The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2021_agenda_04-12_Work_Session_Packet_REVISED TOWN OF LEESBURG Town Hall, 25 West Market Street AGENDA Town Council Work Session April 12, 2021 7:00 PM Council Chamber 1. REMOTE PARTICIPATION MOTION I move to allow _________________ to electronically participate in the April 12, 2021, Town Council Work Session. 2. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Sycolin Cemetery: Memorandum of Understanding with Loudoun Freedom Center (Chris Spera & Keith Markel) b. Town of Round Hill’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Susan Berry Hill & Melissa Hynes, Administrator, Town of Round Hill) c. Affordable Housing (Susan Berry Hill) d. Airport Ad Hoc Committee Final Report (Scott Coffman & Russell Seymour) e. American Recovery Funds & Community Project Funding Request (Clark Case & Renee LaFollette) - REVISED 3. ADDITIONS TO FUTURE MEETINGS a. Future Council Meetings and Agenda Topics 4. ADJOURNMENT 5. INFORMATION MEMORANDUM a. Visit Loudoun Monthly Report 6. UPCOMING EVENTS April 15 – Researching Using Court Records, Virtual Workshop, 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. April 17 & 18 – 31st Annual Flower & Garden Festival, Ida Lee Park, 9 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. April 24 – Council Retreat, Ida Lee Park Recreation Center, 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. April 28 – The French Paradox (A Wine County Mystery, 11), Virtual Conversation, 1 – 3 p.m. ASSISTIVE LISTENING SYSTEM Qualified individuals with a disability who require a reasonable accommodation to attend and/or participate in this meeting should contact the Clerk of Council at eboeing@leesburgva.gov or 703-771-2733 to request the accommodation. Three days advance notice is requested. Meetings are broadcast live on the Town’s local government access cable TV channel (Comcast 67 and Verizon 35) and streamed live on the website at www.leesburgva.gov/webcasts. All Town Council, Board and Commission meetings are recorded and can be found on the Town’s Web site at www.leesburgva.gov. REVISED 1 -2- REGULARLY SHEDULED COUNCIL MEETINGS Citizens are invited to attend and participate in Town Council meetings. The petitioner’s portion of the meeting and scheduled public hearings offer the public two opportunities to present their views to the Council during its meeting. Petitioners The petitioners’ portion of the Council agenda is the first item taken up by the Council following proclamations and certificates of appreciation. This part of the meeting affords individuals the opportunity to address the Council on any matter not scheduled for a public hearing. Prior to the meeting, those citizens wishing to speak should sign the Clerk’s Register on the podium at the front of the Chambers. The Mayor will announce the availability of the sign-up sheet at the beginning of all regular meetings. Petitioners’ presentations should be limited to five minutes. Public Hearings Certain items of Town business can only be conducted after the Town Council conducts an advertised public hearing. Certain major issues affecting the town’s government can also be scheduled for public hearing at the option of the Council. Adoption of the town budget, rezonings, special exceptions and amendments to the Town’s subdivision and zoning ordinances all require a public hearing. Decorum A person addressing the Council as a petitioner, or during a public hearing, should advance to the podium when recognized by the Mayor and state his or her name and address. Persons should also indicate whether they are representing anyone other than themselves. After the presentation or comments, the Mayor or members of Council may have questions of the petitioner. Decorum will be maintained. Statements, which are demeaning or defamatory to members of the public, the staff or the Council, are inappropriate and out of order. OTHER COUNCIL MEETINGS Work Sessions/Committee of the Whole Council may elect to place an item on the Tuesday night meeting agenda for action. Items will only be added to the agenda if agreed to by a majority of Council present. Closed Sessions Under certain circumstances, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act permits the Town Council to meet in a session where the public is excluded. This may be a discussion of personnel matters, legal matters, the acquisition or sale of property and other selected topics. The Council can only go into closed session from a public session and the notice must cite the specific statutory authority to go into closed session and also indicate the general topic to be discussed. Only those matters in the adopted motion to go into closed session can be discussed at that time. TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MATERIALS Generally, all items on the regular Council agenda have been first considered at the Council Committee of the Whole. Individual council members, however, can request full Council action on an item considered, but not reported out of committee. Materials previously distributed to the Council on Wednesday are available to citizens on request from the Clerk’s Office. Citizens may also provide the Clerk of Council with an e-mail address or self- addressed, stamped envelopes and Council agendas will be provided to the citizens without further charge. For more information, call the Clerk’s Office at (703) 771-2733 during normal business hours or e-mail at clerk@leesburgva.gov. Meeting agenda packets are available for public inspection in the lobby of Town Hall on Wednesdays prior to the scheduled meeting. Council agendas can also be viewed on the town’s World Wide Web site at http://www.leesburgva.gov. 2 Date of Council Meeting: April 12, 2021 TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Subject: Sycolin Cemetery: Memorandum of Understanding with Loudoun Freedom Center Staff Contact: Keith Markel, Deputy Town Manager Chris Spera, Town Attorney Keith Wilson, Land Acquisitions Manager Council Action Requested: (1) Review the draft Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Leesburg and the Loudoun Freedom Center and provide any modifications to the document that it deems necessary. (2) Provide direction in response to the Loudoun Freedom Center’s request for Town initiated drainage modifications on the site prior to conveying the land. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the draft Memorandum of Understanding as presented, but does not recommend the Town disturb the existing land with any storm water drainage modifications. Commission Recommendation: The Airport Commission supports the transfer of the proposed cemetery outlot parcel to the Loudoun Freedom Center. Fiscal Impact: See summary chart below. The Town has funded the cemetery delineation study and all legal and engineering costs associated with creating the cemetery parcel (outlot) to allow for its conveyance. The Federal Aviation Administration has conceptually agreed to the transfer of the land without any financial compensation due to the agency even though the land was originally purchased by the Town with federal grant funds. The Town’s Public Works Department has continued to provide maintenance of the site including the installation of cemetery fencing, access paths, and the clearing of vegetation and trees in and around the cemetery. Town Financial Investment Activity Costs One time cemetery fencing and clean-up $6,000 Cemetery Delineation Study $51,442 Survey and Engineering $20,000 Annual Town Maintenance (mowing, weed control, path maintenance) $3,300 Total to date: $81,000 Note: Does not include staff time of Town Attorney’s Office or Town Manager’s Office In order to determine a cost estimate related to drainage improvements requested by the Loudoun Freedom Center for the site, Town engineering staff evaluated the site, and met with contractors to develop preliminary plans for possible drainage modifications. The geology and soils found on the site contribute to the poor drainage conditions especially during wet weather. Three potential modifications have been identified for the areas uphill and between the two existing burial areas and include: (1) excavating for runoff ditches at an estimate of $125,000; (2) excavating to install French drains at an estimate of $135,000; and (3) excavating to install a French drain along with the construction of a low masonry wall at an estimate of $210,000. All of these options include tree and root removal near the burial areas to allow for proper excavation needed for positive drainage. 3 Item a. Sycolin Cemetery: Memorandum of Understanding April 13, 2021 Page 2 Work Plan Impact: The land subdivision project has been incorporated into the work plan of the Town Manager’s Office, Town Attorney’s Office, Airport Director, Town’s Historic Preservation Planner, and the Department of Public Works and Capital Projects. Public Works staff maintenance of the land included in the outlot parcel will end once it is conveyed to the Loudoun Freedom Center. Executive Summary: On July 23, 2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2019-105 stating the “Town Manager or his designee is authorized to execute contracts, documents, or any other necessary approvals for a Cemetery Delineation Study, survey plat, Land Development Application, and any other contract document, or approval necessary to effectuate the transfer of the Sycolin Cemetery to the Loudoun Freedom Center.” As part of the gifting of the land to the Loudoun Freedom Center (LFC), a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is need to establish the roles and responsibilities of each party. This draft agreement (attachment #1) addresses issues including: access to the outlot parcel, future use of the outlot parcel, restrictions imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration along with who will provide upkeep and maintenance of the parcel. Staff has meet with Pastor Michelle Thomas and Mr. Ron Campbell of the LFC to discuss and refine the draft document. They have both expressed verbal support for the document in all areas except the issue of storm water drainage. The MOU document explains that the land is being gifted to the LFC, as is, in its natural state. The outlot is subject to open space and conservations easements and cemetery buffer areas required by Loudoun County, and an avigation easement needed by the FAA and Town airport. The Town has not put any language in the MOU or Deed of Subdivision that would prevent future burials on the site, but states the LFC would be subject to all applicable state and Loudoun County regulations. After the closing date, the LFC will be responsible for all maintenance, upkeep, and improvements upon the outlot parcel. The Town will continue to mow the upper field, and provide access across the Town’s property to access the outlot from Sycolin Road. Up to three personal vehicles may be parked in the field when accessing the outlot, but large group parking in the runway protection zone is prohibited under FAA regulations. Visitors to the outlot may park at the Town’s airport and be shuttled to the site. Pastor Thomas has inquired about road signage for the Sycolin Cemetery similar to what was installed for Belmont Cemetery. This section of Sycolin Road is located in Loudoun County and VDOT right of way. All signage approvals are outside of the Town’s jurisdiction. The Town reached out to VDOT officials to understand what would be needed for the LFC to install the brown directional signage, and it was learned that VDOT allows this type of signage for sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Further information can be provided by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Prior to the conveyance of the land to the LFC, Pastor Thomas is asking the Town to modify the existing site drainage to divert the natural flow of storm water away from the existing burial areas. The burial areas are located between the creek and the steep slope that leads up to the grass field that is part of the runway protection zone. The Town has not modified the existing topography or increased the impervious surface of the site since it took ownership in 1990. During wet times of the year, these parcels, including the burial areas, become saturated and the grave depressions hold water. There is at least one identified spring near the burial sites that was documented in the cemetery delineation study (attachment #2). Background: In 1989 and 1990, the Town of Leesburg purchased five parcels fully located in Loudoun County and outside of the Town’s Corporate Limits, totaling approximately eight acres, of buffer land across Sycolin Road as part of Leesburg Executive Airport’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The 4 Item a. Sycolin Cemetery: Memorandum of Understanding April 13, 2021 Page 3 parcels were left undisturbed except for the clearing and mowing of the field in the RPZ, near Sycolin Road. The parcels are the site of two burial areas that are affiliated with the First Baptist Church of Sycolin. The church was established in 1884, and the existing church building, likely constructed in 1899, is located south of the Town’s parcels near the intersection of Sycolin Road and Crosstrail Boulevard. According to historian Jim Koenig’s detailed genealogical research of the African-American Sycolin Community and the First Baptist Church of Sycolin (attachment #3), the earliest burials in the cemeteries took place in 1913, and the last know burial occurred in 1959. There is no historical research that has shown this to be a slave cemetery however some who are buried in the cemetery were born prior to the Civil War. The Loudoun Freedom Center approached Town Council and the Town Manager in 2015 about opportunities to preserve the burial areas located on the Sycolin site. Town staff worked with Loudoun County staff and the Loudoun Freedom Center (LFC) to develop a plan for documenting and stabilizing the burial areas including the use of ground penetrating radar and GPS locations of the visible burial plots. In consultation with the LFC, the Town has installed a fence around the two burial areas, cleared vegetation and trees, created a loop access paths from the upper field, and installed an information sign. The Town’s Public Works department provides periodic maintenance of the site that includes limited mowing, fallen tree removal, and weed control on the paths. In July of 2019, the Town Council directed staff to move forward with plans to subdivide the areas of land containing the burial areas, and to convey the new cemetery parcel to the LFC. As part of the County’s newly implemented cemetery subdivision process, the Town contracted with Rivanna Archeological Services to conduct a detailed cemetery delineation study (attachment #2) to ensure that all of the graves are included within the limits of the proposed cemetery outlot. The Town has also been working with Loudoun County Planning and Development and County Attorney staff to make sure the cemetery outlot conforms to the new cemetery regulations recently enacted by Loudoun County. These regulations include 50 feet of buffer area surrounding the burial areas to protect the land from future disturbance. As this land was initially purchased with federal funds, the Town’s Airport Director has been working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration to make sure their requirements are met. A final approval letter from the FAA will be needed before the cemetery outlot can be conveyed to the LFC. The Town has nearly completed the subdivision approval with Loudoun County. Once the documents are in final form, the Town will need to hold a public hearing before the cemetery outlot can be conveyed to the LFC. The attached draft Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and the LFC will need to be approved at the time of the land transfer. Attachments: 1. Proposed Sycolin Cemetery Memorandum of Agreement 2. Cemetery Delineation Study (Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC) 3. “They Were a Community” Paper by Jim Koenig 5 Item a. AGREEMENT FOR DONATION OF REAL ESTATE by and between THE TOWN OF LEESBURG, VIRGINIA Donor, and THE LOUDOUN FREEDOM CENTER Donee, Dated: _______________, 2021 6 Item a. 1 of 9 This AGREEMENT FOR THE DONATION OF REAL ESTATE AND RELATED INTERESTS (the “Agreement”) is made as of ______________, 2021, but is effective as of the Effective Date (defined below), by and between THE TOWN OF LEESBURG, VIRGINIA (the “Town” or the “Donor”) and the LOUDOUN FREEDOM CENTER, a Virginia not-for- profit corporation exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS regulations (the “LFC” or the “Donee”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Town is the owner of a certain parcel of Land (defined below) and the Improvements thereon (defined below), including the Personal Property therein (defined below), located in Loudoun County, Commonwealth of Virginia, which are more particularly described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, (the “Property”), and WHEREAS the Property is the location of remains and other indicia of burials for persons of color; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to donate the ownership of, and the Center desires to acquire ownership to, the Property, without payment by the LFC to the Town and without the Town receiving any monetary compensation for making such donation, pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the agreements and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: The foregoing Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein. 1. Transfer of the Property. At Closing (as defined in Article 8 below), the Town shall convey and the LFC shall accept ownership of all of the Town’s right, title and interest in and to the Property as follows: (1) That certain land (the “Land”) located in Loudoun County, Commonwealth of Virginia, constituting all of Tax Map Parcels Nos. ____________ in the land records of Loudoun County, as well as all Improvements located thereon; and (2) All easements, hereditaments, appurtenances, air rights and other rights, including development rights, belonging to or inuring to the benefit of the Town with regard to and/or pertaining to the Property, if any. (3) The LFC’s ownership is subject to an Open Space and Conservation easement and a Cemetery Preservation Buffer easement to be created in favor of Loudoun County and an Avigation easement to be created in favor of the Town. 2. Transfer on “As Is” Basis. The LFC acknowledges and agrees that with respect to the physical condition of the Property upon Closing, the Town shall transfer and convey to the LFC and the LFC shall accept the ownership of the Property “AS IS,” “WHERE IS,” and “WITH ALL FAULTS.” From and after the Closing Date, the LFC shall assume the risk of all 7 Item a. 2 of 9 adverse matters of and respecting the Property, including, but not limited to, adverse physical and environmental conditions (as hereinafter defined), including those that may not have been revealed by the LFC’s inspections and investigations of and regarding the Property. The terms and conditions of this Article 2 shall expressly survive the Closing and shall not merge with the provisions of any Closing documents or the Deed. 3. The Town’s Disclaimer of Representations, Covenants and Warranties as to the Property. The LFC agrees that it has not relied upon and will not rely upon, either directly or indirectly, any representation regarding the Property made by the Town and acknowledges that none have been made regarding the Property nor will be made.; (ii) the LFC acknowledges and agrees that there are no oral agreements, representations, covenants or warranties, collateral to or affecting the Property by the Town or any third party; and (iii) except as otherwise expressly provided in Article 8 herein with regard to the Title of the Property, the Town has not made and is not now making any warranties, covenants, guarantees or representations of any kind or character, express or implied, statutory, oral or written, past, present or future, with respect to the Property. The LFC acknowledges that the Property, apart from the grave sites, is being conveyed in its natural state and may be subject to drainage and other issues. 