murphy: From a preservation perspective, I would say that that's not a solution for the
preservation of the building. We see that from time to time for buildings that I've encountered that where
they've been facaded and somebody makes the front look nice, but then they pay no attention to the
side and rear. That's not a standard that we've typically been using. It's not something that most
preservation professionals would advocate for. That being said, obviously, this Council has the ability
to modify the decision.
Mayor Burk: We're not asking for it to be ignored on the side and the back. We're just saying that you
could put the newer material on the sides and the back.
Lauren Murphy: The Board did discuss during their deliberations in their work session with the
applicant, the possibility of consolidating historic wood siding so that the areas where the repair material,
which in their case was new wood siding, that that would be relegated to secondary elevations. If it was
found, for example, that the majority of the repair work needed to be done on the front elevation, you
could pull historic wood siding from the sides and rear to preserve that all on one façade. That was
something that the Board discussed in their case. The replacement material during that discussion was
with new wood siding not with Hardieplank.
Mayor Burk: All right. Yes, Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: Sorry. Just a quick follow-up because I had the very same fact you did Mayor
about the Hardieplank. I've been on BAR discussions too where Hardieplank was discussed. Of course,
Page 27| September 8, 2020
that was for new build and sometimes additions. My question is if it's so different from a preservation
perspective, the look of it is so different then why is it okay for new builds and additions, especially
additions because if you can see the difference between an addition and the regular then why is that,
okay? You don't recommend wood.
Lauren Murphy: From a preservation perspective, that's actually preferable. It's always better that the
historic structures are easily discernible, especially to the general public. To create a false sense of
history by putting traditional wood siding on a new build from a preservation perspective would be a
detriment to the district. It's important that the historic structures remain the star of the district and that
the new construction is the secondary backdrop. In that case, that's why Hardieplank has been
approved for new construction.
Council Member Fox: I understand that and to Mr. Steinberg's point we had some other appellants
come before us and with roof-- We could see what was going on. With the roof it's very plain to see.
This one didn't realize what would look like beneath. I feel the same way. Is there a way we can preserve
keep the wood and use Hardie board as well?
Lauren Murphy: Like I said, I'm honestly not sure that it's not-- I believe there was one example in the
Blue Mountain Historic District when I worked for Loudoun County. I don't honestly even remember their
Board's decision on it or if it was ever done. I think they had an addition that they agreed to put
Hardieplank over wood siding that was on the addition, but the wood siding was found to be newer
wood siding. Again, I apologize. I just can't remember if the HDRC approved that or not.
Council Member Fox: I understand that. I understand the guidelines. I get it. What I don't get is if we're
saying wood, in downtown, why aren't we okay with wood instead of Hardie board? That just doesn't
make any sense to me. I don't know. I need my glasses. Council Member Dunn's point, the applicant
says some contractors won't even touch this. What is the applicant to do if contractors won't touch this
with the painting and preserving?
Lauren Murphy: Again, this is a unique situation. We have applications to repaint historic wood
structures in the Historic District all the time. Repainting is normally an administrative approval. It's not
something that typically goes to the Board but repainting the structures is something that we approve
quite frequently. It was a surprise to me to hear that they've had such difficulty having a painter that
would do a paint job on historic wood siding.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: I do have, Ms. Murphy, I want to test out this motion because I think we're
talking in a good direction but it has nothing to do with Hardie board. I want the first part affirm the BAR
decision to deny the Hardie board as an appropriate material. The second piece would be to grant an
extension of the 2017 COA and the extension is for the purpose of really doing a survey. I think the
applicant along with the Town to look at the possibility of this wood consolidation that you actually just
talked about, where if we can look at the repair parts that are necessary, particularly on front, and if
there is usable wood from the back then new wood would be on the back and the sides but that's a front
would be of the original wood material that is salvageable to be used for repair. Is that a possibility of a
process?
Lauren Murphy: It certainly is. It's one that the Board discussed during their deliberations as well.
Council Member Campbell: Because I think that's the only direction that we have, if we're true to
preservation, but also to be helpful to the applicant in terms of time, as well as using some of our
resources to be helpful so we don't go back and forth about this should be painted, this should be
repaired. Let's have a work plan as an outcome. To that, Madam Mayor, then I would like to make a
motion.
Mayor Burk: All right, and your motion states?
Page 28| September 8, 2020
Council Member Campbell: Is that we affirm the BAR's decision to deny the material and that we also
grant an extension of the 2017 COA and agree to work with the applicant to complete a repair survey
that would involve the consolidation of materials and the most convenient fashion possible. That's the
only way I can state it.
Mayor Burk: Do staff have any issue? Is that possible? I want to see if it's even possible.
Council Member Campbell: I just asked.
Lauren Murphy: It does give me some concern only because I am not an expert craftsman with wood
siding, but we have some professionals on the Board of Architectural Review which might be able to
assist with that as well. I would feel better about expanding it to include staff and the BAR. For example,
Mr. Reimers and Mr. Goodson both have quite a bit of experience in this area. I know enough to be
dangerous, but I don't want to advise somebody incorrectly.
Council Member Campbell: Well, guess how you get the work done could be subjective. Well, I don't
want to obligate the individual members of the BAR, for this type of work-
Lauren Murphy: [crosstalk] will obligate them.
Council Member Campbell: -but certainly their help would be appreciated. Again, not as experts, but
either the BAR has to grant a COA, and that's their job. To some extent, the repairs that even could be
proposed by the applicant would have to be approved. We've got to be involved either way.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there a second? Well, first, I need to get the exact wording again, Mr. Campbell.
You are making a motion to affirm the BAR decision and in that motion you are asking for a certificate
of?
Council Member Campbell: An extension of 2017 Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mayor Burk: Do you have a timeline of what you're looking to extend it?
Council Member Campbell: I don't know how long the extension usually are; another year, six months?
I don't know when this one expires, specifically.
Lauren Murphy: I believe they're typically given in six-month increments, but I'm going to let Mike
respond.
Mayor Burk: You obviously have a question here.
Lauren Murphy: I think there was a recent change to this section of the ordinance.
Mayor Burk: To expand, so then could you finish the rest of your motion so I can get [unintelligible
02:05:33]?
Council Member Campbell: Grant an extension of the 2017 COA and to work with the applicant to
complete a repair and replacement survey.
Mayor Burk: To complete a repair and-
Council Member Campbell: To complete a survey for repair and replacement.
Chris Spera: The only point, Madam Mayor, that I would make, and this is a weird little sidebar
discussion was about was it the extensions typically come from staff, the extensions don't go back to
the BAR. I am comfortable if you want to grant a period of extension as part of Mr. Campbell's motion
were to be approved, that would still preserve the right for the applicant if let's say that you gave them
six months, that proved not to be enough. Staff believe that they were working in good faith to move
forward, staff would still have the ability to give an additional extension.
Page 29| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: All right. We have a motion from Mr. Campbell to affirm the BAR's decision and to extend
the 2017 COA and work with the applicant to complete a survey for repair and replacement. Is there a
second?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Second.
Mayor Burk: Is that Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Yes. I would like to ask one question. Will the applicants be willing to agree to
this?
Mayor Burk: That's what we'll offer. They don't have to agree to it or not. We have a motion and a
second by Mr. Martinez. Any additional discussion?
Council Member Dunn: I had a question.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Well, thank you. Do we require painting to be done every two years?
Mayor Burk: Do we require everything to be done in the two years no?
Council Member Dunn: No. Do we require painting?
Mayor Burk: Painting to be done every two years?
Lauren Murphy: No. We don't actually have a timeframe which and we would require someone to
repaint. If the structure is unpainted for long enough to start seeing other issues, then the property
maintenance code could potentially come into play. That said, I would note that having to repaint an
entire structure every two years would be abnormal, that would be indicative of some other problem like
moisture infiltration. That's an uncommonly short span to have to repaint a historic structure.
Council Member Dunn: As the motion stands, if I'm understanding correctly, we are agreeing to the
BAR's denial. Is that correct?
Mayor Burk: That is correct.
Council Member Dunn: What we're doing is giving the applicant an extension of time to try and
complete the repair.
Mayor Burk: That is correct.
Council Member Dunn: If they don't accept this, then they still have a denial in a shorter period of time
to do the repairs?
Mayor Burk: Correct.
Council Member Dunn: Right now, we will not know right now the expiration date of the current
certificate?
Mayor Burk: Do we know, Lauren, the expiration date?
Lauren Murphy: The expiration date of the 2020 Certificate of appropriateness is two years from July
6th 2020. We'll take them into July of 2022. The 2017 approval would technically be expired although
the Zoning Administrator has just pointed out that with the decision of this body tonight, they'll receive
a new Certificate of Appropriateness letter, which will give them two years from tonight's date, plus
whatever extensions are added.
Mayor Burk: Sorry. It's two years from tonight's date?
Page 30| September 8, 2020
Lauren Murphy: Yes, plus whatever you choose to add.
Council Member Dunn: I think then that, when I heard the wording say, extending the certificate
appropriateness from 2017, I thought that that may have been the case that it expired and it sounds
like it did. If that's the wording, we may want to take that out because it's irrelevant.
Mayor Burk: It should be from tonight. Mr. Campbell, do you have an issue with-
Council Member Campbell: I do just for a couple of questions because I thought there were conditions
in 2017 COA that weren't met. That's the only reason why I asked for an extension so that those
conditions could be satisfied.
Lauren Murphy: I'm going to look to Mike to ask if that 2017 application can be revived. I don't know
that it can, but you could copy over the conditions from that 2017 approval into tonight's approval.
Council Member Campbell: If we need those conditions, now, if we don't need those conditions, then
we don't need 2017.
Lauren Murphy: Correct.
Council Member Campbell: That's what I've been looking for the staff to tell me.
Mayor Burk: Do you need it to be 2017 or do you need it to be '20?
Lauren Murphy: I believe that the conditions that were imposed during the removal of the vinyl siding
were well-crafted. Yes. I think that they are good conditions.
Council Member Campbell: We need those conditions. If we can transfer the conditions from the 2017,
we got to change the wording a little bit. W e don't want an extension of the 2017. We want the conditions
in the 2017 COA to be continued.
Mayor Burk: The COA to be extended with the conditions of the 2017 COA.
Council Member Steinberg: We're really granting a new COA.
Mayor Burk: We're granting a new one altogether. I don't know why.
Chris Spera: I think [inaudible] is technically correct. I think if you'll allow, Mr. Campbell, I think perhaps
what you're trying to get to is to issue a new Certificate of Appropriateness of today's date, which
incorporates by reference the conditions from the 2017 Certificate of Appropriateness. Then if you do
that, that essentially built in two year achievement period, if you will. Then that would be subject to any
additional time you want to make in your motion, or as I alluded to earlier, staff's ability to
administratively extend upon the applicant's request. If the work couldn't be done within that two-year
window. Does that make sense?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes.
Mayor Burk: All right, Eileen. Could you read that back to us [chuckles] so we know what we're voting
on?
Eileen Boeing: I have to affirm the BAR decision to deny the materials and also grant the extension--
We're going to issue a COA. I have to go to page two, a new Certificate of Appropriateness with today's
date and include the references of the 2017 certificate of appropriateness. Is that correct?
Mayor Burk: All right. We have a motion by Mr. Campbell seconded by Mr. Martinez. All in favor,
indicate by-- Yes, Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: For Mr. Goodson, please. I have a question for Dale. Thanks. If you can
just-- Can we mute that?
Page 31| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: Marty and Mr. Dunn, could you mute your speakers? Thank you.
Council Member Steinberg: Can you reiterate, what, if any conversations the BAR had about this
specific approach to taking older wood from other parts of the house to basically restore the front end,
using newer woods for the other elevations?
Dale Goodson: Well, the consolidation materials is a standard preservation practice. You start with
your primary facades and workaround. If replacement of materials on those primary facades is required,
you ideally harvest it from the back facades and bring it forward, and then if you're replacing with new
materials, it would be on the backside where it's less visible. For this specific one, I don't think it was
much of a consideration because of the amount of repairs needed, it just wasn't that much material in
it. You could harvest you could strip out an old board and take all your pieces out of that old board and
put one new board in somewhere, that would certainly be a possibility but the amount of repairs on a
foot basis were fairly minor, fairly limited.
Council Member Steinberg: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. We have a motion by Council Member Campbell, seconded by Vice Mayor
Martinez. All in favor, indicate by saying aye?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell? Mr. Steinberg?
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox, I didn't hear you?
Council Member Fox: Nay.
Mayor Burk: The nays are Ms. Burk, Ms. Fox, and Mr. Steinberg. All right. Did someone else have a
motion they'd like to make at this point?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes, ma'am. I'd like to move that we affirm the BAR's decision to deny
the application.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Steinberg has made a motion to deny the appeal, is there a second?
Council Member Dunn: Second.
Mayor Burk: Second by Mr. Dunn. Any discussion on this one? All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn. Mr. Martinez, Mr. Steinberg. Nays?
Council Members: Nay.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell, Ms. Fox and Ms. Burk. All right. Does anyone else have a motion at this
point?