4. Agreement as to the LFC’s Use of the Property. The LFC agrees and covenants that the Property shall be owned by the LFC for no less than ten (10) years from the Closing Date (defined below) and shall be used to preserve and memorialize the remains of those buried there, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached Deed and Easements. Nothing herein shall be construed to require a particular date of commencement of the LFC’s use or improvement of the Property. The LFC may conduct additional burials on the Property subject to all applicable state and Loudoun County regulations. Assuming future burials in compliance with applicable law take place, the decision to make such burials are in the sole and absolute discretion of the LFC, which will assume all risk associated with those decisions. The LFC further acknowledges that the specific means of access to the Property may change over time based upon the future design of Sycolin Road. Until and unless approval for additional vehicles is received from the Federal Aviation Administration, parking of no more than three passenger vehicles shall be permitted in the open field owned by the Town that is adjacent to the Property (the “Adjacent Town Parcel”). Vehicles larger than standard passenger vehicles must off-load from Sycolin Road and park off site. In addition, should an event at the Property result in more attendees than can be accommodated by three passenger vehicles, the additional vehicles must park off site. The LFC acknowledges that the Adjacent Town Parcel is subject to regulation by the Federal Aviation Administration as a Runway Protection Zone and that the FAA may alter the LFC’s use of the Adjacent Town Parcel in a manner different than that set forth herein. No vehicles parked on the Adjacent Town Parcel shall be parked in such a way as to obstruct access to the Adjacent Town Parcel from Sycolin 8 Item a. 3 of 9 Road. The LFC acknowledges that the portion of Sycolin Road nearest to the parcel is not a Town-controlled road and that various issues regarding the roadway and the Property, including, without limitation, signage, future alignment, issues related to road construction and drainage, are all issues to be resolved between the LFC, Loudoun County, and/or the Virginia Department of Transportation and do not involve the Town. 5. Maintenance of the Property After the Closing Date, the LFC will be responsible for all maintenance, upkeep and improvements upon the Property, including, without limitation, all signage, fencing, trails and other Improvements within the Property. The Town will provide continuous access to the Property at all phases of the Sycolin Road expansion process unless safe access is temporarily not possible due to the construction. Until such time as Sycolin Road is redesigned and constructed, the Town will maintain the current gate off of Sycolin Road to access the Adjacent Town Parcel and through that, the Property. In addition, the Town will grant the LFC temporary easements over the portion of the Adjacent Town Parcel that includes the two existing gravel paths that lead to the Property. The LFC will be responsible for maintaining the paths and will be allowed, and will be responsible for any cost associated with, adding signage or other improvements related to access to the Property within the temporary easements. The temporary easements may change during the construction of Sycolin Road. After Sycolin Road is redesigned and constructed, the Town and the LFC will work cooperatively to ensure access to the Property through new permanent easements. The Town will be responsible for the maintenance, including mowing, of the Adjacent Town parcel, which mowed and otherwise maintained pursuant to the Town’s regular maintenance schedule. The LFC will be responsible for mowing and other maintenance within the temporary access easements while they are in use and will be responsible for mowing and other maintenance within the final permanent easements. 6. Environmental Conditions. For purposes hereof, “Hazardous Substances” means any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or material, pollutant or contaminant, as defined for purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq.), as amended (“CERCLA”), or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 6901 et seq.), as amended (“RCRA”), or any other federal, state, district, or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation applicable to the Property. The LFC acknowledges and agrees with the Town that the Town has not, does not and will not make any representation or warranty with regard to compliance with any environmental protection, pollution or land use laws, rules, regulations, orders or requirements, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the presence, handling, generating, treating, storing or disposing of any hazardous substances on the Property. 9 Item a. 4 of 9 7. Release, Indemnification and Insurance. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the LFC, on behalf of itself and all of its affiliated or related agencies (collectively, the “LFC Parties”), and effective on the Closing Date, hereby expressly waives, relinquishes and releases any and all rights remedies and claims any of the LFC Parties may now or hereafter have, against the Town, including it elected officials, officers, employees, and each of said party’s successors and assigns (collectively, the “Town and Related Parties”), whether known or unknown, arising from or related to (a) the physical condition, quality, quantity and state of repair of the Property and the prior management and operation thereof; (b) the accuracy, completeness or methodology of preparation of the documents or any other documents or information provided by or on behalf of the Town; (c) the Property’s failure to comply with any federal, state or local laws, regulations, ordinances or orders, including, without limitation, those relating to health, safety, zoning, the environment and the Americans with Disabilities Act; or (d) any past, present or future presence, alleged presence, release or alleged release of any Hazardous Materials in, on, under or about, or otherwise migrating to, from, across or under, the Property, including without limitation, any claims under, on account of or related to: (i) the Environmental Laws; (ii) the provisions of this Agreement (except as otherwise expressly provided herein, including any post-closing obligation of the Town under the terms of this Agreement); or (iii) the common law. The LFC agrees to and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town and Related Parties from any and all claims, actions, liabilities, losses and damages from any third parties with respect to the Property that are alleged to have arisen after the Closing Date. The terms and provisions of this Article 7 shall survive Closing. The LFC shall insure the Property in a manner that includes at least $1,000,000 of general liability coverage for the use of the Adjacent Town Parcel for parking in the manner set forth herein, for use of the temporary access easements and for use of the permanent access easements once they are established. 8. Title. Title to the Property shall be insurable at Closing, that is, it shall be good and marketable of-record and in fact and shall be indefeasibly conveyed in fee-simple, by special warranty deeds with covenants of further assurances, free and clear of any and all liens, mortgages, security interests, tenancies, restrictions, easements or other encumbrances of any kind whatsoever, except for the easements and encumbrances referenced herein. 9. Closing. The Closing shall be held in the offices of the Title Company or at any other location mutually agreed to by the parties in writing. Unless extended as expressly provided in this Agreement, or as otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Town and the LFC in writing, the Closing shall be held at 10:00 a.m. on or before ____________________, 2020 (the “Scheduled Closing Date”). The date on which the Closing actually occurs is referred to herein as the “Closing Date”. 10. Title Company and Closing Fees and Costs. Any fees, expenses or costs charged by the Title Company shall be paid by the Town at Closing. The conveyance of the 10 Item a. 5 of 9 Property to the LFC should be exempt from any and all state, county or other transfer or recordation taxes pursuant to Va. Code §58.1-811(C)(4), the LFC agrees that in the event that any such taxes are due and owing with regard to this transaction, the LFC shall be solely responsible for said payments and shall indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any such taxes, and all fees, expenses and costs relating thereto. The Town shall pay the premium for the LFC’s owner’s policy of title insurance. Each party shall pay its own attorneys’ fees incurred in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement, the documents related thereto, and with regard to the Closing. 11. Pro-ration of Real Estate Taxes. Real estate taxes, if applicable, shall be pro- rated as of the Closing Date, so that the Town shall be liable for any outstanding real estate taxes for the period prior to the Closing Date and the LFC being liable for all real estate taxes for the period commencing with the Closing Date and thereafter. The LFC shall be liable for all general and special assessments that may be assessed after the Effective Date of this Agreement. 12. Risk of Loss. All risk of loss as to the Property shall remain on the Town until Closing and delivery of all instruments required under this Agreement, and thereafter the LFC shall assume all risk of loss as to the Property. 13. No Brokerage. The Town and the LFC each represents and warrants unto the other that this transaction has resulted solely due to the parties, and not by any broker or broker’s agent. The Town and the LFC each agree to defend, indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against all loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs), damage and liability resulting from the claims of any other broker, agent or finder (or anyone claiming to be a broker, agent or finder) with whom the indemnifying party has dealt in connection with the transaction contemplated hereby or who is claiming under the indemnifying party based upon any agreement or understanding with such party The provisions of this Article 12 shall survive the Closing and transfer of title to the Property. 14. Waivers. No delay or omission by any party hereto to exercise any right or power accruing upon any non-compliance or default by any party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof, except as otherwise may be herein provided. A waiver by either party or any covenant, condition or agreement to be performed by the other party must be in writing and shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or any covenant, condition or agreement herein contained. 15. Notice. The Town shall advise the LFC promptly of any specific written government notices which the Town receives that might affect the Property; provided, however, the Town shall have no obligation to correct or remedy any notice of violation of laws with respect to the Property, including those relating, directly or indirectly, to the physical condition of the Property. 16. Defaults. If Closing does not take place due to the Town’s failure to perform its undertakings as set forth in this Agreement, the LFC’s exclusive remedies shall be to terminate this Agreement, whereupon, neither the Town nor the LFC shall have any further rights or remedies against each other. If Closing does not take place due to the LFC’s failure to perform 11 Item a. 6 of 9 its undertakings as set forth in this Agreement, the Town’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be to terminate this Agreement, whereupon, neither the Town nor the LFC shall have any further rights or remedies against each other. 17. Notices. All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, hand delivery, or by overnight express delivery, or by some form of overnight express delivery to the parties at the following addresses: If to the Town: Kaj Dentler Leesburg Town Manager 25 West Market Street Leesburg, Virginia 20176 With a copy to: Christopher P. Spera Leesburg Town Attorney 25 West Market Street Leesburg, Virginia 20176 If to the LFC: Michelle C. Thomas, President Loudoun Freedom Center 19309 Winmeade Drive, #307 Lansdowne, Virginia 20176 18. Miscellaneous. The Article headings and captions contained herein are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning and interpretation of the terms of this Agreement. All questions with respect to the construction of this Agreement and the rights and liabilities of the parties hereto shall be determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This Agreement may be executed in any number of duplicate originals or counterparts, all of which shall constitute a single Agreement. Any duplicate original on which the signatures of both parties shall appear shall be deemed an original of this Agreement. Any number of counterparts on which the signatures of both parties shall appear shall constitute a duplicate original. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the parties regarding the Property, and there are no outstanding agreements between he parties hereto other than those set out in this Agreement. This Agreement may not be modified, changed or amended except by a written instrument executed by all of the parties hereto. In the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, the party upon whom an obligation is imposed hereunder shall perform the obligation at its expense. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. 19. Construction; Interpretation. This Agreement is the result of a bona fide arms length negotiations between the Town and the LFC and all parties have contributed substantially and materially to the preparation of the Agreement. Accordingly, this Agreement shall not be construed or interpreted more strictly against any one party than against any other party. 12 Item a. 7 of 9 20. No Personal Liability. The parties agree that they shall look to the entities, and not to the individual officials, trustees, directors, officers, employees, advisors, consultants, property managers, attorneys, agents and representatives of the LFC and/or the Town, for satisfaction of the obligations set forth in this Agreement. 21. Binding Effect. This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, devisees, legal and personal representatives, assigns, and successors in interest. 22. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in all things pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. 23. Business Days. In the event that any date or any period provided for in this Agreement shall end on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the applicable date or period shall be extended to the first business day following such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 24. Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor any right, interest or obligation hereunder, may be assigned (by operation of law or otherwise) by any party without the prior written consent of the other party hereto, and any attempt to do so will be void. This Agreement is binding upon, inures to the benefit of, and is enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 25. Invalid Provisions. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable under any present or future law, and if the rights or obligations of any party hereto under this Agreement will not be materially and adversely affected thereby, (a) such provision will be fully severable, (b) this Agreement will be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never comprised a part hereof, (c) the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect and will not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance here from, and (d) in lieu of such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision, there will be added automatically as a part of this Agreement a legal, valid and enforceable provision as similar in terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible. 26. Effective Date. The “Effective Date” of this Agreement is the date when both parties have signed the Agreement and have delivered said signed Agreement to the other party. In the event that the Agreement is signed in counterparts, the Effective Date shall be the date when each of the parties has one set of duplicate original Agreements which contain the signatures of all of the parties such that when assembled, the documents constitute one fully effective agreement. [balance of page intentionally left blank; signatures appear on following pages] 13 Item a. 9 of 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement pursuant to due authority. DONOR: THE TOWN OF LEESBURG, VIRGINIA Date: _______________ By: ___________________________________ Name: Kaj Dentler Its: Town Manager Approved as to form: Date: _______________ By: ___________________________________ Name: Christopher P. Spera Its: Town Attorney DONEE: THE LOUDOUN FREEDOM CENTER Date: _______________ By: _________________________________ (SEAL) Name: Michelle C. Thomas Its: President 14 Item a. 1. Transfer of the Property ..................................................................................................... 1 2. Transfer on “As Is” Basis .................................................................................................. 1 3. The Town’s Disclaimer of Representations, Covenants and Warranties as to the Property .............................................................................................................................. 2 4. Agreement as to the Center’s Use of the Property ............................................................. 2 5. Maintenance of the Property .............................................................................................. 3 6. Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................. 3 7. Release, Indemnification and Insurance ............................................................................ 4 8. Title .................................................................................................................................... 4 9. Closing ............................................................................................................................... 4 10. Title Company and Closing Fees and Costs ...................................................................... 4 11. Pro-ration of Real Estate Taxes ......................................................................................... 5 12. Risk of Loss ....................................................................................................................... 5 13. No Brokerage ..................................................................................................................... 5 14. Waivers .............................................................................................................................. 5 15. Notice ................................................................................................................................. 5 16. Defaults .............................................................................................................................. 5 17. Notices ............................................................................................................................... 6 18. Miscellaneous .................................................................................................................... 6 19. Construction; Interpretation ............................................................................................... 6 20. No Personal Liability ......................................................................................................... 6 21. Binding Effect .................................................................................................................... 7 22. Time is of the Essence ....................................................................................................... 7 23. Business Days .................................................................................................................... 7 24. Assignment ........................................................................................................................ 7 25. Invalid Provisions .............................................................................................................. 7 26. Effective Date .................................................................................................................... 7 15 Item a. Archaeological Investigations Associated with the Delineation of the Sycolin Community Cemetery (053-6470) Loudoun County, Virginia VDHR File No. 2019-0781 Prepared for: Town of Leesburg, Virginia Prepared by: Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC 410 East Water Street, Suite 1100 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 16 Item a. 17 Item a. Archaeological Investigations Associated with the Delineation of the Sycolin Community Cemetery (053-6470) Loudoun County, Virginia VDHR File No. 2019-0781 Principal Archaeologist and Author: Benjamin P. Ford May 2020 18 Item a. 19 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would never have occurred without the long-term support and tireless effort of several individuals and organizations. The project is deeply indebted to Pastor Michelle Thomas, Executive Director of the Loudoun Freedom Center for her commitment to the preservation of the Sycolin Community Cemetery. Leesburg Town Council member Ron Campbell, Terry Yates, Capital Projects Manager, and Keith Wilson, Land Acquisition Manager of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia supported and managed the project from beginning to end. Jim Koenig’s initial research brought the Sycolin Community Cemetery to the attention of the broader public. 20 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia ii 21 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia iii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Between December 20, 2019 and January 6, 2020, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC conducted archaeological investigations at the Sycolin Community Cemetery (053-6470) in Loudoun County, Virginia. The investigations focused on delineating a reliable burial-free buffer zone surrounding two fenced burial grounds in support of a future property transfer from the Town of Leesburg to the Loudoun Freedom Center. The archaeological investigation was composed of the clearing of small vegetation and dead trees from the project area, and mechanical-assisted stripping of surface soils within a 25-foot buffer zone surrounding the northern, western and southern sides of the two enclosed burial grounds. In addition, mapping of each enclosed burial ground was accomplished, and a reconnaissance level pedestrian survey of the larger wooded area surrounding the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area was conducted with a goal of identifying additional interments located beyond the enclosed burial grounds, as well as to locate, identify and document other landscape surface features pertinent to contextualizing the history and development of the historic Lower Sycolin community. Excepting islands of intact soils left undisturbed surrounding mature trees, a total of 13,145 square feet (0.30-acre) of surface soils were removed from the 25-foot buffer zone around both burial grounds. No human interments were identified within the 25-foot buffer zone. Two pieces of refined earthenware ceramic was recovered during the removal of surface soils. No additional archaeological investigations associated with the delineation of the Sycolin Community Cemetery were recommended. A total of 65 potential interments, defined predominantly by shallow east-west oriented depressions, were identified and mapped within the Sycolin Community Cemetery, 55 in the larger northern burial ground, and 10 in the smaller southern burial ground. A limited number of interments possessed markers, either simple fieldstones, formal etched markers, or wooden stakes with names. During the reconnaissance level pedestrian survey, historic property boundaries, composed of remnant barbed wire fencing, low earthen berms, and a fieldstone wall were identified and mapped. A stone-lined spring and associated drainage trench were also identified adjacent to the southern side of the southern burial ground. Following completion of fieldwork, the 25-foot buffer zone was backfilled with soil and regraded, seeded and strawed. The limits of the 25-foot buffer zone was staked on all sides to facilitate survey and legal transfer of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. 22 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia iv 23 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements i Management Summary iii Table of Contents v List of Figures and Tables vii Project Setting 1 Project Understanding 5 Historic Context 6 Egypt Farm 6 The Establishment of Lower Sycolin 11 The Sycolin Community Cemetery 17 Previous Research 19 Architectural Resources 19 Archaeological Resources 19 Cemetery Delineation Research Design 21 Study Area 21 Field Methods 22 Reconnaissance Level Survey and Site Wide Mapping 23 Protocol for the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains 24 Archaeological Findings 26 Site Preparation 26 Mechanical Stripping of Surface Soils 28 Site Soils 29 Cultural and Natural Features 30 Material Culture 32 Backfilling and Seeding / Strawing 33 Mapping of Burial Grounds 35 Reconnaissance Level Pedestrian Survey 40 24 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia vi Discussion and Recommendations 43 Archaeological Findings 43 The Burial Grounds 43 The First Baptist Church Sycoline Cemetery and the Sycolin Community Cemetery 45 The Significance of the Lower Sycolin Community Cemetery 45 Recommendations 45 References Cited 47 VDHR Site Form 50 25 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia vii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure #1: Map showing the location of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project 1 area, the Leesburg Executive Airport, First Baptist Church Sycoline, and the Town of Leesburg. Figure #2: Southern pedestrian entrance, showing gravel path and rail fence, 2 leading to the Sycolin Community Cemetery. Figure #3: Interpretive signage at the northern pedestrian entrance to the Sycolin 2 Community Cemetery. Figure #4: An unnamed drainage, east of and adjacent to the Sycolin Community 3 Cemetery project area. Figure #5: Sycolin Community Cemetery project area showing dense undergrowth 3 and downed trees. Figure #6: Surface depressions and stakes, marking individual interments, in the 4 larger northern burial ground. Figure #7: Detail,Map of Loudoun County, Virginia, showing approximate location 7 of Sycolin Community Cemetery project area, shaded in red, during the Edward Hammat occupation. Yardley Taylor, 1854. Figure #8: Advertisement for the sale of ‘Egypt’ Farm, 1879. 8 Figure #9: Plat of 241-acre ‘Egypt Farm.’ L. Norris, surveyor, ca. 1881. 9 Figure #10: Map showing the location of the 241-acre ca. 1881 ‘Egypt’ Farm parcel. 10 The three Leesburg parcels containing the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area are outlined in red at the top. Figure #11: December 1881 Meeting Minutes approving the purchase of 3 acres of 13 land to establish a church in Lower Sycolin. Trustees, Union Church, Sycolin. Figure #12: Detail, Loudoun County, Virginia, showing the location of a school for 14 colored children, encircled in red, part of the Sycoline community lying east of what is now Sycolin Road. Oscar L. Emerick, Superintendent of Schools, 1923. Figure #13: Detail, 1937 aerial photograph, showing the broader Lower Sycolin 15 community, the three Leesburg owned parcels outlined in red, and the approximate location of the two Sycolin burial grounds shaded in red. Figure #14: Detail, 1937 aerial photograph, showing project area with approximate 16 locations of two Sycolin burial grounds shaded in red, Lower Sycolin residential and agricultural structures circled in blue, and the First Baptist Church Sycoline circled in yellow. 26 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia viii Figure #15: Detail, 1957 aerial photograph, showing project area with approximate 17 locations of two Sycolin burial grounds shaded in red, Lower Sycolin residential and agricultural structures circled in blue, and the First Baptist Church Sycoline circled in yellow. Figure #16: Cemetery delineation project area shaded in yellow showing Sycolin Road 21 (at left), the three Leesburg parcels, and the approximate location of the larger and smaller burial grounds (blue outlines). Figure #17: Forest mulcher attachment on the front of a compact track loader. 26 Figure #18: Looking north from the northwest corner of the small southern burial 26 ground towards the northern large burial ground following debris removal and forest mulching. Figure #19: Looking south from the southwest corner of large northern burial ground 27 towards the small southern burial ground following debris removal and forest mulching. Figure #20: Looking east from the northwest corner of large burial ground (fenced 27 area at right) towards an unnamed drainage following debris removal and forest mulching. Figure #21: Northeast corner of large northern burial ground, looking south, 28 showing ‘island’ of soil left unexcavated surrounding a mature tree in this location. Figure #22: Following removal of surface soils, subsoil was manually cleaned with 28 shovel and trowel. Figure #23: North side of large burial ground, looking west, showing cleared area 29 adjacent to enclosure. Figure #24: Typical soil profile, showing three strata: 1) a brown loamy topsoil; 30 2) a pale gray silty clay; and 3) a yellow-brown clay subsoil. Trowel rests on natural subsoil. Figure #25: Anomaly #1, looking south, showing a spherical-shaped, brown-colored 31 organic soil discoloration with interior soils resembling yellow-brown silty clay subsoil. Figure #26: Anomaly #2, looking north, showing an amorphous orange and brown 31 -colored organic soil discoloration. Figure #27: Typical 1.0-foot diameter soil discoloration extending into natural subsoil 32 and interpreted as a tree root. Figure #28: Ironstone ceramics recovered from the Sycolin Community Cemetery 33 project area. 27 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia ix Figure #29: View looking southeast from the northwest corner of the northern 33 burial ground showing backfilled, seeded and strawed area. Figure #30: View looking south from the northwest corner of the northern burial 34 ground showing backfilled, seeded and strawed area. Figure #31: Map showing interments in the northern burial ground, Sycolin Community 35 Cemetery. Figure #32: Map showing interments in the southern burial ground, Sycolin Community 36 Cemetery. Figure #33: Typical fieldstone marker, Sycolin Community Cemetery. 37 Figure #34: Etched grave marker for Chester H. Sidwell, northern burial ground, 37 Sycolin Community Cemetery. Figure #35: Burned, engraved stake, northern burial ground, Sycolin Community 38 Cemetery. Figure #36: Plan showing location of burial grounds, archaeologically cleared buffer 40 zone with tree islands, property boundaries, stone-lined spring and drainage ditch. Figure #37: Western end and stone-lined head of spring adjacent to south side of 41 southern burial ground. Figure #38: Drainage trench, looking east, associated with stone-lined springhead. 42 Figure #39: Stone wall property boundary, looking west. 42 Figure #40: Plan, northern burial ground, showing groupings of burials oriented 43 slightly differently from one another. Table #1: African-American Population in Loudoun County, Virginia, 1860 – 1900. 11 Table #2: African-American Population in Loudoun County, Virginia, 1900 – 1950. 14 Table #3: African-American ‘Sycolin’ Deaths and Burials, 1891-1954. 18 Table #4: Architectural resources within 1 mile of Sycolin Community Cemetery. 19 Table #5: Archaeological resources within 1 mile of Sycolin Community Cemetery. 20 Table #6: Interments and Markers, Sycolin Community Cemetery. 38 Table #7: Marked interments at Sycolin Community Cemetery. 38 28 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia x 29 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 1 1 PROJECT SETTING The Sycolin Community Cemetery is an approximately 375-foot long by 120-foot wide north-south oriented project area that straddles three east-west oriented parcels (PINs 192-26-3267, 192-26-3648, 192-26-4027) fronting the eastern side of Sycolin Road and owned by the Town of Leesburg. The project area lies approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Town of Leesburg adjacent to the southern end of the Leesburg Executive Airport, and approximately 250 - 350 feet east of Route 643 (Sycolin Road), and 650 feet north of First Baptist Church Sycoline (VDHR 053-0899) (Figure #1). Figure #1: Map showing the location of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area, the Leesburg Executive Airport, First Baptist Church Sycoline, and the Town of Leesburg. The Sycolin Community Cemetery lies at the base of an east sloping hill. The top of the hill is covered in turf. Where the slope becomes steeper at the eastern verge of the turf is a dense wooded area within which the two burial grounds lie. The wooded area contains significant tree fall and areas of dense undergrowth. Two pedestrian gravel-surfaced footpaths, with entrances defined by post and rail fences, lead down through the wooded area and connect with both the northern and southern cemeteries. A small unnamed drainage runs from north to south adjacent to and east of the two burial grounds. Elevations in the vicinity of the burial grounds range between 360 feet asl on the south and 365 feet asl on the north. (Figures #2 - 5). 30 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 2 Figure #2: Southern pedestrian entrance, showing gravel path and rail fence, leading to the Sycolin Community Cemetery. Figure #3: Interpretive signage at the northern pedestrian entrance to the Sycolin Community Cemetery. 31 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 3 Figure #5: Sycolin Community Cemetery project area showing dense undergrowth and downed trees. Figure #4: An unnamed drainage, east of and adjacent to the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. 32 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 4 Soils within the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area are composed exclusively of the Sycoline- Catlett complex (7 to 15% slope). The Sycoline-Catlett soil complex is generally found on convex side slopes of ridges. The soil complex is classified as moderately deep and moderately well-drained yellow- brown silty soils with high to very high surface runoff due to the significant slope. The agricultural potential of the soils is very poor and is classified as grassland agriculture.1 The Sycolin Community Cemetery is composed of two discrete clusters of graves, a larger northern burial ground, and a smaller southern burial ground. Currently, each of the burial grounds is enclosed by a post and wire fence that encompasses all of the interments possessing visible surface indications. Within each burial ground are numerous graves, all oriented in an east-west direction, and some possessing formal or fieldstone markers. Many of the graves are also characterized by relatively deep depressions in the surface soils (Figure #6). Figure #6: Surface depressions and wooden stakes, marking individual interments, in the larger northern burial ground. 1 U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service.Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January 20, 2020; Alex C. Blackburn,Interpretive Guide to the Use of Soil Maps of Loudoun County, Virginia. (Leesburg: Loudoun County Cooperative Extension Office, 1998). Electronic resource: logis.loudoun.gov/Loudoun/metadata/soils.htm, Accessed January 20, 2020. 33 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 5 2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The two clusters of burials that compose the Sycolin Community Cemetery are associated with the post-Emancipation African-American community known as Sycolin, or Lower Sycolin, and also possibly the late-nineteenth-century Union Church just to its south, now known as First Baptist Church Sycoline (VDHR 053-0899). The oldest marked interment in the Sycolin Community Cemetery, and encompassing both burial clusters, dates to the mid twentieth century. Regional and state death and burial records however suggest the earliest burials date to the late nineteenth century.2 As part of its long-term plans for the neighboring Leesburg Executive Airport,3 as well as its commitment to responsible stewardship of historic cemeteries, the Town of Leesburg intends to donate, in perpetuity, a single parcel of land containing both burial grounds to the non-profit Loudoun Freedom Center, an organization dedicated to the identification, preservation, and memorialization of African-American communities, historic sites, and burial grounds. Once it has received the parcel containing the two cemeteries, the Loudoun Freedom Center will assume responsibility for their care and management. While indicators such as grave markers and east-west oriented depressions in surface soils locate individual interments in each burial ground, the potential for additional unmarked interments to be found outside of the fenced enclosures was deemed to be possible.4 Because of this, and due to the fact that the Town of Leesburg desired to have high confidence that the parcel they transferred to the Loudoun Freedom Center contained all of the marked and unmarked interments associated with both burial grounds, it was determined that an archaeological study would be undertaken to delineate a boundary for the Sycolin Community Cemetery parcel. The primary goal of the archaeological study was to define a reliable burial-free buffer surrounding the Sycolin Community Cemetery that would 1) support the preservation of the two burial grounds; 2) establish a foundation for the future memorialization and interpretation of two burial grounds; and 3) facilitate the property transfer. 2 Thomas H. Brandon, email communication, April 16, 2019; “Union Church/First Baptist Church, Sycolin (053-0899),” Virginia Department of Historic Resources VCRIS site form, accessed April 17, 2019; Jim Koenig, “They Were a Community of African-Americans in Leesburg, VA, 1870-1930,” unpublished manuscript, 2013. Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, Virginia. Burial markers within the Sycolin Community Cemetery are limited and consist of a single engraved headstone, and three labeled wooden stakes. Loudoun County and Commonwealth of Virginia records document a number of ‘deaths’ at Sycolin that date to 1891. 3 The Leesburg Executive Airport requires a runway protection zone that impinges on the western portion of the three parcels (PINs 192-26-3267, 192-26-3648, 192-26-4027) owned by the Town of Leesburg. 4 Visible interments, as suggested by surface indications, as well as cemetery enclosures are often unreliable in determining the precise boundaries of historic cemeteries. Particularly in cemeteries where interments have occurred over numerous generations, and burial records are informal or non-existent, unmarked burials are frequently identified beyond the area of visible graves and any existing enclosure. 