Page 32| September 8, 2020
Council Member Dunn: As the appeal Board, are we required to come to a resolution or is the
[inaudible 02:16:42] with a lack of a decision, is the denial considered-- Is the appeal considered in
the appellant's favor?
Chris Spera: The way that the Code works is that if the Town Council does not act within 75 days from
the date the appeal is filed, that shall be deemed to constitute an affirmation of the BAR's decision, so
if you do nothing then the BAR decision stands.
Mayor Burk: Did you get that, Mr. Dunn? If we do nothing, then the BAR decision.
Council Member Dunn: Yes.
Chris Spera: After a period of 75 days from the date the appeal is filed.
Council Member Dunn: What day are we in now?
Mayor Burk: Today's the first day, right? Or no? Is it from the appeal of the BAR?
Chris Spera: It's the day the applicant filed the appeal, is the date of calculation.
Mayor Burk: Okay. When did the applicant file?
Chris Spera: I'm looking for that right now.
Mayor Burk: Oh, I'm sorry.
Lauren Murphy: I believe it's August 6 of 2020. It could have been the 5th.
Chris Spera: The appeal is dated August 5.
Mayor Burk: August 5. Okay, so it'd be 75 days from August 5.
Chris Spera: That's correct.
Mayor Burk: All right, unless anyone has a motion. That's where it stands at this point. All right. No
motion. It stands that if we do nothing within the next 75 days from August 5, then the decision of the
BAR stands.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor, can we get the exact date? Can staff give us the date of that?
Mayor Burk: August 5th.
Council Member Dunn: I understand. Can staff give us the 75th day or 76th day?
Mayor Burk: Does anybody have a cal-- Okay, they're they're all on their on their phones and
computers.
Council Member Dunn: Is that business days or calendar days?
Chris Spera: Mr. Dunn, pursuant to state code, if the period of time in question is more than 10 days,
then it is calendar days. If it is 10 days or less, then you don't count the non-workdays.
Lauren Murphy: October 19th would be 75 days from the day the appeal was filed.
Mayor Burk: October 19th, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Thank you.
Page 33| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: All right. It's where it is at this point. Now, we were moving on to the next public hearings.
This is the one that you're going to have to bear with me because there's a lot going on in this.
Council Member Steinberg: Madam Mayor, I have a point of information please?
Mayor Burk: Yes, sir.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. We're going to be discussing great length the CARES Act.
Including the second round now, when this whole conversation about the CARES Act came up involving
the first round, I had stated I would not be [inaudible 02:20:13] the CARES Act funding, and I voted
my conscience then. I was not aware that there would be a second round, and having had a discussion
with my wife, we have determined our business could benefit from a second round.
I am offering to recuse myself from any decision that actually involves the acquisition of the funds and
any discussion that involves how we distribute the Small Business funds, but I would like to take part in
the discussion involving any of the non-profit's or the Town funding. I would ask that when we get to
that, that those questions be divided so that the small business discussion is first as a separate item,
which I will recuse myself from, and that I would then take part in the non-profit's and the Town funding.
Mayor Burk: It's anybody. I assume that's the standard procedure.
Chris Spera: Mr. Steinberg and I had a conversation about this prior to the meeting. Yes, Madam
Mayor --
Mayor Burk: He used the term recuse. As I understand it, if you recuse yourself, that means you have
to leave, you are not part of the discussion. You can't hear the discussion, you have to leave the room.
Chris Spera: That is technically what recusal means. I believe it is. He could also abstain.
Mayor Burk: Abstain is different.
Mike Watkins: I think abstain is probably what you mean.
Council Member Steinberg: Semantics aside I will abstain. Thank you. I will not take part in those
votes.
Mayor Burk: All right. Okay. Yes?
Council Member Dunn: Point of inquiry. Since we're on a discussion and I am also a small business
owner, a conflict of interest has a monetary amount to that. I don't think my business would qualify
anywhere close to being a conflict of interest of that monetary amount. That amount, is that $5,000 or
$10,000?
Mayor Burk: Well, I'll have to look that up.
Council Member Dunn: It used to be, I thought $10,000, but I thought they rolled it down with $5,000
over the last couple of years of what a conflict of interest would be, and therefore you should recuse
yourself under those circumstances. At this point, when I would even apply for that, but I don't think that
my business would even qualify for anything even a couple thousand dollars. I don't think I would need
to recuse myself should I even decide to try and [inaudible 02:22:53].
Mayor Burk: That's up to you, Mr. Dunn, but perceptions of the community just keep that in mind.
Council Member Dunn: I'm [inaudible 02:23:06] perception role model. If they want to see my
business budget, I don't know that I would qualify or that I would apply if I did qualify, nor do I think that
the amount would subject me to a conflict of interest.
Mayor Burk: We are moving on to the public hearing. Now, I'm going to call to order this September
8th, 2020 public hearing pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2507 to ratify and reaffirm the resolution
Page 34| September 8, 2020
2020-071 as modified by Resolution Number 2020-087. Accepting and appropriating the first phase of
the CARES Act of the 2020 funding and submission of a recommendation spending plan to Loudoun
County. This is a technical correction to a previously adopted resolution, and it's not intended to change
the previous action of the Council.
Unless there is an objection, I will dispense with the reading of the advertisement. The order of the
speakers is as followed, a brief presentation from staff and then all members of the public are welcome
to address the Council on the items before us tonight. If you wish to speak, we ask you to sign up at the
signup sheet in the hallway. Members participating remotely will be given an opportunity to speak.
Please identify yourself and give your address for the tape record. In the interest of fairness, we also
ask that you observe the five-minute time limit.
Members of the public speaking in person and over WebEx will see a yellow light in front of you 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 chime indicates your time is expired. Those
participating by phone will hear a chime when your time has expired. Under the rules of order adopted
by this Council, the five-minute time limit applies to all.
However, rather than have numerous citizens present remarks on behalf of the group, the Council will
allow a spokesperson for the group a few extra minutes. In that instance, we would ask speakers to
indicate their status as spokespersons, the group they represent, and their request for additional time.
Council will have five minutes after each presenter to ask questions. Following the comments, the
hearing will be closed. Once the hearing is closed, Council shall discuss the merits of the resolution
and shall promptly render a decision. At this point, we are holding the public hearing on the CARES Act
funding that we have previously designated where it's going. We are not changing anything, you're
presenting a public hearing for the public to speak if they so desire. Is that correct?
Keith Markel: That is correct.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Markel.
Keith Markel: Madam Mayor, and Council, and at your request, we'll go through the full presentation
for both the first public hearing and the second public hearing and the second round of funding. At that
point, we will have the public comment for the first public hearing and then you all may take a vote on
that, if you so choose ad then we'll go into the second part of the discussion, which would be the second
public hearing, second round of funding and the modified spending plan.
To start with the presentation here, just again to touch on, we have two resolutions in your packet for
consideration this evening. The first again is to ratify and reaffirm resolution 2020-071 as amended by
resolution 2020-087. That was your June resolution. Then the second portion of the resolution to the
supplemental appropriation endorsement of spending plan for the second round of CARES Act of 2020
funding.
Again, as the Mayor just mentioned, this is a technical correction for the first public hearing. This is just
to hold that public hearing that did not take place in June. When you amend your budget by more than
1%, state code ask that you have a public hearing. This is just going back and having that public hearing
at this time. There's no expectation of any change. You all have committed those funds and those funds
have been distributed.
Just to give you a little background, and a little update of where we are today, the Town distribution
from the County for the first round was that $4.797 million. This round two, as we discussed back at our
meeting in August, is for an equivalent amount that second round distribution from the State to the
County to the Town, which is now pending. Again, all of the requirements remain the same all must be
spent by December 30th of this year. The CARES Act funding must be spent on COVID-related issues
and they cannot be used as revenue replacement.
All those requirements around one apply to round two. Successes to date, we are happy to report that
176 businesses in Town have received awards of grants from the business infusion grant that you all
approved and that our Economic Development staff and our DFAS staff have worked very hard to
Page 35| September 8, 2020
coordinate with and distribute and that accounts for nearly $1.6 million now in the hands of local
business, helping them out at this time.
Non-profit support 26 organizations have received over $800,000 in non-profit funding. They are very
appreciative of that and are putting that to work already in the community. We are working with them
now to distribute that remaining amount that was not allocated that $197,000. The deadline for them to
respond back to us if they need additional funds, and if so, how much is this Friday at noon. Once we
have all of their information into us, we'll be able to equitably distribute that among those 26 as you all
directed us too.
Again, they're going towards rent, to mortgage, to utility relief, to food relief. We're helping with distance
learning transportation and legal services for those who are facing housing issues. All those things are
being accomplished with the non-profit support that you approved. Finally, the Town government
response that full allocation of $770,000 and change has been used already for things like personal
protective equipment for frontline employees, enhanced cleaning, street dining on Friday and Saturday
night, which have been very successful, personnel costs which we are required to pay for that time off
for employees who are directly impacted or have family members impacted by COVID, who must take
time off to self-quarantine or if they have family members that they must provide care for. That's a cost
that the Town has to absorb and that is a cost that we can then be reimbursed through these CARES
funds. A great benefit for the Town.
We weren't sure how the funding would go and if we'd be able to spend all that. Fortunately, or
unfortunately, we have been able to spend all that money at this point. As you'll see in the modified
spending plan this evening, we are asking for additional funds from the second round allocation to go
towards additional costs that are related to Town government response.
Our ongoing activities we have opened up the round one, phase two grant program is now underway
and we'll get all the terminology are mixed [unintelligible 02:29:52] all over the places. We're trying to
keep ourselves straight as we work as staff and then conveying this to you all on how this funding is
moving. This is using money that was allocated in round one. Although, as you all recall, we did have
additional resources that were not allocated because we just didn't receive the number of grant
applications that we were expecting.
Now we're going forward with this phase two grant program, using the remaining amount of round one
money and being supplemented with round two money as we're proposing in the spending plan. We
also have an additional supplemental non-profit funding we just talked about being distributed out here
open in the coming weeks, and those Town government response projects are underway and being
utilized right now.
The continued unknown is what the federal government will do when we talk back in early August that
they may come back and make modifications to the spending requirements and the restricted nature of
how they're using care funds. They've been on recess for August so they're just now coming back to
Washington, and we are uncertain of what changes may or may not take place. We have no update for
you. We know nothing more than we did back at our meeting on August 10th.
Just to give you a little indication of the business infusion grant recipients five business type just to--
Another question has been where are our businesses who are struggling and are there any indicators
there? As you can see, in this chart, you can look at our largest portion of those folks who have applied
for that first round phase, one business grants, those grants that were applied for several weeks back.
Personal services, who have been impacted, clearly business and professional and retail restaurant
breweries as well. Those are the big groups that we've seen having those impacts, and those are the
ones that did make those applications to us.
Resolution number two, round two funding, the supplemental appropriation, and the endorsement of
the spending plan of the second-round funding. We'll have that public hearing momentarily, and then
that modified spending plan that was included in your packet. What we're proposing in this modified
spending plan is just under $3 million for small and medium-sized business grants to finish out that
round one, phase two program which just opened and we're now receiving applications for. You'll recall,
those are the expanded tiers that you all directed us to provide going with larger businesses and larger
Page 36| September 8, 2020
awards for those businesses and then going to smaller businesses with those smaller awards. You also
directed us for that million dollars to non-profits for a second-round grant program for the non-profit's.
Then we're proposing $820,000 and change for Town government response to cover all those things
that we've talked about previously. You have a number of different options. The spending plan can be
modified as you know as needed, so you can adopt a plan this evening as presented or as modified at
your choosing. You can always come back in future meetings to make those modifications to move
funding around to different buckets if you see different needs, or if different opportunities make
themselves available to us.
Things such as the Shut-in call program, aid to struggling households, personal protective equipment
distributions, all those things are still on the table and at your direction, we can move forward on those.
New guidance received today is also something I wanted to bring to your attention. Police expense now
can be funded through CARES. Our officers, our dispatchers can be paid through CARES funding. This
is something that was very new to us and was made aware to us just today.
This has major financial possibilities for the Town if you all choose to spend some of these second-
round CARES funds to support policing in Town, and that has some cost avoidance impacts for the
Town taxpayer. Also, future changes may come from Congress, which will allow us to use these funds
in different ways. That's still yet to be seen. Our recommendation again for you tonight, adopt resolution
one and resolution two. We're happy to answer any questions you have here this evening.
Again, Russell Seymour, our Economic Development Director, and Jason Cournoyer our Budget staff
is here with us as well.
Mayor Burk: Okay, thank you. There is nobody that has signed up for the public hearing. Is there
anybody online that is waiting to speak? We're not a very popular place tonight. All right, then I will close
this public hearing. Are there any questions at this point? Oh, anybody in the audience? I'm sorry. No.
Okay. Mr. Martinez, any questions?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No ma'am.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox. Sorry.
Council Member Fox: It's okay [chuckles]. Thank you. Just one quick question. You referenced the
Police funding in that last slide. Is that part of the $820,000 that you are-
Keith Markel: It is not currently.
Council Member Fox: It is not. What would that amount be?
Keith Markel: I will ask Mr. Cournoyer. I know there is some initial number review here this afternoon.