34 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 6 3 HISTORIC CONTEXT5 Egypt Farm The name Egypt Farm was first bestowed upon the lands containing and surrounding the current Sycolin Community Cemetery project area by Thomas R. Mott. Mott had acquired a large parcel of land from George and James Rust in 1819.6 Like other white landowners holding significant acreage in Loudoun County, Mott also owned enslaved African Americans. Before his death, Mott is recorded as owning 12 enslaved African Americans. Mott died in 1826 and Egypt Farm was leased and then purchased by Ananias Orrison.7 A Chancery Cause initiated against Ananias Orrison and others by Richard H. Harrison led to the sale of Egypt Farm. An 1844 advertisement for the sale noted that the property, ‘Egypt Farm,’ contained 173 acres and adjoined the lands of Edward Hammat and others. Improvements on the land were noted to “consist of a log dwelling house, stable, & c.”8 Thomas and Elmira Rogers purchased Egypt Farm at auction in 1845.9 In 1847 Edward Hammat purchased the 173-acre parcel “adjoining the lands of James Cross and others …and known as the ‘Egypt Farm.’” Hammat’s purchase of Egypt Farm adjoined another 74- acre parcel he owned, also listed as ‘on Sycolin’ Creek. Although Hammat’s occupation in the 1850 and 1860 U.S. Census was never recorded, he was a farmer. The 1860 U.S. Census records that he owned $4,000 in real estate, the 247-acre Egypt Farm on Sycolin Creek, and $6,500 in personal property, the bulk of which was held in enslaved African Americans. The 1860 Slave Schedule records that Hammat owned a total of ten slaves, three men and seven women. Of the ten enslaved African Americans, only six were aged 18 years or older.10 It is likely that most of these men, women and children worked the land owned by Edward Hammat. 5 Historical information in this chapter is derived from several sources including 1) title research provided by the Town of Leesburg, Virginia; 2) primary and secondary source research provided by Thomas Balch Library (Leesburg); 3) online Chancery Court records for Loudoun County, Virginia in the Library of Virginia, Richmond; 4) Jim Koenig’s research on the Sycolin Community Cemetery (see Jim Koenig, “They Were a Community of African-Americans in Leesburg, VA, 1870-1930,” Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, Virginia; and 5) numerous Cultural Resource Management reports including John J. Mullin, Megan Rupnik, and Robert Hunter,Archaeological Survey of Route 643 (Sycolin Road) and Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44LD1195. (Richmond: Louis Berger Group, 2006); Jerrell Blake, Jr., Joe B. Jones, David Lewes and Mary R. Hanbury,Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Crosstrail Boulevard Project, Loudoun County, Virginia. (Williamsburg: William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, 2011); and Amy Bertsch, Amanda Ackman, and Tom Hyland,“Forgotten” A preliminary Report on the Sycolin Road Potter: Loudoun County’s Historical Mystery of a Pottery, Pots and Potters. (Loudoun County: Northern Virginia Community College, n.d.). 6 Loudoun County Deed Book 2Y:390. 7 Loudoun County Will Book Q:150; John J. Mullin, Megan Rupnik, and Robert Hunter,Archaeological Survey of Route 643 (Sycolin Road) and Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44LD1195, 19. (Richmond: Louis Berger Group, 2006); Amy Bertsch, Amanda Ackman, and Tom Hyland,“Forgotten” A preliminary Report on the Sycolin Road Potter: Loudoun County’s Historical Mystery of a Pottery, Pots and Potters, 4. (Loudoun County: Northern Virginia Community College, n.d.) 8 Mullin et al.,Sycolin Road, 19. 9 Loudoun County Deed Book 4R:178. 10 Loudoun County Deed Book 4M:371; 5B:133; Seventh U.S. Census, 1850. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia; Eighth U.S. Census, 1860. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia; Eighth U.S. Census, 1860. Slave Schedule, Loudoun County, Virginia. 35 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 7 Figure #7: Detail,Map of Loudoun County, Virginia, showing approximate location of Sycolin Community Cemetery project area, shaded in red, during the Edward Hammat occupation. Yardley Taylor, 1854. Edward Hammat died in August of 1868.11 Egypt Farm, then composed of 248.5 acres, was subsequently acquired by Thomas H. Clagett, Jr. in an 1872 auction. Clagett was provided a deed to the property two years later in 1874.12 The 1860 and 1870 U.S. Census list Thomas H. Clagett Jr. as a farmer residing in Loudoun County. However, a decade later in 1880, he is listed as a ‘book merchant’ residing in Leesburg, Virginia.13 The 1860 Slave Schedule records that Clagett owned 12 enslaved African Americans, 7 men and 5 women. Of the 12 enslaved, 4 were under the age of 6 years old.14 11 Edward Hammat. Electronic resource: findagrave.com/memorial/22922583/edward-hammat. Accessed February 10, 2020. 12 Loudoun County Deed Book 6F:418. 13 Eighth U.S. Census, 1860. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia; Ninth U.S. Census, 1870. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia; Tenth U.S. Census, 1880. Population Statistics, Town of Leesburg, Virginia. 14 Eighth U.S. Census, 1860. Slave Schedule, Loudoun County, Virginia. 36 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 8 By the late 1870s, Thomas H Clagett had fallen into significant debt. In the 1879 Chancery Cause of W. H. Summers, etc. vs. Thomas H. Clagett Jr., etc., Clagett’s real and personal property was ordered to be sold at auction. Harrison P. Wiley purchased the approximately 248-acre Egypt Farm at $3 per acre on October 20, 1879 (Figure #8). In the early 1880s, John H. Alexander was appointed commissioner to execute a deed to Harrison P. Wiley for Egypt Farm as well as to several other individuals “whom he has made other sales of portions thence for the real estate purchased.”15 Figure #8: Advertisement for the sale of ‘Egypt’ Farm, 1879. However, prior to issuing a deed to Harrison P. Wiley, Commissioner Alexander noted a discrepancy in the quantity of land to be conveyed. “The farm was advertised as containing 248 acres but after the advertisement was executed, T. H. Clagett informed the Commissioners that he had from time to time sold off several lots and that in his opinion about 200 acres remained [emphasis added]. It was the understanding between the Commissioners of sale and the purchaser Harrison P. Wiley that there should be a survey, “the Commissioners to furnish the surveyor and the said Wiley assistants he might need and when the exact quantity of land was ascertained the land of the said Wiley to be credited with the amount of the difference or should this be more than 200 acres the said Wiley to pay at the rate of $3.00 per acre for the excess.”16 15 W. H. Summers, etc. vs. Thomas H. Clagett Jr., etc., Index #: 1883-061. Loudoun County Chancery Court Records, Library of Virginia, Richmond, 16 Summers vs. Clagett, Index #: 1883-061. 37 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 9 Figure #9: Plat of 241-acre ‘Egypt Farm.’ L. Norris, surveyor, ca. 1881. North is to the upper right. A plat found in the Chancery suit represents the survey mentioned by Commissioner Alexander. This undated plat, most likely done ca. 1881, shows the 241-acre Egypt Farm property and its relationship to Sycolin Creek (Figure #9). Associated metes and bounds for the survey also note that approximately 33 acres were to be deducted due to “lots sold off” by Thomas H. Clagett, and that the cumulative total land conveyed was 208 acres.17 Figure #10 shows a registration of this plat on existing conditions locating the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. 17 Summers vs. Clagett, Index #: 1883-061. 38 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 10 Figure #10: Map showing the location of the 241-acre ca. 1881 ‘Egypt’ Farm parcel. The three Leesburg parcels containing the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area are outlined in red at the top. 39 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 11 The Establishment of Lower Sycolin As noted in the Chancery Cause of Summers vs. Clagett, Thomas H. Clagett Jr. sold a number of small parcels to several individuals following his acquisition of Egypt Farm in 1874. Loudoun County deeds record that the majority of individuals who purchased these small parcels from Thomas H. Clagett between 1874 and 1877 were African American. Prior to his receiving legal title to Egypt Farm in the mid-1880s, Harrison P. Wiley too began to sell off several small parcels to a number of individuals, predominantly African Americans, between 1880 and 1883. The establishment of the community that would come to be called Lower Sycolin occurred during a period when many newly emancipated African Americans took advantage of the opportunities freedom provided. Immediately following a post-Emancipation exodus, census data for 1870 and 1880 record that the African-American population in Loudoun County re-established itself growing both numerically, and as a percentage of the total population. Part of a broader state-wide trend, the number of African-American landowners in Loudoun County also increased, a direct result of the division and sale of numerous large and formerly white-owned antebellum plantations and farms. By 1900 however, like a majority of Virginia counties, African-American population in Loudoun County declined reflecting a broader migration from southern states (Table #1). Table #1: African-American Population in Loudoun County, Virginia, 1860 – 1900.18 Year Total Population Black Residents % of Total Population 1860 21,774 6,703 (5,501 sl / 1,202 fr) 30.78 1870 20,929 5,691 27.19 1880 23,634 7,243 30.64 1890 n/a n/a n/a 1900 21,948 5,868 26.73 The establishment of Lower Sycolin began with Thomas H. Clagett’s sale of small parcels of land to seven African-American families in the mid-1870s. Sometime between 1874 and 1876, Clagett sold three 1-acre parcels to Peter Lee, Frank Gregg and James Green, three 2-acre parcels to Landon Webb, Washington Day and James Tolbert, and a 10-acre parcel to William Manning. The deeds formalizing payment in full for the parcels were granted to each person on January 1, 1877. The deeds located each of the parcels along the road from Leesburg to Cochran’s Ford (now Sycolin Road), noted their division from and proximity to the bounding Egypt Farm parcel, as well as their adjacency to one another. The land was sold at a rate of between $20 - $24 per acre, generally dependent upon the quality of the land.19 Peter Lee was one of the first landowners to construct a residence on his property. In 1873, he contracted with William Manning “to build a house on land bought by Peter Lee from Thomas H. Clagett.” Just over three years later, his formal deed for the 2-acre parcel he purchased from Clagett noted “a house …recently erected, enclosed by fence.”20 Petitions and commissioner reports from the Chancery Cause of Summers vs. Clagett record that Harrison P. Wiley also sold parcels in the developing African-American community of Lower Sycolin. 18 Most of the U.S. Census data for 1890 was lost in a fire in 1921 19 Loudoun County Deed Book 6I:173, 6K: 67, 68, 69, 70; 6L: 66, 69. 20 Loudoun County Deed Book 6F:8; 6L:66. 40 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 12 Wiley sold a 2-acre parcel in October of 1880 to Richard White, a 5-acre parcel to William Manning in April of 1881, a 2-acre parcel to James Green in August of 1881, an 8-acre parcel to William Harris in August of 1881 and an adjacent 12-acre parcel two months later in October 1881, a parcel to Charles Craven in February of 1882, a 2-acre parcel to Allison Craven in March of 1882, a parcel totaling 7/8 of an acre to Fenton Tolbert in August of 1882, a 2-acre parcel to James Riley Jones in August of 1882, and 3.5 acres to Charles Craven in September of 1883.21 Census records document that initially the Lower Sycolin community was composed predominantly of well-established families with relatively mature heads of households. The 1880 U.S. Census records that most husbands and wives were in their 40s to 50s with children ranging in age from their late teens to early twenties. Where an occupation was listed for male heads of household, the most common was ‘laborer,’ or farm laborer. Skilled occupations held by men in the Lower Sycolin community included carpenter (William Manning), and stone fence builder (Peter Lee). Women were noted to be ‘keeping house.’22 Within a decade of the first purchases of land by African Americans in Lower Sycolin, community leaders had established a church and school. Records in the Chancery Cause of Summers vs. Clagett document that in late December of 1881, Harrison P. Wiley and a “committee of five” entered into an agreement where Wiley would “sell to Landon C. Webb, William Manning, Richard White, Washington Day, James Tolbert three acres of land, lying north of Sycolin adjoining the lands of Mrs. Wildman’s heirs, Frank Greg and Mrs. Matthews and others for eight dollars per acre, and the purchasers to pay for deed and recording & c.” The deed was to be executed to “Landon C. Webb, William Manning, Richard White, Washington Day and James Tolbert as Trustees for a church to be erected for colored congregation of that neighborhood to worship at.”23 In the same month and year, minutes of the Trustees meeting record their approval of the purchase of three acres from Harrison P. Wiley (Figure #11). Dec. 1881 Meeting opened in due form. Mr. Chairman making some remarks as up ward steps to this part on car[ry]ing out the necessary points or object on motion: Mr. Landon C. Webb Mr. William Manning Mr. Richard White Mr. Washington Daigh Mr. James Tolbert If no rejection, was elected of a majority vote of this people there above moves or the trustees or guardians for buying the ground for the forty [dollars].24 21 Summers vs. Clagett, Index #: 1883-061. 22 Ninth U.S. Census, 1870. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia; Tenth U.S. Census, 1880. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia. 23 Summers vs. Clagett, Index #: 1883-061. 24 Summers vs. Clagett, Index #: 1883-061. 41 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 13 Figure #11: December 1881 Meeting Minutes approving the purchase of 3 acres of land to establish a church in Lower Sycolin. Trustees, Union Church, Sycolin. Less than a year later in October of 1882, a formal deed for the 3-acre church parcel was issued by the Commissioner in Summers vs. Clagett to the Trustees after payment in full of the $24 purchase price. The deed conveyed “three acres a portion of the Egypt Farm of which the late Thomas H. Clagett Jr. was possessed situated on the north of Sycolin Creek in Loudoun County, Virginia.” The deed also spelled out the purpose of the conveyance, that the land was “to be used for the erection of a church for religious purpose by the colored congregation of that neighborhood.”25 The Union Church was organized in 1884 and a decade later, with the oversight of the Trustees, the first facility (VDHR 053-0899) was erected on the site facing what is now Sycolin Road. It is likely that William Manning, a church trustee and carpenter who had erected at least one residence in the Lower Sycolin community, may have had a prominent role in the construction of the new church. The Rev. William Smith led the congregation as its first pastor.26 A school for the education of children in the Lower Sycolin community was also established, most likely holding classes in the church, in the early 1880s (Figure #12).27 25 Loudoun County Deed Book 6S:451. 26 Union Church / First Baptist Church, Sycolin (053-0899). Virginia Department of Historic Resources Architectural Survey Form. Accessed February 10, 2020. The name was changed from Union Church to First Baptist Church, Sycoline early in the twentieth century. 27 Eugene M. Scheel,Loudoun Discovered: Communities, Corners & Crossroads, Vol. 2: Leesburg & the Old Carolina Road, 88-89. (Leesburg: Friends of the Thomas Balch Library, 2002). 42 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 14 From 1900 through the mid-twentieth century, the overall population of Loudoun County remained stable, but the African-American population, both numerically and as a percentage of the total population, declined during this period (Table #2). Likewise, while African-American land ownership continued to increase numerically, it represented only an extremely small percentage of the overall Loudoun County population (between 0.97 to 1.62%).28 However, despite a declining overall African-American population at the turn of the century, by 1900 the Land Tax Books for the Leesburg District of Loudoun County record the Lower Sycolin community documenting additional landowning black households including the Craven, Day, Grant, Green, Manning, Randall, Scott, and White families.29 Table #2: African-American Population in Loudoun County, Virginia, 1900 – 1950. Year Total Population Black Population % of Total Population 1900 21948 5868 26.73 1910 21167 5221 24.66 1920 20577 4810 23.37 1930 19852 4347 21.89 1940 20291 4094 20.17 1950 21147 1929 9.12 Figure #12: Detail,Loudoun County, Virginia, showing the location of a school for colored children, encircled in red, part of the Sycoline community lying east of what is now Sycolin Road. Oscar L. Emerick, Superintendent of Schools, 1923. 28 Lori Kimball and Wynne Saffer, Land Tax Records, Loudoun County: 1891, 1900, 1910. In Robert A. Pollard, ed.,The History of the Loudoun County Courthouse and Its Role in the Path to Freedom, Justice, and Racial Equality in Loudoun County, pp: 66. (Leesburg: Loudoun County Heritage Commission, 2019). 29 Land Tax Book 1900, Leesburg District, Loudoun County, Virginia. 43 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 15 Figure #13: Detail, 1937 aerial photograph, showing the broader Lower Sycolin community, the three Leesburg owned parcels outlined in red, and the approximate location of the two Sycolin burial grounds shaded in red. 44 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 16 Figure #14: Detail, 1937 aerial photograph, showing project area with approximate locations of two Sycolin burial grounds shaded in red, Lower Sycolin residential and agricultural structures circled in blue, and the First Baptist Church Sycoline circled in yellow. 45 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 17 Figure #15: Detail, 1957 aerial photograph, showing project area with approximate locations of two Sycolin burial grounds shaded in red, Lower Sycolin residential and agricultural structures circled in blue, and the First Baptist Church Sycoline circled in yellow. The Sycolin Community Cemetery The larger northern and smaller southern burial grounds that compose the Sycolin Community Cemetery straddle three east-west oriented parcels (PINs 192-26-3267, 192-26-3648, 192-26-4027) fronting the eastern side of Sycolin Road and currently owned by the Town of Leesburg. Parcel 192-26-3267, the northern-most tract composing approximately 1.929 acres, was purchased of Thomas H. Clagett for $40 by Landon Webb in 1877.30 A 1989 deed conveying the parcel to the Town of Leesburg noted the burial ground and reserved the “grave plot on said land together with the right of ingress …only to the extent of existing graves.”31 Parcel 192-26-3648, the central tract composing approximately 2.019 acres, was purchased of Thomas H. Clagett by Washington Day for $40 in 1877.32 30 Loudoun County Deed Book 6K:70. 31 Loudoun County Deed Book 11Y:178; 1068:407. 32 Loudoun County Deed Book 6K:67. 46 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 18 This parcel was subsequently sold to the Town of Leesburg by Kenneth P. McKeehan, Trustee, in 1983.33 Parcel 192-26-4027, the southern-most tract composing approximately 2.34 acres was purchased of Thomas H. Clagett by James Tolbert for $40 in 1877. It is not yet clear when the Sycolin Community Cemetery was established or when the first interment occurred. According to the Lloyd Slack Funeral Home records, the first recorded burial at ‘Sycolin’ occurred in 1913. However this date is a full four decades following the first purchases of land by African Americans in Lower Sycolin and it is believed that given the size of the community there may have been a number of burials predating the 1913 period. Additional research in Loudoun County Death Records (1912 - 1917) and Virginia Death Records (1853 – 1917) have identified a total of 26 individuals who are either known to have been buried at ‘Sycolin,’ at ‘Sycolin Church,’ or whose death place is listed at ‘Sycolin.’ With the exception of Sarah Jones, who is buried at the First Baptist Church Sycoline, the probability that most of these individuals are buried in the Sycolin Community Cemetery is considered strong. The earliest recorded death year for a ‘Sycolin’ burial is 1891, three years before the construction of the Union Church, now First Baptist Church Sycoline (Table #3). Table #3: African-American ‘Sycolin’ Deaths and Burials, 1891-1954.34 Name Birth Yr Death Yr Burial Place Death Place Source Day, Emanuel 1866 1948 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Day, Ida 1902 1929 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Day, Noland n/a 1913 Sycolin Church LC Death Records Day, Washington n/a 1891 n/a Sycolin VA Death Records Dean, Dorothy 1905 1925 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Gant, Osborn ‘Fishy’ 1849 1927 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Green, James 1852 1917 Sycolin LC Death Records Gregg, William 1871 1893 n/a Sycolin VA Death Records Johnson, Paul F. 1903 1947 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Jones, Sarah I. 1878 1959 First Baptist Church Sycoline Grave marker Murray, Edna M. n/a 1913 Sycolin LC Death Records Murray, Mary 1892 1922 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Norris, Charles H. 1871 1930 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Norris, Mary B. 1870 1923 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Randall, Eliza 1894 1894 n/a Sycolin VA Death Records Sidwell, Chester 1880 1946 Sycolin Grave marker Smith, Arminta 1876 1922 Sycolin VA Death Records Smith, Thomas Jefferson n/a 1917 Sycolin LC Death Records Tolbert, Fenton 1856 1930 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Virts, Francis 1846 1891 n/a Sycolin VA Death Records Virts, Fredie 1891 1891 n/a Sycolin VA Death Records Webb, Landon 1839 1913 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR White, Frances 1866 1954 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR White, Richard 1878 1891 n/a Sycolin VA Death Records White, Robert 1867 1952 Sycolin Lloyd Slack FHR Williams, George Washington n/a 1915 Sycolin LC Death Records Woodson, Margaret Jones n/a 1913 Sycolin LC Death Records 33 Loudoun County Deed Book 1093:507. 34 Information on deaths and burials at Sycolin is obtained from four sources: Grave markers, the Lloyd Slack Funeral Home Records, Loudoun County Virginia Death Records 1912-1917, and Virginia Death Records 1853 - 1917. 47 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 19 4 P REVIOUS R ESEARCH A review of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources site files identified a total of 66 previously identified resources within one mile of the Sycolin Community Cemetery, 27 architectural resources and 39 archaeological resources. Architectural Resources Of the 27 architectural resources located within one mile of the Sycolin Community Cemetery, 17 are houses or dwellings, four are farms or farmsteads, one is a barn, one is a springhouse, one is a church, one is an armory, one is a bridge, and one is a stone wall (Table #4). Table #4: Architectural resources within 1 mile of Sycolin Community Cemetery. VDHR ID Other ID Resource Name Evaluation Status 053-0014 44LD0431 Hawling Farm Not Eligible 053-0249 Bridge, Sycolin Rd (Rte 643) Not evaluated 053-0899 First Baptist Church Sycolin / Union Church Not Eligible 053-1093 44LD1237 Abandoned Farmstead Route 643 Not Eligible 053-5215 House, 20058 Sycolin Road Not Eligible 053-5216 House, 20028 Sycolin Road Not Eligible 053-5217 House, 20100 Sycolin Road Not Eligible 053-5247 Frooshani Farm Not Eligible 053-5276 House, 41087 Cochran Mill Road Potentially Eligible 053-5277 House, 20136 Gant Lane Not evaluated 053-5278 Barn, 20077 Gant Lane Not Eligible 053-5352 House, 19874 Sycoline Road Not evaluated 053-5780 House, 19798 Sycolin Road Not evaluated 053-6024 44LD1004 Philip A. Bolen Memorial Park / Shellhorn Farm Not evaluated 053-6084 House, Cochran Mill Road Not Eligible 053-6242 44LD1131 Springhouse, 16595 Courage Court Not Eligible 053-6278 Leesburg Armory Not Eligible 053-6298 House, Sycolin Road Not Eligible 053-6411 Stone Wall, Gant Lane Not evaluated 053-6448 Dwelling, 20280 Sycolin Road Not evaluated 053-6449 Dwelling, 20254 Sycolin Road Not evaluated 053-6450 Dwelling, 20244 Sycolin Road Not evaluated 053-6451 Dwelling, 20226 Sycolin Road Not evaluated 053-6452 Dwelling, 20210 Sycolin Road Not evaluated 053-6453 Dwelling, Sycolin Road Not evaluated 053-6454 Dwelling, Sycolin Road Not evaluated 253-5016 Eberly, Jana C. House / Wildman, J.D. House Not evaluated Archaeological Resources While no previous archaeological research has been conducted within the Sycolin Community Cemetery or the three Leesburg parcels containing it, a total of 39 archaeological resources are located within a mile of the property. These resources include 18 Native American sites (13 Prehistoric Unknown, 3 Archaic period, and 2 Woodland Period), 18 European-American / African-American sites, two multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites, and one site of unidentified origin and date (Table #5). 48 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 20 Table #5: Archaeological resources within 1 mile of Sycolin Community Cemetery. VDHR ID Site Name Category Time Period Evaluation Status 44LD0199 Domestic Late Woodland 44LD0200 Domestic Prehistoric Unknown 44LD0201 Domestic Late Woodland 44LD0202 Domestic Prehistoric Unknown 44LD0388 Industry-Processing- Extraction Early – Late Archaic Not Eligible 44LD0389 Prehistoric Unknown Not Eligible 44LD0394 1775 –1825 44LD0398 Prehistoric Unknown 44LD0413 Shreve’s Mill Industry-Processing- Extraction Prehistoric Unknown, 1750 - 1924 44LD0414 18th – 19th Century Not Eligible 44LD0415 44LD0416 Prehistoric Unknown 44LD0417 Domestic Prehistoric Unknown 44LD0431 Domestic 19th – 20th Century Not Eligible 44LD0462 Prehistoric Unknown 44LD0463 Mountain View Farm Prehistoric Unknown 44LD0464 Prehistoric Unknown 44LD1004 Shellhorn Domestic, Industry- Processing-Extraction, Subsistence-Agriculture 1790 - 1991 44LD1005 Domestic, Subsistence- Agriculture 1830 – 1991 44LD1128 Industry-Processing- Extraction Prehistoric Unknown 44LD1129 Industry-Processing- Extraction Prehistoric Unknown Not Eligible 44LD1130 Industry-Processing- Extraction Prehistoric Unknown 44LD1131 Domestic 1875 – 1949 Not Eligible 44LD1132 Domestic 186 – 1991 44LD1236 Cross C1 Industry-Processing- Extraction Middle Archaic Not Eligible 44LD1237 Cross C2 Domestic, Funerary, Subsistence-Agriculture 1751 – 1916 Not Eligible 44LD1238 Cross D2 Domestic Middle Archaic Not Eligible 44LD1239 Cross K Industry-Processing- Extraction Prehistoric Unknown, 18th – 19th Century Not Eligible 44LD1325 Domestic Prehistoric Unknown 44LD1326 Creekside Site 6 Domestic 1900 – 1924 Not Eligible 44LD1327 Domestic 1825 – 1849 44LD1328 Domestic 1900 – 1949 44LD1330 Domestic 1900 – 1949 Not Eligible 44LD1547 20th Century Not Eligible 44LD1800 Domestic, Industry- Processing-Extraction 1600s – Present 44LD1874 Domestic 1917 – 1991 44LD1875 Domestic 1917 – 1991 44LD1876 Domestic 1946 – 1991 44LD1877 Domestic 1946 – 1991 49 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 21 5 CEMETERY DELINEATION RESEARCH DESIGN Study Area Following standards developed in consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) during previous cemetery delineation projects, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC and the Town of Leesburg agreed that the archaeological investigations would focus on establishing a 25- foot wide burial free zone immediately adjacent to and surrounding the Sycolin Community Cemetery. Given the site topography and location of natural and cultural features, it was determined that the 25- foot buffer zone would focus on the northern, western, and southern limits of the two burial ground enclosures located within the Sycolin Community Cemetery. The eastern limit of the Sycolin Community Cemetery was not proposed to be examined as it lay adjacent to and within 15 – 20 feet Figure #16: Cemetery delineation project area showing Sycolin Road (left), the three Leesburg parcels (top), and the approximate location of the larger and smaller burial grounds (dashed black outlines). 50 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 22 of an unnamed drainage that defined the eastern boundaries of the three Leesburg parcels. In addition, because it was to be included in the property transfer, the intervening area between the larger northern clusters of graves and the smaller southern cluster of graves was not proposed to be examined. Adjacent to and within 10 feet of the south façade of the southern burial ground, a spring and east- west oriented trench feature were identified. To preserve this landscape feature, it was decided to move the 25-foot buffer zone in this location further south (Figure #16). Field Methods Two site visits by Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC staff on May 2, and June 27, 2019 documented that the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area was heavily wooded and that considerable downed timber—primarily, pines from early succession forest—covered the forest floor (Figure #5). Downed timber was found to be particularly prevalent between the two burial grounds, in Parcel 192-26-3648, and along the western margin of the entire Sycolin Community Cemetery. In order to facilitate the archaeological study, it was determined that the downed timber would require clearing and removal. In addition, selective removal of smaller diameter (less than 8-inch) hardwood trees was also determined to be necessary throughout the project area. Prior to the initiation of site clearing, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC staff laid out, flagged and staked, a 35-foot debris and vegetation free area on the northern, western and southern sides of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. The area flagged and staked for vegetation and debris removal encompassed, and was approximately 10 feet wider than, the proposed 25-foot buffer zone on all sides due to the need to maneuver machines and to create a space to deposit excavated soils. Debris removal and preparation of the work area was accomplished by Blue & Gray Contracting, Inc. (Warrenton, Virginia; VA License # 2705111124). In accordance with a work plan developed with the Town of Leesburg’s Keith Wilson, Land Acquisition Manger, and Tyler Wright, Urban Forester, during a site visit June 27, 2019, debris removal and site prep entailed the removal from the work area of 1) brush and small trees under 8-inch diameter; 2) dead standing trees; and 3) deadfall, blowdown, and dangerously leaning trees including one large dead pine hung in live canopy. Debris clearing and site prep was accomplished by both manual and mechanical means. Cut trees and deadfall were taken down with a chainsaw and masticated on-site using a rubber-tracked forest mulcher. Large and hanging deadfall was moved/lowered with the aid of track hoe and/or climbers. Debris removal was closely monitored by Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC staff to ensure that clearing work did not excessively impact the project area ground surface and to ensure that the two burial grounds and any areas of unmarked graves were protected. Because of the potential impact to buried unidentified cultural features, stump grinding was prohibited within the project area. Following well-established archaeological cemetery delineation practices, it was decided that the most accurate means of identifying and documenting the presence of cultural features extending into naturally occurring subsoil was to strip the entire 25-foot wide buffer zone of its surface soils. Surface soils within the 25-foot buffer zone were proposed to be removed mechanically, under close archaeological supervision, to expose the upper surface of the underlying subsoil. Following more careful manual cleaning of the exposed subsoil surface with shovel and trowel, individual backfilled grave shafts and other deep natural and cultural features can be identified on the basis of patterns of contrasting soil color, texture, and/or compaction against the natural subsoil background. Given 51 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 23 current understanding of the project area, it was anticipated that removal of surface soils would encounter naturally occurring subsoil approximately 0.8 to 1.5 feet below grade. Blue & Gray Contracting, Inc. was also engaged to undertake mechanical stripping of site surface soils. Prior to the initiation of mechanical removal of surface soils, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC staff re-staked and flagged the 25-foot buffer zone within which soil removal would occur. Mechanical stripping of surface soils utilized a mini-excavator equipped with a 40-inch wide, smooth-edged, articulating bucket driven by an experienced operator. Excavated soils were temporarily mounded along the non-cemetery side of the area under investigation. Because of the desire to protect and preserve the larger and more mature trees located within the 25-foot buffer zone, ‘islands’ of intact soils were left surrounding the trunks of these trees.35 As mechanically-assisted removal of surface soils proceeded, silt fence was installed along the downslope side of all areas of exposed soils. The silt fence remained in place following backfilling and project completion. Archaeological supervision and manual cleaning of the mechanically exposed subsoil surface was performed by a two-person crew of trained and experienced archaeologists who met or exceeded the professional qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The archaeological crew was also responsible for documenting the cemetery delineation project through field notes, photographs, and scaled drawings. In the event of a discovery of an unmarked grave or graves, the work area was to be expanded outwards until a full 25-foot wide buffer zone, determined to be free of unmarked burials, was defined around three sides of the cemetery area. Grave markers and other significant funerary or memorial objects encountered during cemetery delineation, were to be flagged, avoided and left in their original locations. Following completion of excavation and any required recordation and mapping, the investigation area was to be backfilled mechanically. Backfilling was accomplished by the mini-excavator and compact track loader and was followed by site grading to pre-project conditions and seeding and strawing of the disturbed surface. At the completion of all fieldwork, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC staff re-staked and flagged the limits and corners of the 25-foot buffer zone along the northern, western and southern sides of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. Although the location and extent of this 25-foot buffer zone was mapped by Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC, it was understood that the Town of Leesburg would assume responsibility for its recordation by a licensed surveyor. Reconnaissance Level Survey and Site Wide Mapping In an effort to identify additional interments located beyond the enclosed burial grounds, as well as to locate and identify any other landscape features pertinent to contextualizing the history and development of the three Leesburg-owned parcels and the immediate project area vicinity, a reconnaissance level pedestrian survey was conducted within the larger wooded area on all sides of the Sycolin Community Cemetery. North-south oriented transects, spaced approximately 20 feet apart, were walked by Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC staff. Cultural features were flagged and subsequently mapped. In addition, all visible graves within both burial ground enclosures were mapped, and prominent or unique burial features documented with photographs. Mapping of the 35 It was understood and acknowledged that even though these ‘islands’ of intact soil were not archaeologically examined for the presence of human interments, the likelihood of their containing unidentified graves associated with either burial ground was minimal. 52 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 24 cemetery enclosures and features identified during the reconnaissance survey was accomplished with a Trimble Geo7 GPS receiver outfitted with a Zephyr antenna with sub-meter accuracy. Mapping of individual grave locations within the two burial grounds was accomplished manually using tapes and measuring from established points. Protocol for the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains While Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC and the Town of Leesburg did not anticipate that human remains would be disturbed due to the shallow nature of the proposed excavation, it was determined to secure a Permit for Archaeological Excavation of Human Remains from VDHR solely as a precaution against the unlikely event that human remains were to be discovered. Securing a permit in advance of archaeological fieldwork ensured that the delineation work plan received an additional layer of review and oversight while also enabling Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC staff to handle and manage inadvertently encountered human remains. In the event that human remains or possible human remains were to be encountered during field work associated with the Sycolin Community Cemetery delineation project, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC was to initiate the following action plan as approved under permit DHR File No. 2019- 0781: 1)Immediately halt all manual and mechanical excavation and other work within 25 feet of the discovered remains, record the location on project maps, record the conditions and items of discovery with photographs and notes, secure all human remains and any associated artifacts within a sealed container, cover the discovery area with plastic sheeting, and mark the perimeter with barricade tape; 2)Similarly record, cover, and mark with barricade tape all spoil piles that may contain additional human remains; 3)Contact VDHR, the Town of Leesburg, and the Loudoun Freedom Center to notify them of the unanticipated discovery of human (or potentially human) remains and to seek guidance on the temporary care of the recovered material; and if so directed by the Town of Leesburg and Loudoun County, contact and/or provide assistance to law enforcement personnel in further securing the location; 4)As directed, facilitate examination of all recovered bone by a qualified physical anthropologist and/or a State Medical Examiner; 5)If approved by VDHR and other project stakeholders, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC was to initiate controlled, manual cleaning and shallow excavation across the discovery area to delineate potential surviving burial features and to determine whether additional human remains were, or were likely to be, present in near-surface contexts; screening of previously excavated spoil from the locale were to be undertaken to recover other human remains and/or burial-related artifacts that may have been inadvertently disturbed/exhumed during surface soil stripping. 53 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 25 In consultation with VDHR and other project stakeholders, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC was to develop, as directed, a broader work plan that would more fully consider further examination of the discovery locale, the temporary treatment of human remains, and that established through consultation and deliberation a suitable place and process for the reinternment of inadvertently recovered human remains and associated burial artifacts. If in the event that unanticipated graves were encountered during this work, Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC recommended that the Town of Leesburg engage a licensed land surveyor to precisely record the locations of each of these features. 