Jason Cournoyer: Good evening. Yes, we were told actually pretty late this afternoon. I need to work
with Chris a little bit to really refine what the eligibility is but just for context, personnel in Police are
several million dollars. It depends on who can be covered. There is a significant impact that could be if
it is supervisors and dispatchers like we think. It came so late, that Chris and I weren't able to touch
base. Personnel expenses are more than half of the operation budget for PDs.
You're talking 8 to $9 million, at least for the fiscal year that could potentially be covered.
Mayor Burk: Really?
Jason Cournoyer: Yes.
Mayor Burk: We wouldn't take all of the money and put it to the Police?
Jason Cournoyer: We're just speaking to eligibility. No, ma'am. The accounts would have to make any
decisions from our proposed saving plan.
Page 37| September 8, 2020
Council Member Fox: Is that the type of decision we have to make tonight?
Jason Cournoyer: No.
Keith Markel: Eligibility window is that March 16th to September 30th.
Jason Cournoyer: March 1st to September 30th because there's an opportunity to reimburse
ourselves back to fiscal year 2020 that last quarter.
Council Member Fox: Okay. All right. That would be only with the second round here?
Keith Markel: Well, it can be second round and first round. You haven't spent all of the first round
money, we're going forward with that grant program. If that grant program isn't able to fully consume all
of those funds, you may have additional money that would be able to be applied to other uses.
Council Member Fox: Remind me one more time. When I looked at the slide, I saw the non-profit
where you said, the monies that go to the non-profits were good for rents and utilities and things like
that. You didn't list any of that kind of thing under small business. What is allowed? When a small
business applies, "You go, okay, what kind of things can I use this for?" Because I've been getting those
questions.
Keith Markel: Sure. That's a great question, and I'll ask Russ Seymour to answer that because we did
survey those businesses who did receive the grant funding, asked them how are they using the funding
based on the CARES guidelines, and we can share that information?
Council Member Fox: Okay.
Russell Seymour: Yes, ma'am, as we mentioned earlier we had 176 grants that we--
Mayor Burk: It hasn't done it all night, it's just you.
[laughter]
Russell Seymour: A metal plate in my head, I believe. The--
Mayor Burk: Step back.
Russell Seymour: Can you hear me if I step back here, everybody can hear me?
Mayor Burk: Yes. Eileen, can you hear?
Eileen Boeing: I can hear well but we need to check those online.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, can you hear Mr. Seymour?
Council Member Dunn: No, you can't. I think because Council Member-
Mayor Burk: Is that Mr. Martinez speaking?
Vice Mayor Martinez: That was not Mr. Martinez. I’m having trouble hearing.
Mayor Burk: You have trouble hearing anything.
Russell Seymour: Now, I'll try it. We had 176 businesses that received a grant the first round. We took
a survey of those and I'm very happy with the results. We had about 70% survey response to that.
When we asked them what did they spend their money on, the top three, or I'll give you the top four.
Number one was rent. Number two payroll, those are by far the top two. Number three were utilities
and then number four were the PPP or PPE or the safety requirements. Those are the top four, it drops
significantly after that.
Page 38| September 8, 2020
Council Member Fox: Okay, what other things can it be spent on?
Russell Seymour: It's my understanding that they can spend them on anything that they can show that
has been impacted due to the COVID virus. They gave them a lot more flexibility in moving forward with
that. The main focus was they had to show that there was an impact that they could point to as being a
direct result of the COVID virus or rather COVID-19.
Council Member Fox: Okay, the reason I asked that question is the drop in revenue had to be proven
in order to qualify for this. When people asked me about this, they said, "Well, my revenue dropped. I
proved that to them. That's all the proof that they asked me." Why is revenue not part of this?
Russell Seymour: Why is revenue, I'm sorry, not?
Council Member Fox: Why is revenue replacement not allowed if that was the qualification?
Russell Seymour: That I cannot answer based on what are the actual requirements. We do have a
requirement that revenue can drop or has to be I think a drop of 15%.
Keith Markel: In the second [crosstalk].
Russell Seymour: In the second round, we dropped it from 25% down to 15%. You do have to show
as a business a 15% drop in revenue.
Council Member Fox: Okay. When it comes time to have an accounting for all this, how is that going
to be done and what does the County require?
Russell Seymour: You want to talk about accounting?
Jason Cournoyer: We're working closely with the County. They have procured auditing services to
assist them. That is one of the line items proposed in the spending plan for the second round rather.
The reporting is we're just beginning to start getting the guidelines from the US Treasurer on their
reporting. We just reported out what we spent through March 1st through June 30th though, our fiscal
year.
To be honest, I think the further we get along, the more refined it's going to be because this first level
of reporting was actually pretty high level. It's an unknown but we're looking to procure some auditing
services. If it does need to go to a deeper level like most federal programs do, it could be down the road
a little bit, we want to go ahead and procure some auditing services the second round.
Council Member Fox: I see. Okay, thanks.
Russell Seymour: I'll just add a little bit to that, just to clarify. The revenue loss, the 25% in our first
phase, the 15% in our second phase, that was a Town standard that was approved at the Town level.
That's not a Federal CARES act requirement to show that percentage of revenue loss.
Council Member Fox: I understand that. We got that from the County. That was the County standard
as well and we used a different percentage, but we got that idea or that standard from the--
Keith Markel: As a way to manage your impact, correct.
Council Member Fox: Yes, and I'm just wondering why we use that, a revenue loss. If you have a
revenue loss then why are we using it as a standard?
Keith Markel: Because revenue replacement not being permitted.
Council Member Fox: Right. Those are the questions I'm getting.
Keith Markel: There are nuances and so we've posted the federal guidelines on our website. What
we've asked for in the certification when businesses apply is that they have certified that they will spend
Page 39| September 8, 2020
the money appropriately based on the Federal requirements of the CARES Act and that they have read
the copy of those requirements so that they can see what is eligible and what is not eligible.
Council Member Fox: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: Thanks. I just want to be sure we're clear on the terminology because we
keep saying round one, phase one, second allocation. Anything that's round one was the first 4.7 plus
million, anything round two is the second?
Keith Markel: Correct.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: A couple of quick questions. The expectation, again, that we accepted
the money in round two that we'd be able to give it all away. We got to have the 176 original businesses
plus. Is it our expectation that the first 176 businesses will apply again or we just automatically come
and give it to them again?
Keith Markel: They already got it. At your direction,-
Council Member Campbell: The second?
Keith Markel: -they got what we calling the bump, which essentially you change the brackets and the
award amounts. Those who have previously applied and qualified for that first round automatically got
that additional funding. Those businesses that weren't eligible the first time would need to reapply the
second time and were disqualified the first time [crosstalk].
Council Member Campbell: So we're hoping to do more than 176?
Keith Markel: Yes, sir.
Council Member Campbell: Right. That will be helpful. Then to Councilwoman Fox's point, I'm really
concerned about our exposure if we don't get an accounting firm. Obviously that's a lot of work and the
money that's not spent appropriately we're probably not going to get it back from the businesses that
didn't spend it appropriately, which means we got to pay it back. I'm hoping that we use every measure
possible to make sure the spending has been appropriate because we're responsible for the audits.
Whatever decisions that need to be made on that if they need to be made by this Council, or
administratively, the Town Manager can go and make them, my suggestion is, make them. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Thank you. What number or what personnel from Town staff did not receive
their full pay from full time employment-
Mayor Burk: What?
Keith Markel: What?
Council Member Dunn: -during COVID?
Keith Markel: What percentage of Town staff did not receive their full pay during what?
Mayor Burk: COVID.
Page 40| September 8, 2020
Keith Markel: During this COVID time?
Council Member Dunn: Yes.
Keith Markel: Our full-time staff has remained unchanged. We've got frozen positions for those who
have retired or have left employment with the Town that have not been refilled, and then we have a
large number of flexible part-time employees primarily in our Parks and Rec department who have been
underemployed or underemployed during this time when we haven't been able to be open in offering
the programs that they provide servicing.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. On the Police funding, is that going to be something separate than the
4.7 allocations that we've been getting?
Keith Markel: No. It would come from the 4.7 allocation if you so chose.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, but you don't know what those items within the Police department can
be funded with the CARES Act?
Keith Markel: In our initial read, it looks like many of our road officers would qualify or dispatchers
would qualify. There's still question about senior staffing, but it's certainly something we'll be looking
into much closer. The guidelines do not get very specific from what we can see right now.
Council Member Dunn: Are you assuming then that even though we've already paid the people during
COVID that we're going to be able to fund their already paid salaries using the CARES Act?
Keith Markel: You have the option to reimburse yourselves, we believe, with CARES Act funds for
money that you've already spent on salaries.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. If we've already spent the money and we refund ourselves, that means
that those funds are going to go somewhere else other than to the Police department.
Keith Markel: It would assist you in the deficit that we're incurring because our revenues declined in
several areas.
Council Member Dunn: Again, we just found some information out today, but I want to be [inaudible
02:46:33] the intentions that it would seem that these funds would be used to replace shortfalls within
the Police department yet we don't have shortfalls in the Police department and that if we say that going
forward, we create shortfalls in the Police department through a stroke of the pen, it's really money
that's going to be going into the general fund and used for other services that aren't necessarily
earmarked for that use. Is that our intention?
Keith Markel: It'd be for savings where needed throughout the general fund. No, it would not have to
go specifically back into the Police department, [unintelligible 02:47:17] used wherever you have
shortfalls in other areas.
Council Member Dunn: It's actually not being used for the Police department?
Keith Markel: You're able to reimburse yourselves for money you've already spent for Police Officer
salaries. It's just becoming an eligible expense, the same way that we have eligible expenses for
cleaning supplies in Town hall or hiring additional cleaning staff. Those are all things that we can
reimburse ourselves for, even though we've already paid for them out of pocket with Town general
revenue funds, you're being able to reimburse yourself for those expenses.
The federal government is now qualifying Police Officers as directly related to COVID responders
frontline, and we don't have rescue squads or fire departments here in the Town, those are also eligible
salaries.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. Just for me, I would rather us do everything we possibly can to see that
these funds go into the people that have been affected the most and that's the citizens who have lost
Page 41| September 8, 2020
businesses, employees who have lost jobs, businesses that are now trying to reopen and are forced to
have fewer customers, businesses that have lost customers permanently, that's where I think the idea
of the CARES Act and the funding should be going to, not looking for loopholes for the government to
supplement [unintelligible 02:48:48].
Our government losses can be picked back up by having a vibrant economy and people who have
money given to them using it and spending it in the economy. As one of our Council Members has noted
today that there's a need within their business being put back to work or being supplemented with this,
allows them to spend money elsewhere within the community.
For the government to look for an opportunity to supplement shortfalls, well, the government shortfalls
do not come anywhere close to many businesses that have suffered, employees who are no longer
employed who have suffered, and again, putting this money back to work into the general economy by
giving it to the public is the way for the government to get its money back, not by taking a money grab,
even if it's allowed just to use it for--
Saying it's Police but in reality, we don't have any Police shortfalls, so we're just going to put it into our
general fund. I still say that there are businesses that we are not qualifying for even a small portion of
this funding and if we opened it up and I will tend to go along with what was Mr. Campbell has been
pointing out is that we've had a hard time in finding ways to get this money spent properly.
I would rather come up with a system by which even the smallest of businesses have had a chance to
get some small portion of funding that would again, put the money back into the economy and not
putting it into government shortfalls. I'm not thrilled about us asking for another $800,000 in government
funding. I would rather see this go towards [unintelligible 02:50:48] increasing the non-profits, which
is good, and we're helping the businesses in some way, but we're still not helping the smallest of the
smallest businesses.
I think we can help them by even allowing them to apply for a $1,000 grant or a $1,500 grant. I think it
would be better served. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right, everyone has had a chance to speak. Do we have a motion to adopt resolution
one ratifying and reaffirming resolution 2020 071 is amended by resolution 2020 087? Do I have
someone to move that?
Council Member Fox: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Fox.
Chris Spera: Did you close the Public Hearing?
Mayor Burk: I did. Yes. Sorry. No, that's fine. Keep me on where I'm supposed to be. Council Member
Fox just made the motion and seconded by Council Member Steinberg. All in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
All speakers: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed, so that's six zero. Do we have a motion to adopt resolution number two, the
supplemental appropriation endorsement of spending plan for second round of CARES Act of 2020
funding?
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor?
Mayor Burk: Moved by Vice Mayor Martinez. Second? Council Member Campbell. All in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
Page 42| September 8, 2020
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: Yes?
Council Member Dunn: You called out Council Member Campbell, I don't know if you meant to call
me or not, but I was going to make a motion to the general motion, which is to, I would say, the ability
for all businesses within Leesburg to apply for at least a $1,000 grant.
Keith Markel: I think he's talking [crosstalk] the spending plan.
Mayor Burk: Right.
Keith Markel: Not the-
Chris Spera: Madam Mayor, the spending plan is [unintelligible 02:52:51].
Mayor Burk: Right. We're not dealing with that at this point, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Oh, what [inaudible 02:52:56]?