54 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 26 6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS Site Preparation Preparation of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area in advance of mechanically-aided soil stripping occurred between December 20 – 23, 2019. A chainsaw was used to cut flush all dead standing trees, deadfall, and small trees under 8-inches diameter. Following up on the felling of trees, a rubber-tracked forest mulcher (Figure #17), working from south to north within the 35-foot wide flagged debris and vegetation free area, masticated the cut trees and debris including low-lying brush. Figure #17: Forest mulcher attachment on the front of a compact track loader. Figure #18: Looking north from the northwest corner of the small southern burial ground towards the northern large burial ground following debris removal and forest mulching. 55 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 27 Figure #19: Looking south from the southwest corner of large northern burial ground towards the small southern burial ground following debris removal and forest mulching. Figure #20: Looking east from the northwest corner of large burial ground (fenced area at right) towards unnamed drainage following debris removal and forest mulching. The result of the debris removal and forest mulching was a cleared corridor, extending approximately 35 feet north, west and south of the two burial grounds. More mature trees located within the cleared corridor, and exceeding 8-inches in diameter, were left standing (Figures #18 - 20). 56 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 28 Mechanical Stripping of Surface Soils Mechanical stripping of surface soils within the 25-foot buffer zone was accomplished between December 23, 2019 and January 6, 2020. Removal of surface soils was begun north of the larger northern burial ground and proceeded south towards the smaller southern burial ground. Blocks or ‘islands’ of intact soil surrounding mature standing trees were left unexcavated in order to preserve the wooded nature of the setting (Figure #21). Figure #21: Northeast corner of large northern burial ground, looking south, showing ‘island’ of soil left unexcavated surrounding a mature tree in this location. Figure #22: Following removal of surface soils, subsoil was manually cleaned with shovel and trowel. 57 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 29 Figure #23: North side of large burial ground, looking west, showing cleared area adjacent to enclosure. Mechanically aided removal of surface soils adjacent to the fenced enclosures for each burial ground left a 6 – 12-inch buffer (Figure #23). Site Soils Soils throughout the Sycolin Community Center project area were fairly consistent in color, texture and depth. Three strata were identified throughout the project area. Topsoil, or stratum 1, was a 7.5YR 3/2 dark brown silty loam with significant rootmass extending to a depth of approximately 0.4 to 0.6 feet below grade. The transition between stratum 1 and underlying stratum 2 in terms of both color and texture was stark. Underlying stratum 1 was a 10YR 5/2 grayish brown silty clay with varying quantities of gravel, inclusions likely derived from the underlying bedrock. Stratum 2 ranged from between 0.3 to 0.4 feet thick and directly overlay subsoil. The soil color transition between stratum 2 58 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 30 and underlying stratum 3 was subtle, with stratum 2 possessing a pale, grayer tone, and stratum 3 a more yellow or mustard color that grew stronger with depth. Subsoil, identified as stratum 3 throughout the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area, was a 10YR 5/6 yellow-brown silty clay also with varying amounts of gravel, the result of a shallow bedrock. Dependent upon location, subsoil was found to be present at approximately 0.9 to 1.3 feet below grade (Figure #24). Figure #24: Typical soil profile, showing three strata: 1) a brown loamy topsoil; 2) a pale gray silty clay; and 3) a yellow-brown clay subsoil. Trowel rests on natural subsoil. Cultural and Natural Features No human interments or other cultural features were identified within the 25-foot buffer zone surrounding the north, west and south sides of the Sycolin Community Cemetery. Two anomalies, differentiated from the surrounding natural subsoil by both color and texture, were identified along the western side of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. The first, Anomaly #1, was identified approximately 25 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the larger burial ground in the center of the cleared corridor. Anomaly #1 measured approximately 5.0 feet long by 4.0 feet wide and possessed a shape which can best be described as amorphous with an undulating circumference. A clear contrast was defined between the dark brown organic coloring and the exterior tan silty subsoil. Anomaly #1 also possessed an interior that appeared to resemble subsoil in color and texture. Anomaly #1 was ultimately determined to be the remains of a former tree (Figure #25). 59 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 31 Figure #25: Anomaly #1, looking south, showing a spherical-shaped, brown-colored organic soil discoloration with interior soils resembling yellow-brown silty clay subsoil. Figure #26: Anomaly #2, looking north, showing an amorphous orange and brown-colored organic soil discoloration. Anomaly #2 was identified approximately 45 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the smaller burial ground also in the center of the cleared corridor. Anomaly #2 measured approximately 5.0 feet long by 2.5 feet wide also possessing an amorphous shape with an undulating circumference. Differing from Anomaly #1, Anomaly # 2 possessed both dark brown organic soils near its exterior, as well as a concentration of orange-red clayey soils possibly the result of heat-induced changes. As Anomaly 60 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 32 #2 was clean scraped its shape changed with depth. The feature was taken down approximately 0.1 to 0.15 feet aid in definition and interpretation. During scraping, the soils in Anomaly #2 were found to be only 0.15 to 0.2 feet deep and came off onto the underlying tan silty clay subsoil. Anomaly #2 was potentially interpreted to be the remains of a former tree (Figure #26). Numerous small, 1.0-foot diameter and smaller, roughly circular soil discolorations were also identified throughout the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area (Figure #27). Because of the significant numbers and the fact that they were interpreted as tree roots, they were not documented. Figure #27: Typical 1.0-foot diameter soil discoloration extending into natural subsoil and interpreted as a tree root. Material Culture As originally proposed, it was not anticipated that significant quantities of material culture would be recovered from the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. While soils were not screened, two artifacts were recovered from backdirt piles. Both artifacts were pieces of refined earthenware, undecorated ironstone ceramics, a handle to a pitcher or jug and a rim sherd. Both ceramics date to the post-1840 period (Figure #28). Additional trash and debris, possibly dumped or a result of historic demolition of former residential structures, was noted to be present on surface soils upslope from the two burial grounds and on the edge of the field - woods boundary. This material culture was noted, but not collected. Beyond those located within the two burial grounds, no additional grave markers or other significant funerary or memorial objects were identified or recovered from the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. 61 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 33 Figure #28: Ironstone ceramics recovered from the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area. Backfilling and Seeding / Strawing At the end of each day, the area that had been archaeologically cleared was backfilled and graded to resemble existing slope. A silt fence was put up on the downslope side of all excavated areas and the backfilled soils were seeded and strawed to limit erosion (Figures #29 - 30). Figure #29: View looking southeast from the northwest corner of the northern burial ground showing backfilled, seeded and strawed area. 62 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 34 Figure #30: View looking south from the northwest corner of the northern burial ground showing backfilled, seeded and strawed area. 63 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 35 7 MAPPING OF BURIAL GROUNDS Detailed scaled maps were produced for each of the two burial grounds. The maps located all fence posts and each encompassing enclosure, all visible graves and markers, and historic property lines within each burial ground. Figure #31: Map showing interments in the northern burial ground, Sycolin Community Cemetery. Named graves are taken from extant markers. 64 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 36 Based exclusively on the indication of surface features, a total of 55 interments, both real and potential,36 were identified and mapped within the larger northern burial ground (Figure #31). A total of 10 interments were identified and mapped within the smaller southern burial ground (Figure #32). Where interments were wide enough to accommodate two individuals, and no defining boundary could be discerned, they were counted as two abutting burials. A total of four fieldstone markers, located at the head or foot of grave shafts, were identified within the larger northern burial ground. A single formal inscribed headstone was also identified. A total of four fieldstone markers were located within the smaller southern burial ground (Figures #33 - 34). In addition to the fieldstone markers, wooden stakes were found placed at the head and foot of most grave shafts in the large northern burial ground. The wooden stakes possessed burned and engraved names and dates identifying the interred individual (Figure #35).37 Figure #32: Map showing interments in the southern burial ground, Sycolin Community Cemetery. 36 During mapping all obvious grave shafts, as well as potential grave shafts, were counted and mapped as human interments. Potential grave shafts were defined as subtle, shallow oblong depressions oriented in an east-west direction. 37 Prior to the Sycolin Community Cemetery delineation project, wooden stakes and pin flags had been placed adjacent to the head and foot of each visible grave. It is believed that these stakes were placed here in 2011-2013 by Jim Koenig. 65 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 37 Figure #33: Typical fieldstone marker, Sycolin Community Cemetery. Figure #34: Inscribed headstone for Chester H. Sidwell, northern burial ground, Sycolin Community Cemetery. 66 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 38 Figure #35: Burned, engraved wooden stake, northern burial ground, Sycolin Community Cemetery. Table #6: Interments and Markers, Sycolin Community Cemetery. Northern Burial Ground Southern Burial Ground Total interments 55 10 Fieldstone markers 4 4 Inscribed headstone 1 0 Based solely on the names of the single inscribed headstone and the burned and engraved wooden stakes, Table 7 lists the names of individuals believed to be buried in the northern burial ground at the Sycolin Community Cemetery.38 Table #7: Marked interments at Sycolin Community Cemetery. Name Dates Relationship Location Source Dean, Charles 1877-1939 n/a Northern Burial Ground Wooden stake Sidwell, Chester H. 1876-1946 n/a Northern Burial Ground Inscribed headstone White, Frances 1874-1954 Wife Northern Burial Ground Wooden stake White, Robert W.1872-1952 Husband Northern Burial Ground Wooden stake 38 The Jim Koenig report on the Lower Sycolin Community has identified at least thirteen named individuals from the Lloyd Slack Funeral Records who were documented as buried at ‘Sycolin’ between 1913 and 1954. 67 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 39 Oriented in an east-west direction and running through the southern third of the larger northern burial ground was a subtle earthen berm and the remains of a barbed wire fence (Figure #31). Two mature trees located along this line possessed remnant barbed wire buried in their bark. This feature was interpreted as an historic boundary line, likely the line between current Leesburg parcels PIN# 192- 26-3267-000 and 192-26-3648-000, and historic Lower Sycolin community parcels. Likewise, also oriented in an east-west direction and running adjacent to the northern side of the fenced enclosure of the smaller southern burial ground was a subtle earthen berm and the remains of a barbed wire fence (Figure #32). A large oak tree within the southern burial ground, and located near its northwest corner, possessed remnant barbed wire. The historic fence line appears to separate current Leesburg parcel PIN# 192-26-3648-000 on the north from 192-26-4027-000 on the south. 68 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 40 8 RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY A reconnaissance level pedestrian survey was conducted on the area north, west, and south of the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area, as well as an approximately 100-foot wide corridor east of the unnamed drainage and east of the project area. North-south oriented transects, spaced approximately 20 feet apart, were walked and relevant natural and cultural landscape features were flagged and subsequently mapped. A total of three different type of historic-period landscape features, including property boundaries (fences and a stone wall), and a stone-lined spring and associated drainage trench, were identified during the reconnaissance level pedestrian survey (Figure #36). Figure #36: Plan showing location of burial grounds, archaeologically cleared buffer zone with tree islands, property boundaries, stone-lined spring and drainage ditch. 69 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 41 As previously noted, two east-west oriented historic property boundaries were identified cutting through the enclosures of both burial grounds. The property boundaries were characterized by a low earthen berm and remnant traces of barbed wire lying on the ground or embedded in trees. Both of these historic property lines extended westward and upslope from the cemeteries disappearing at the edge of the woods and turfed hill top. A stone-lined springhead and associated drainage trench was identified adjacent to and approximately 9 to 11 feet south of the southern side of the small southern burial ground. The western end of the trench possessed what appeared to be a stone-lined springhead. Dry laid fieldstone appeared to be pressed or laid into the sides of the western terminus of the trench. The trench ranged between 1.5 to 2.5 feet in depth and 4.0 to 6.0 feet wide, deeper and wider at its western end adjacent to the spring, and shallower and narrower at its eastern end. The visible signs of the trench appeared to dissipate approximately 25 feet west of the unnamed drainage (Figures #37 and 38). A low east-west oriented stone wall, located approximately 400 feet south of the southern burial ground, was also identified during the survey. The stone wall was composed of dry laid field stone in a linear alignment. Although likely representing stone cleared from an agricultural field, the feature’s orientation and location suggests that it also represents an historic boundary line between parcels (Figure #39). Figure #37: Western end and stone-lined head of spring adjacent to south side of southern burial ground. 70 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 42 Figure #39: Stone wall property boundary, looking west. Figure #38: Drainage trench, looking east, associated with stone-lined springhead. 71 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 43 9 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Archaeological Findings Mechanically-assisted removal of surface soils within the 25-foot buffer zone surrounding the north, west and south sides of the Sycolin Community Cemetery did not identify any additional human interments outside of the two burial enclosures. In addition, reconnaissance level pedestrian survey of the broader wooded area surrounding the Sycolin Community Cemetery did not identify any visible surface indications suggesting human interments. Because of this, the present northern and southern burial ground enclosures are believed to contain all of the interments during their use by the Lower Sycolin community. The Burial Grounds Mapping of the burial ground enclosures documented a total of 65 potential interments, 55 in the northern burial ground and 10 in the southern burial ground. Taken together, the significant quantity of interments suggests that the burial grounds likely represent long-term use by the broader Lower Sycolin community rather the use of one or more property owning families. Mapping of grave shafts within the larger northern burial ground documents some unique spatial patterning. Of the 55 mapped interments, there are five large groupings that possess similar orientation of graves within their group, but also appear to be oriented slightly different from graves in adjacent groupings. The subtle differences in orientation, may be attributed to the existence of family groupings, interments during a specific period of time, or both. (Figure #40). Figure #40: Plan, northern burial ground, showing groupings of burials oriented slightly differently from one another. 72 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 44 Analysis of both burial grounds documents that the interments also appear to reflect the presence of the historic property boundaries. In the larger northern burial ground, seven burials are located approximately 10 feet south of the east-west oriented barbed wire fence line separating PIN 192-26- 3267 from 192-26-3648, while the rest are located north of it (Figure #31). In the smaller southern burial ground, all of the burials are located south, and within 5 to 8 feet of, the east-west oriented barbed wire fence line separating PIN 192-26-3648 from 192-26-4027 (Figure #32). Both remnant property lines are visible extending westward and upslope through the wooded area as subtle earthen berms and barbed wire trace. The location of the two burial grounds, at the base of an eastern slope adjacent to each parcel’s eastern boundary, and placed within feet of the unnamed drainage, suggests that their placement was intentional. The 1937 aerial photograph documents that the three Leesburg parcels containing the two burial grounds were cleared of trees and likely used for agricultural purposes. Both burial grounds were placed in a low-lying areas so as to allow both domestic and agricultural use of the best land, further west and upslope and adjacent to Sycolin Road (Figure #14). The First Baptist Church Sycoline Cemetery and the Sycolin Community Cemetery The relationship between the First Baptist Church Sycoline Cemetery and the Sycolin Community Cemetery is not yet clear. Records found in the Summers vs. Clagett Chancery Cause document that an African-American congregation was active in the Lower Sycolin community no later than 1881. Records also document that during that year, the Trustees of the African-American congregation were Landon C. Webb, William Manning, Richard White, Washington Day and James Tolbert. These Trustees purchased the 3-acre parcel upon which the First Baptist Church Sycoline now stands in 1882. The Union Church was established in 1884 and the first church built onsite in 1894. This means that prior to 1894, and for at least a thirteen-year period, the Union Church congregation may have been worshipping on a site other than the current First Baptist Church Sycoline. Deeds for the purchase of the three 2-acre lots containing the Sycolin Community Cemetery project area were issued to Landon Webb, Washington Day and James Tolbert, three of the five Trustees of the African-American congregation in Lower Sycolin, in 1877. Between 1877 and 1894 then, the African-American congregation in Lower Sycolin may have been worshipping in the residence of a Trustee or congregation member, possibly one of the residences located on the Webb, Day or Tolbert parcels. The large number of interments documented in the Sycolin Community Cemetery, combined with the fact that the earliest recorded interment at Sycolin dates to 1913,39 suggests that burials may have been occurring in this location for several decades earlier, possibly extending back to the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a period in which the Union Church congregation was directly associated with land owned by Landon Webb, Washington Day and James Tolbert. Because a formal church structure was not built until 1894, it is possible that the Trustees took it upon themselves to initiate a communal burial ground to be used by the Union Church congregation as well as the broader Lower Sycolin community. The large number of interments in both the large and small burial grounds (n = 65), and the location of the Sycolin Community Cemetery within the heart of the historic Lower Sycolin 39 The earliest recorded ‘burial’ at Sycolin is 1913, while the earliest recorded ‘death’ at Sycolin is 1891. 73 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 45 community, suggests that it may represent the burying ground for the late nineteenth-century Union Church congregation, and the broader Lower Sycolin African-American community. The Significance of the Lower Sycolin Community Cemetery The Sycolin Community Cemetery is a property that is vitally significant to the history of Loudoun County and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Lower Sycolin African-American community was formed from portions of a former pre-Emancipation plantation called ‘Egypt.’40 In particular, because the Sycolin Community Cemetery is a part of the historic Lower Sycolin African-American community, it represents an important period in post-Emancipation, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow American history when formerly enslaved families purchased land, established small communities, founded their own churches and schools as well as the social institutions which supported them in life and death, and struggled to participate in the broader local and regional economy. The Sycolin Community Cemetery is therefore representative of the efforts of several generations of Loudoun County African-American families that fought for the hopes and promises of Emancipation despite limited government support and in the face of both personal and institutionalized racism. Their success, as represented in the long-lived and vibrant Lower Sycolin community and the Sycolin Community Cemetery, is a direct claim to full status as free Americans and all of the inherent rights that citizenship entails. The Sycolin Community Cemetery should also be considered a sacred property, not only because it is the final resting place of members of the Lower Sycolin community, but also because it may possibly represent the pre-1894 burying ground for the Union Church, a fellowship of African-American community members that was established no later than 1881 and was likely an extension of pre- Emancipation worship practices experienced during slavery. As a center of religious life in the Lower Sycolin community, the Union Church would become an important institution in anchoring African- American life and social institutions in the important transitional period spanning the last quarter of the nineteenth century through the first half of the twentieth century. Recommendations As noted above, due to the fact that no human interments were identified within the 25-foot buffer zone, it is believed that all of the interments during the use of the Sycolin Community Cemetery are contained within the enclosures surrounding the two burial grounds. Because of this, no additional archaeological investigations associated with the delineation of the Sycolin Community Cemetery are recommended. However, except for Jim Koenig’s manuscript, very little has been written about the Lower Sycolin community. Because these small, largely rural African-American communities established in the post- Emancipation period are essential to understanding the history of Virginia and the United States, additional in-depth research that will more fully document the establishment, expansion and decline of Loudoun County’s Lower Sycolin African-American community is recommended. This research should have as its focus defining the ‘boundaries’ of broader Lower Sycolin, mapping land ownership through time, and providing a more detailed long-term socio-economic picture of the community. An 40 In this sense, the Lower Sycolin community was formed of an ‘Exodus’ from Egypt. 74 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 46 important part of this research should involve interviews with descendants of former land-owners in Lower Sycolin. Additional research should also be conducted into the history, leadership and activities of the Union Church - First Baptist Church of Sycoline. This research should include an examination of the pre- Emancipation history of African-American Baptist churches in Loudoun County as well as other Baptist institutions nationwide and the influence that they may have had on the establishment of Union Church, an examination of state-wide and national Baptist organizations to which the church may have belonged, as well as interviews and oral histories with church members and leaders and other potential informants. The names of individuals recorded as interred at ‘Sycolin’ or possessing a burial marker in the Sycolin Community Cemetery (n=19 of 65 documented burials, or 29%) represent only a partial listing of the total number of interments documented in both burial grounds. It is recommended that additional, in-depth primary source research be done to more fully document the names of individuals known to be residing in the Lower Sycolin community between 1870 – 1960, and that the names of these individuals be reconciled with the numerous available databases (Lloyd Slack Funeral Home Records, Loudoun County Death Register (1912-1917), and Virginia Death Registers (1853-1917) and (1912- 2014)) recording the date of deaths and location of burials. The goal being to provide a fuller documentation of those families and individuals that may be buried in the Sycolin Community Cemetery. 75 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 47 REFERENCES CITED Augenstein, Neal. 2019 After Harsh Words, Leesburg Plans to Donate African-American Cemetery.WTOP News, February 14, 2019. Electronic resource: https://wtop.com/loudoun- county/2019/02/after-harsh-words-leesburg-plans-to-donate-african-american- cemetery/. Bertsch, Amy, Amanda Ackman, and Tom Hyland. n.d.“Forgotten” A preliminary Report on the Sycolin Road Potter: Loudoun County’s Historical Mystery of a Pottery, Pots and Potters. Loudoun County: Northern Virginia Community College. Blackburn, Alex C. 1998 Interpretive Guide to the Use of Soil Maps of Loudoun County, Virginia. Leesburg: Loudoun County Cooperative Extension Office. Electronic resource: logis.loudoun.gov/Loudoun/metadata/soils.htm. Accessed January 20, 2020. Brandon, Thomas H. 2019 Electronic mail communication, April 16, 2019. Find A Grave 2020 Edward Hammat. Electronic resource:findagrave.com/memorial/22922583/Edward Hammat. Accessed February 10, 2020. Gettings Smith, Kathryn, Edna Johnston, and Megan Glynn. 2004 Loudoun County African-American Historic Architectural Resources Survey. Washington, D.C.: History Matters. Kimball, Lori and Wynne Saffer. 2019 Land Tax Records, Loudoun County: 1891, 1900, 1910. In Robert A. Pollard, ed., The History of the Loudoun County Courthouse and Its Role in the Path to Freedom, Justice, and Racial Equality in Loudoun County. Leesburg: Loudoun County Heritage Commission. Koenig, Jim. 2013 They Were a Community of African Americans in Leesburg, VA, 1870-1930. Unpublished manuscript. Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, Virginia. 76 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 48 Leesburg, Virginia. 2017 Town of Leesburg Installs New Signage at Historic African American Cemetery. June 6, 2017.Town of Leesburg News Archive. Electronic resource: https://www.leesburgva.gov/Home/Components/News/News/5453/29?npage=1 9. Loudoun County, Virginia. 1883 W. H. Summers etc. vs. Thomas H. Clagget Jr., etc. Index #: 1883-061. Loudoun County Chancery Court Records, Library of Virginia, Richmond. Var. Loudoun County Land Tax Books. Historic Records office. Loudoun County Courthouse, Leesburg, Virginia. Var. Loudoun County Deed Books. Historic Records office. Loudoun County Courthouse, Leesburg, Virginia. Var. Loudoun County Will Books. Historic Records office. Loudoun County Courthouse, Leesburg, Virginia. LoudounNow News. 2016 Saving a Cemetery: Freedom Center works with Town, County to Protect African- American Graveyard, March 9, 2016. Mullin, John J., Megan Rupnik, and Robert Hunter. 2006 Archaeological Survey of Route 643 (Sycolin Road) and Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44LD1195. Richmond: Louis Berger Group. Scheel, Eugene M. 2011 Uncovering Loudoun’s Graveyards.Washington Post, June 6, 2011. 2002 Loudoun Discovered: Communities, Corners & Crossroads, Vol. 2: Leesburg & the Old Carolina Road. (Leesburg: Friends of the Thomas Balch Library, 2002). U.S. Census Bureau. 1880 Tenth U.S. Census, 1880. Population Statistics, Town of Leesburg, Virginia. 1870 Ninth U.S. Census, 1870. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia. 1860 Eighth U.S. Census, 1860. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia. Eighth U.S. Census, 1860. Slave Schedule, Loudoun County, Virginia. 77 Item a. Sycolin Community Cemetery Delineation Town of Leesburg, Virginia 49 1850 Seventh U.S. Census, 1850. Population Statistics, Loudoun County, Virginia. Seventh U.S. Census, 1850. Slave Schedule, Loudoun County, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020 Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January 20, 2020. Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). 2020 Union Church / First Baptist Church, Sycolin (053-0899). Virginia Department of Historic Resources Architectural Survey Form. Accessed February 10, 2020. 78 Item a. Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 053-6470 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data May 15, 2020 Page: 1 of 3 Property Information Property Names Name Explanation Name Current Name Sycolin Community Cemetery Property Addresses Current - Sycolin Road County/Independent City(s):Loudoun (County) Incorporated Town(s):No Data Zip Code(s):20175 Magisterial District(s):No Data Tax Parcel(s):PIN 192-26-3267, PIN 192-26-3548, PIN 192-26-4027 USGS Quad(s):LEESBURG Property Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Additional Property Information Architecture Setting:Rural Acreage:.3 Site Description: December 2019: The Sycolin Community Cemetery is composed of two discrete burial grounds within 150 feet of one another. The larger northern burial ground contains 55 individual interments, and the smaller southern burial ground contains 10 individual interments. Both burial grounds are fenced and located within a heavily wooded area east of Sycolin Road in Loudoun County, Virginia. Formal parcel boundaries, in the form of linear raised earthen mounds with remnant barbed wire run through each burial ground. A stone-lined spring lies adjacent to and within 10 feet of the south boundary of the smaller burial ground. Surveyor Assessment: December 2019: The Sycolin Community Cemetery is significant to the history of Loudoun County, Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia as it represents the last vestiges of a former African-American community named Lower Sycolin. Lower Sycolin was formed in the 1870s from a pre-Emancipation plantation called Egypt. Formerly enslaved families purchased land, established a community, founded their own church and school and the social institutions that supported them in life and death. The Cemetery is representative of the efforts of several generations of Loudoun County African-American families that fought for the hopes and promises of Emancipation despite limited government support and in the face of both personal and institutionalized racism. Their success, as represented in the long-lived and vibrant Lower Sycolin community and the Sycolin Community Cemetery, is a direct claim to full status as free Americans and all of the inherent rights that citizenship entails. Surveyor Recommendation:Recommended Potentially Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Local Govt No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category:Funerary Resource Type:Cemetery NR Resource Type:Site Historic District Status:No Data Date of Construction:Ca 1890 Date Source:Local Records Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Funerary Other ID Number:No Data Architectural Style:Vernacular Form:No Data Number of Stories:No Data Condition:Good 79 Item a. Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 053-6470 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data May 15, 2020 Page: 2 of 3 Threats to Resource:None Known Architectural Description: December 2019: The Sycolin Community Cemetery is composed of two discrete burial grounds, a larger northern burial ground containing 55 interments, and a smaller southern burial ground containing 10 interments. The fenced burial grounds are located in a wooded setting west of and adjacent to an unnamed drainage. Interments within each burial ground are marked by wooden stakes, surface depressions, fieldstones, and marble headstones. Cemetery Information Current Use:Private Historic Religious Affilitation:Baptist Ethnic Affiliation:African Descent Has Marked Graves:True Has Unmarked Graves:True Enclosure Type:Fence Number Of Gravestones:51 - 100 Earliest Marked Death Year:No Data Latest Marked Death Year:No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name:No Data Local Historic District Name:No Data Historic District Significance:No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:2019-0781 Investigator:Benjamin Ford Organization/Company:Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:12/20/2019 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: In order to facilitate the transfer of a parcel of land containing two discrete burial clusters (the Sycolin Community Cemetery), Rivanna Archaeological Services conducted machine-assisted removal of area soils within a 25-foot buffer surrounding the north, west and southern sides of the burial clusters. In addition, survey and mapping of the two burial clusters and the surrounding landscape was undertaken. The goal of the project was to ensure that no unmarked burials lay outside of the two enclosures. No additional interments were identified in the 25-foot buffer zone. Project Bibliographic Information: Benjamin Ford, Archaeological Investigations Associated with the Delineation of the Sycolon Community Cemetery, Loudoun County, Virginia (VDHR 2019-0781) Charlottesville: Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC Koenig, Jim. They Were a Community of African Americans in Leesburg, Virginia, 1870-1930. Unpublished manuscript, 2013. Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, Virginia. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Surveyor's NR Criteria Consideration Recommendations: D - Cemetery 80 Item a. Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 053-6470 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data May 15, 2020 Page: 3 of 3 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Koenig, Jim. They Were a Community of African Americans in Leesburg, VA, 1870-1930. Unpublished manuscript, 2013. (Leesburg: Thomas Balch Library). Property Notes: The two discrete burial grounds composing the Sycolin Community Cemetery are located within Loudoun County, Virginia parcels PIN 192-26-3267, 192-26-3648, and 192-26-4027. The parcels, currently owned by the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, will be transferred to the Loudoun Freedom Center. 81 Item a. Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources Legend Architecture Resources Architecture Labels Individual Historic District Properties Archaeological Resources Archaeology Labels DHR Easements USGS GIS Place names County Boundaries Title: Architecture Labels Date: 5/15/2020 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources. 82 Item a. 1 “They Were a Community of African-Americans in Leesburg, VA, 1870-1930” By Jim Koenig Curious at spotting a small chunk of shaped granite in the woods, I took a closer look. After righting the stone, I recognized it as a grave marker and quickly realized that I was surrounded by depressions in the ground, probably graves, too. None of the others had a headstone. The name, Chester Sidwell, was chiseled in that lone obscure grave marker. Likely the graves would have remained lost if not for that overturned headstone nearly hidden by vines and scrub. There wasn’t an enclosing fence or identifying sign to indicate that this was a cemetery. It appeared too large to be a family plot that was neglected. Yet it seemed almost certain that hidden here in the tangled woods were graves of people long dead and seemingly forgotten by the wider world. After almost four years of research, I’ve come to the conclusion that the forgotten people buried in the woods were part of a community of African-Americans in both life and death. While alive, some were still in the shadow of slavery having been born in a slave state before Emancipation. Others were only a generation or two removed from that era. All shared bonds of family, friends, neighborhood, a church, and the experience of growing up black or mulatto and living in a small southern town within a rural farming county. This community had no formal name as far as can be determined. The common thread was a connection to the First Baptist Church of Sycoline and/or some connection to a forgotten cemetery hidden in the woods near the church, but separate from church property. While the 83 Item a. 2 community apparently revolved around the church, many folks were also living next door to one another or lived near each other starting in the 1870’s and continuing to 1930 when this story concludes. Primary source for information about people named in the following pages comes from census records plus a few other sources and oral history. This story begins before Emancipation although none of the names that eventually comprise this particular community are listed on the 1860 U.S. Census. They may have been slaves and therefore were not counted by name or, if they were free, were overlooked by census takers. The documented beginnings of the community can be found in the 1870 Census when names that will become familiar to the reader are recorded living close to one another. The community seemingly coalesced around certain families and individuals. Over time, they would found a church, open a private school, establish a cemetery, open a post office and were surely a source of comfort and support to each other in good times and bad. This narrative ends in 1930 because that is the last year that census information is available for public access currently. The story from that time to the present will need to be told by others as information becomes available. The Discovery My earliest encounter of the community occurred years ago while hiking in the woods on the outskirts of Leesburg, Virginia. The Town is located about 40 miles from Washington, D.C. and is considered a suburb. The woods border several adjoining undeveloped parcels owned by the Town of Leesburg that front Sycolin Rd., a main road oriented