Mayor Burk: We are just adopting the resolution for a supplemental appropriation and endorsement of
a spending plan for the second round of the Cares-
Keith Markel: That is part of the resolution, so I just want to make sure that we're clear that the public
hearing is separate, but it's all lumped into the same resolution. If he does want to talk about the
spending plan, now would be the time to discuss that in resolution two.
Council Member Dunn: I thought that that's what the resolution is, is we'd adopt the spending plan.
Keith Markel: A portion of it, yes. It's adjusting the budget, making the allocation, and the spending
plan modifications as well, so it's all in the same resolution.
Mayor Burk: All right, [crosstalk]--
Council Member Dunn: My amendment is appropriate at this time?
Mayor Burk: All right. Vice Mayor Martinez, would you accept this as a friendly amendment?
Vice Mayor Martinez: [unintelligible 02:53:39].
Mayor Burk: Did you say yes or no?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Mayor Burk: Oh, so Vice Mayor does not accept that as a friendly amendment to the motion or do we
just have to--
Council Member Dunn: I'll make a motion to that.
Mayor Burk: Okay.
Keith Markel: I'm sorry, he said he was uncomfortable with it?
Mayor Burk: He's going to make a motion to that effect. Should we break this up because we're not
approving the resolution at this point? We wanted us to try to approve the resolution.
Keith Markel: The spending plan is a component of this resolution, and I think that the request was to
change the grant tiers that have been previously approved for this second phase of round one funding
to allow for-
Page 43| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: 1,000.
Keith Markel: -a $1,000 grant to every business. As we discussed last time, and when it's appropriate,
the staff has some feelings that we want to share with you on that topic based on some concerns have
been raised by County staff to us.
Mayor Burk: Oh, well then I think now would be the time to say something about it [chuckles].
Keith Markel: Okay. Got it, fair enough. Well, we did lower the tiers and I'll invite Russell Seymour to
come up and provide a little more depth to this. Tier one as it currently stands as you previously
approved businesses that have annual revenues of 2,500 to just shy of $10,000 are eligible for a $1000
grant award. If you go below the 2,500, you start getting into some qualification issues and I'll let Mr.
Seymour speak to that.
Russell Seymour: Exactly. One of the issues that we had talked about with Loudoun County was
wanting to know why they were setting their level at $5,000. They're not going above it, they're not going
below it. They did not put in a minimum for the businesses as we have a $2,500 minimum right now.
One of the concerns that they conveyed and we certainly agreed with was that we have to be very
careful that if a business last year only made a thousand dollars, we cannot give them a grant, or we
should not give them a grant out of this money equal to what they did last year.
That was the concern that both obviously Loudoun County had them looking at this and then from a
Town standpoint was not being able to show an impact for some of these businesses, that was a
concern that we had.
Mayor Burk: Okay. That would then go back to the auditing aspect of it?
Keith Markel: Correct.
Mayor Burk: Okay.
Keith Markel: From a practical standpoint, if a business has to spend the money on CARES appropriate
costs and the business only made $1000 or something less, $500, there's no practical way that they
would ever be able to justify $1000 in CARES-related spending with the grant money. So we're setting
them up for major issues or exposing the Town to increased liability because we're awarding grants to
businesses that technically do not qualify to spend that money.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Mr. Dunn has made a motion, is there a second to it. That dies for lack of a second.
We are back to does anybody have anything in regard to the spending plan that they would like to direct
the staff at this point? All right. Then we have a motion by Vice Mayor, seconded by Mr. Campbell to
adopt resolution number two and that's the supplemental appropriation endorsement of spending plan
for a second round of Cares Act 2020 funding.
All in favor, indicate by saying, aye.
Speakers: Aye.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor, excuse me, [unintelligible 02:57:24].
Mayor Burk: Pardon me?
Council Member Dunn: We can speak to this motion, correct?
Mayor Burk: You already spoke to it, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: I made a motion which was not accepted, I did not speak to the general motion.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Dunn. You can have three minutes.
Page 44| September 8, 2020
Council Member Dunn: I will just say very quickly that I find it very disappointing that County staff and
now our Town staff wants to buy into reasons for not providing funding to small businesses, yet we're
looking for ways to claim that we have Police needs that are actually going to be devoted to general
fund needs. The government gets its share, but the businesses that are really hurting out there aren't
getting theirs.
It's a shame that we're looking for excuses not to give money to the public and welcoming-- and I want
to point out that from the last meeting, on Monday night to Tuesday night, the recommendation from
Town staff was let's not take the second round of funding. Then the next night, when it was found out
that there may be a chance to get a money grab for the Town, then it was, "Let's go ahead and consider."
Very disappointing. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Okay. All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, Ms. Burk, Ms. Fox, Mr. Campbell, nay?
Council Member Dunn: Abstain.
Mayor Burk: Oh, Mr. Dunn abstains. Okay. We have two abstentions, Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Dunn. All
right. That moves forward. Okay. That takes us to Council disclosures and comments. Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: I have neither. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: We love you. Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: Yes, there's been a lot going on since the last time we met, and when we
met, we didn't have time for disclosure, so I'm going to go back just a little bit. I've been able to speak
at several events. I was a program speaker for the Loudoun Youth Leadership Program on July 29th. I
attended the Global Leadership Summit at Destiny Church on eight, six, and seven.
I was a guest speaker on race relations at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Purcellville, I was a
guest speaker on 813 at A Habitat for Humanity Community Development Program, and I was a guest
facilitator at the Loudoun County NAACP Education Committee Town hall. Congratulations albeit late
to Senator Kamala Harris, a first African American woman vice president selection for a major party.
I want to thank our parks and rec director, Mr. Williams, and our historic preservationist, Ms. Williams
for the help and support they've been giving for Eagle Scout project for [unintelligible 03:00:49]
Martinez Jacka and the memorial bench project that they're building at the Orion Anderson lynching
site of Harrison Street W&OD trail. I really do believe that while the Judge has taken the opportunity to
not move forward on a temporary appointment to this Council that it is indeed still I believe with regrets
to our community and to the applicants our inability to move forward on that in a positive way.
I think just once again, reflects on this Council, not the applicants, but regrets to our community on that.
I do have a disclosure. I had a phone call on 8/25 with Matt Leslie, in regards to the Allman property
special exemption. There are two information memos that I would like to request. One has to do with
security at Ida Lee and I know we've all received some emails recently about several incidents, but
there were three very specific requests I'd like to get some updates on in terms of Police and Town
action.
One is about potential possible placement of security cameras, the increase of security patrols by
Police, and then the ability to have alerts to the community, particularly in the tennis bubble area, when
things do happen. I don't know where they stand, but I certainly would like to be updated on those
issues.
Mayor Burk: Are you asking for a memo?
Council Member Campbell: Information memo, yes, that's where I started with that.
Page 45| September 8, 2020
Mayor Burk: Are there four people that would be interested in it? Ms. Fox, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Steinberg,
Ms. Burk. All right.
Council Member Campbell: Then the second information memo is a result of listening to a fire rescue
squad's response to the 911 phone call at Confluence Park where there was a drowning. It triggered in
my mind where are we on our 911 response as a secondary public access safety point because it was
pointed out during this hearing and information memo about where we are, the challenges from the
County side about being prepared with technology and the technology that they thought they were
prepared for they need better.
I know we made a decision not to go with the County, and the technology has already changed. I want
to know and make sure that we're doing what we can if that's the direction that we still want to go
because it has very severe consequences. I would like an update memo on where we are with that
particular project.
Mayor Burk: Are there four people that are interested in that. All right, that can move forward, the four
of us here, can move forward.
Council Member Campbell: That's it.
Mayor Burk: All right. Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: Okay, two, disclosures. I too had a call with Mr. Matt Leslie on 827 about The
Almond property. I guess this was from before. I had a video meeting, a WebEx on July 29th with Molly
Novotny and Colleen Gillis and the current owner of the old Walmart site, can't recall his name. Those
are my two disclosures. I wanted to quick say something about the Rust Library being closed and used
for other things other than a library.
I am deeply disappointed with some of the actions of the current Board of Supervisors to commit that
library without even speaking with the Town and Town staff and Council to see what our thoughts and
concerns were about that. I speak for very, very many people who have contacted me via email and
telephone to display their absolute disgust about that. I just wanted to put that on the record, and I would
ask for a future work session.
I'd like to discuss the possibility of putting forward a resolution and an affirmation in support of our
Leesburg Police Department, even our sheriff's office. Our chief has indicated to me he has several
concerns about some of the bills that have come out of our legislature this past August, and he says he
thinks that these hinder the efficacy of law enforcement. I'd like to have a work session on our ability
and our willingness to uphold them in this time of emergency.
Mayor Burk: You want to have a work session on?
Council Member Fox: I'd like to discuss the possibility of a resolution, what that would look like.
Mayor Burk: Okay, now you really confused me. I'm sorry. Possibility--
Council Member Fox: Possibility of creating a resolution for our Leesburg Police Department and
discuss the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office as well, just Police in general. Even other first responders
if we so choose, and to give them the affirmation that we have their backs.
Mayor Burk: Okay, so- you really have two things. You want a resolution affirming the Leesburg Police,
but you want a discussion about the Leesburg Police and the Sheriff's Department about their ability to-
-
Council Member Fox: To tell you the truth. I'd like to figure out where the Council sits on everybody
who's been affected by this legislation. It doesn't matter what the resolution says. It can say Leesburg
Police Department, it could say first responders, it could say Loudoun County Sheriff's Office, Leesburg
Police Department, Rescue Squad. We just need to talk about it.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Are there four people that are willing to do that?
Page 46| September 8, 2020
Council Member Steinberg: Can I ask a question? Are we going to be asking Chief Brown-
Council Member Fox: I'd like his input.
Council Member Steinberg: -to be part of this discussion then? Is the intention to have somebody
from the LCSO-
Mayor Burk: Are you asking me to ask her?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes, thank you. I'm sorry.
Council Member Fox: Well, that wasn't my intention, but that's what I thought the work session was
for.
Mayor Burk: So that they would have representatives from both groups to attend.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Part of this discussion would be, excuse me, reference to specific
points of legislation that you have in mind.
Council Member Fox: Yes.
Mayor Burk: She said yes.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you. All right. Are there four votes for that?
Council Member Campbell: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell, Ms. Fox, Mr. Steinberg, myself. Anything else? No. That's it. Okay. Mr.
Steinberg-- Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Just a second. Excuse me. I don't have any additions for future meetings and
no comments and I'm not sure if it's a disclosure because I think it's for-- Hey, I got a call from a
gentleman who had put an application before us for the Allman Property and he was asking how he
could maybe get the application reconsidered. I told him that I don't think you're going to do that by our
rules but I don't know if that has to be a disclosure or not.
I guess I already made it, so there you go. I forget who it is I talked to but he's one of the representatives
of the company that was [crosstalk] application approved.
Mayor Burk: It was probably Mr. Leslie. Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I have a disclosure that I sent to Ms. Boeing and I had a phone call with Mr.
Leslie [unintelligible 03:09:40]. That's all I got. Hope you all have a good rest of the summer.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. I would like to acknowledge that September is childhood cancer awareness
month. This is time when we celebrate the advances in childhood cancer treatment and there are many
but we need to remember the children that we've lost and engage new advocates in joining the whole
mission of achieving a day when every child with cancer can live a long and healthy life. To imagine a
world where children cannot have cancer anymore is also a goal.
I want to thank all the volunteers who put the gold ribbons all over Town last week. They put them
everywhere they could put them I think, but they put a lot of effort into making sure that we remember
that this is an important issue and childhood cancer is taking the lives of many children every year. I
need to disclose that I had a conversation with Matt Leslie on the 25th and on the 31st, had a
conversation with Matt Molly, and Novotny about Leegate.
Page 47| September 8, 2020
I want to welcome Dana's Cake Shop in the Village. It's a lovely bakery that just opened. It has lots and
lots of delicious cakes and pastries. I so admire a business that's willing to open period, but to open
during a pandemic, that is really true grit and I wish them well. I, too, was disappointed with the Board
of Supervisors for taking actions to closing the Rust Library to the public.
It's to provide daycare and student assistance. I recognize that finding daycare is a real problem in this
County and the County is trying to be of assistance to its employees and to others in the community.
It's just disappointing that the Town was not made aware of the decision. Supervisor Umstattd was able
to maintain the curbside service, but many people use the library for books and meetings and for
computer time and just rest and quiet.
If we're going to be partners with the County, we need to have this open line of communications and
while the library is a County facility, it is also in Leesburg and it's used by Leesburg residents. I did
share my anger and frustration with both Supervisor Umstattd and Chair Randall, and I did have to call
them the next day and apologize. I did get little carried away because I was very upset and I do
apologize to them publicly for being so animated.
While I understand it was a last-minute important decision, it really was wrong not to talk to the Town
about it. This most certainly will be one of the issues that we can bring up when the County creates that
standing commission between the Town and the County. By the way, the County did not have the
estimated number of children, and so they may not have to close the library after all. They're going to
be looking at it. The finance committee is going to be looking at it. That is all I have. Manager? Okay.
Do I have the motion to adjourn?
Kaj Dentler: I have nothing.
Mayor Burk: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Council Member Steinberg: So moved.
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? We're done.