north/south, leading from town to the southern part of the County. From the road looking east, the closest view is of open, rolling fields (fig. 1). Then the land drops off down a steep slope into dense woodlands. Across 84 Item a. 3 the road facing west, the Town owns and operates a municipal airport (fig. 2). Future plans include extending airport runways, which requires realignment of Sycolin Rd. on a more easterly path that may intrude on the cemetery. In addition, the area around the airport is slated for more residential and commercial construction. The nearest church is First Baptist Church of Sycoline (fig. 3), about a quarter mile away south on Sycolin Road. Initially though, there was no obvious connection with these graves to the church. The granite headstone I’d discovered in the woods just below the rolling fields was for Chester H. Sidwell (fig. 4). He was born on February 22, 1876 and died on December 13, 1946. That was all the information I initially started with, information taken from a simple, forgotten headstone. After some site clean-up of the area, I eventually counted 42 vaguely rectangular depressions that were in no discernable layout except that each depression was oriented length wise east-to-west. In my mind, the real question was this: how could so many graves be lost to the community? Wasn’t a cemetery a formal, dedicated place, sacred ground in which to honor the dead? I had no inkling at the time that simple curiosity about this cemetery would lead to a protracted search to unravel its mystery. At the start I used lunch hours, when I customarily hike through the woods, to visit the cemetery. I was hiking on 500 acres of woods and meadows acquired by Loudoun County for development into a park. The Town limits end and County jurisdiction begins about a half mile to the north on Sycolin Rd. I would learn however that the cemetery was actually on land that adjoins the County park but owned by the Town (fig. 5). The area is primarily dense woods with 85 Item a. 4 no property markers dividing County land from Town. It all looks pretty much the same to the casual hiker. While the wooded area was free of modern day litter I spent many lunch breaks clearing away overgrowth and natural clutter with a rake, folding handsaw and pruning shears. Amid the debris accumulated in some of the depressions I came upon a number of temporary grave markers (fig. 6). Each marker was a 4”X6” pressed sheet iron rectangle with a glass insert (usually gone) on a 14” attached metal post for anchoring in the ground. They were impressed with patent dates of 1925 and 1927. That meant that most of the burials had to have been after 1927 and probably before 1946 when Chester Sidwell was buried, the latest date I had at the time. Subsequently, I determined that the last burial in the cemetery may have been in 1959. In what seemed an improbable discovery, among the temporary markers I found, two had fragments of paper still intact and legible (fig. 7). These two lone fragments, along with the headstone, provided just enough potential information with which to get a start in a research quest. The three names that I’d found – Chester Sidwell on the headstone and ‘Dean’ and ‘White’ from the paper fragments – all pointed to an initial conclusion: this was an African- American cemetery. (The markers were surface finds since no digging was done during cemetery clean up.) Traditional African-American Burials Western culture leads us to expect a cemetery to be clearly delineated on a designated plot or a clearing that has been devoted to graves and memorials. We expect even a humble family plot, at least at its inception, to be neat and orderly with a certain amount of formal landscaping, roads, paths, and headstones to mark the graves, anything from simple to elaborate. 86 Item a. 5 If this was a cemetery I’d discovered, it no longer shared these characteristics, if it ever had. Still, the consistent east-west orientation and proportion of the depressions gave the insistent impression that these must be graves. And, of course, there was the headstone. My early research was about to open a whole new realization. Many traditional African- American cemeteries did not follow the western European model widely copied in the United States beginning with the Civil War and is the basic approach even to this day. In some traditional African-American cemeteries it was common that there were no permanent grave markers. Instead, importance was placed on the burial ground as a whole rather than on the single precise burial spot. If there was a marker, a simple fieldstone or piece of wood sufficed and, if inscribed, was marked with something impermanent like paint. The community rather than the individual was accorded significance. The traditional cemetery, much like a community, had a random arrangement. Graves of family and friends were placed in locations and groupings that suited them. Also, as probably dictated by topography, gravediggers avoided ground that was too rocky, shifting locations slightly to find easier digging. The area is known for an abundance of limestone outcroppings. Order and formality were not important. Graves were oriented on an east-west axis, which is considered a Christian tradition. But, some think that African-Americans also wanted to be pointing east toward Africa when laid to rest. Being near a water feature was important, too. The notion was that the spirit could follow the water to the ocean and eventually return home to Africa. Formal landscaping was not part of the burial tradition. However, there was some adornment of graves with cut flowers and talismans, and planting of hardy ground covers like periwinkle. 87 Item a. 6 Consequently, it is almost certain that many traditional African-American cemeteries have been lost to destruction or neglect because they simply are not recognized for what they are: they do not look like western European cemeteries. The forgotten cemetery in the Leesburg woods has all of the characteristics of a traditional African-American cemetery. There is no formal landscaping; markers were temporary except for one formal headstone and a small field stone marker (fig. 8); there’s evidence that cut flowers and talismans (fig. 9) adorned several graves, some non-native ground cover grows there; graves are oriented length-wise on an east-west axis and they seem to have been deliberately arranged in groups probably because of family connections. Each group of graves are roughly in a row or rows and the groups appear to be randomly placed in the cemetery (fig. 10). There is also a water feature – a creek – just to the east of the cemetery (fig. 11). The place is anonymous, overlooked, and is gradually being destroyed due to weather and unknowing neglect, and may be overtly threatened by future plans to extend the airport runway and construction of a four lane east-west connector road to be named Crosstrails Blvd. Starting with a Few Names and Finding a Community The original version of this study was finished in May of 2011 and copies given to the Thomas Balch Library, the Town of Leesburg and several interested individuals. Sometime after that I was contacted by a Ms. Stacey Archer who is a descendant of the Carpenters and Johnsons; two families with strong ties to The Community. Over the course of several months we met and she provided information, both oral and written, about the Carpenters and Johnsons. Most of it I thought I already knew and had included in the study. I placed Ms. Archer’s information in my files vaguely thinking that someday I’d make revisions. 88 Item a. 7 That someday was in June of 2013 when I received an email from a librarian at the Thomas Balch Library with six more names of people documented to have been buried in the cemetery off Sycolin Road. It was time to update the study and include the information provided by Ms. Archer. As it turned out, Ms. Archer’s information was much more helpful than I’d initially thought. Careful reading of the documents she’d provided and my notes on her oral history greatly added to the story of the Carpenter and Johnson families and corrected some speculations I’d made. What follows includes my updated research and corrections to the original version. Now, half of the people buried in the Cemetery have been identified though its future is still threatened by governmental decisions and Mother Nature. While finding the headstone was helpful, the two tiny paper fragments turned out to be the key items in launching this project. In addition to the two handwritten last names, the word ‘Slack’ was commercially printed on one of the fragments. Lloyd Slack was an undertaker and licensed embalmer in Leesburg. Slack also advertised that he had the oldest and most complete furniture house in the county (fig. 12). This commercial combination of furniture and funerals was not unusual for that time period. The company kept records of names and dates for funeral arrangements and some of Slack’s records are in the collection of the Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, VA. In the Slack funeral records, bodies destined to be buried in the forgotten cemetery were apparently given the location designation, ‘Sycoline’. When these records were summarized and transcribed for researchers, the designation was shortened to ‘SY’. The ‘SY’ designation provides 13 names of people surely buried in the cemetery and, as will be shown, were tied by other connections such as family, friends, church, race and neighborhoods (fig. 13). The names 89 Item a. 8 of two other people, who are probably buried there, have been obtained by oral history. To these 15 names, six more were added via recent research into Loudoun County death certificates for a total of 21 people identified by name who are buried in the Cemetery. This neatly divides in half those known to be buried in the Cemetery from those yet to be identified. For lack of a definitive name, this cemetery will be referred to as the ‘SY Cemetery’ for the remainder of this account. The group of people included will be referred to collectively as ‘The Community’ from here on. Also, names will be recorded in this narrative as written by the census takers. In many instances they were an obvious guess based on pronunciation or simple misspelling. When other sources provide the correct spelling, they will be inserted. The Institution of Slavery Ends In 1860 according the U.S. Census there were 5,501 slaves and 21,774 whites in Loudoun County, VA. Slaves were not indicated by name in the census, only counted and identified by owner, age, sex and color – black or mulatto. There were 1,252 free blacks and mulattos in Loudoun County in 1860. They were enumerated the same as the white population including their names and occupation, etc. None of the family names that would become a part of The Community in this story appear on the 1860 census. It is probable that they were enslaved until the end of the Civil War in 1865. One tiny glimmer of information may be the first hint of the start of The Community. In the 1860 Slave Census for the southern district of Loudoun County, there was a slave owner, John F. Lynn who owned 10 slaves. They were apparently co-owned or overseen by a Peter Etcher. 90 Item a. 9 While the ages, sex and color of these slaves was provided by the census, there is no indication of their familial relationships. It was a common practice to break up families and this was likely the case with these slaves. However, based on information contained in the subsequent 1870 Census, one can speculate that of the 10 slaves, two might be tentatively identified: a one-year old black male is perhaps Amos Norris; and a 21 year old black female may be his mother, Sarah Norris. All ten slaves lived in one ‘slave house’ which was very probably little more than a shack. This hint of the Norris family emerges near the end of slavery in the United States and may be the earliest identified members of The Community of African-Americans in this story. From this point, the account can be fleshed out with greater specifics and what follows is a thread of history as woven through at least 15 family names, their numerous offspring and one lifelong bachelor. Out of Bondage and Into an Evolving Free Community: Amos Norris, the Tolberts, Days and Webbs With the signing of surrender documents in 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse, VA, slavery was abolished in the United States. Master-slave relationships ceased but not necessarily severing relationships among people. For the most part the business of living in a free Loudoun County may have commenced in a fashion not too different from before Emancipation. Wages still had to be earned, food cooked, a household maintained, children taken care of, crops harvested, and so on. The census data suggests that many former slaves stayed geographically near to the familiar, though re-configured relationships with their former masters as neighbors, employers, customers and, perhaps, eventually as friends. 91 Item a. 10 Names of members of The Community first emerge in the 1870 Census. Amos Norris, the Webbs, and the Tolberts are recorded as living near each other, just south of the Town of Leesburg, in a population largely composed of white farming families. As will be described below, Amos Norris was living apart from his family in 1870 for unknown reasons. His family was counted, though, along with the nearby Emanuel Day family. These two families lived in the southern district of Loudoun but would not be near young Amos, the Webbs or Tolberts until later. All of these people would eventually move closer to one another as part of The Community in the years to come. Newly Freed and Former Masters: Young Amos Norris and the Etchers Amos Norris was an 11 year old, black male, living with a retired, white farmer and his wife, Peter and Nancy Etcher according to the 1870 Census. This may be the same Peter Etcher who owned slaves or was an overseer. Apparently, Amos was actually living in the same house as the Etchers and was employed as a farm laborer. The Etcher’s real estate value was $3,790 and the value of their personal estate was $649. The War and loss of property had diminished the Etcher’s personal estate. A decade earlier, in 1860, the value of their personal estate had been $8,000; most of it probably in the value of slaves. (The value of their farm was $2,500 in 1860.) It is tempting to read the very worst or very best in human nature into this meager census description of a former slave boy living with his former masters. The real story will likely never be known. 92 Item a. 11 Regardless, there is presumably a brighter future for young Amos in the coming years when he is reunited with his mother, father and 10 siblings. One of his brothers, Kellor Norris, will also play a part later in this story of The Community. Moving Forward: The 1870 Census Readers will shortly be introduced to the first four families that will become the nucleus of The Community. They are the Tolberts, Webbs, Days, Davis and the Norrises. With each successive census enumeration – 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920 & 1930 – information about these five families will be updated. Then, as newcomers appear in successive census takings, their descriptions will be included. The order of appearance will remain the same decade-to-decade. However, some families or individuals disappear from the record in a particular census year and may reappear later or be gone forever. When this happens, it will be noted. The people and families who eventually comprised The Community were African- American who, over time, gradually became literate and a few educated enough to teach in public schools. Albeit through struggle, they achieved modest economic advancement. On the whole though, the men were laborers of one kind or another with farming being the predominant trade. Women, for the most part, worked as housekeepers, cooked for private families or took in laundry, while simultaneously raising their own children and managing busy households. Three other characteristics were also common to most members of The Community: neighborhood, church and the SY Cemetery. In the narrative to follow, each family or individual will be located in a neighborhood as they relate to other members of The Community. Participation in the First Baptist Church of Sycoline will be noted though only a limited record of a few names remains available. And, among the 21 individuals from The Community who are 93 Item a. 12 likely buried in the SY Cemetery, five were church trustees and deacons when the present church was built in 1899 (fig. 14). In addition, all of the founding trustees and deacons have family members buried there. In summary, these were people who would not be written about in history books. This story describes ordinary folks going about the daily business of taking care of their families, friends, community, church and the dearly departed. The James Tolbert family Living near young Amos Norris in 1870 was the James Tolbert family. None of the Tolberts are listed by name in the 1860 Census so, if they were counted, they would not have been named, only tallied as the property of a slave owner. In 1870, though, James Tolbert and each of his family members were recorded: James was 50 and his wife, Jane was 52. Both were listed as black and neither could read or write. James was a farm laborer and Jane was keeping house. Together, they had two daughters and three sons. Only the 18 year old daughter, Kate, could read but not write. She was listed as having no occupation. A son, Fenton, was 11 years old and worked as a farm laborer. He was the same age as Amos Norris. Both Fenton and young Amos along with six year old Landon Webb, Jr. will carry this story forward. Both Fenton and Landon, Jr. will, as adults, become trustees and deacons of the First Baptist Church of Sycoline. The census enumeration in 1870 for the Tolberts is not without problems. The mother, Jane, was listed as being 52 years old and her youngest child was listed as two months old. And, in ascending order, there was a two year old, and an 8 year old before we get to Fenton at age 11. It’s not likely Jane was having children in her 50’s. A possible explanation is in the 1880 Census 94 Item a. 13 where her age is listed as 53. That would make her 43 years old in 1870 and not beyond child bearing years. Sadly, the youngest will not be counted on the next census though the other four children will be. The Landon Webb Family Also, living near Amos Norris and Fenton Tolbert was the Landon Webb family. In the 1870 Census, Landon Webb, Sr. was listed as a black male, 37 years old and a farm laborer. His wife, Margaret, was listed as a black female, 35 years old keeping house. They had an 8-year old daughter who was the oldest and young sons ranging from one year old to six. The six-year old boy was initially identified as Payton but would later be called, Landon P. The senior Landon could read and write while his wife could not. And, in a hopeful sign, the two oldest children, Rachael and Payton (Landon, Jr.), had attended school in the past year. Two additional people lived in the Webb household; one listed as keeping house was Sarah Day. She was a 43 year old woman. Likely, she is the same as a woman referred to as ‘Sally Daye’ in the late 1880s. Sally Daye was noted as being present at the founding of the First Baptist Church of Sycoline along with Landon, Sr. and Fenton Tolbert. In the 1880 census, Sarah was no longer separated from her family, but was living together with her husband, Washington Day, and their two daughters. The other boarder was Thomas Watson, a black male, age 48. He was listed as a farm laborer but will not reappear in these pages because no further listing in the census record or other sources has been found. 95 Item a. 14 The Emanuel Day Family Another family that holds a link to this narrative as the account moves ahead is the Emanuel Day family. The Days were likely slaves before 1865. In 1870, they were living with a white family in the southern district of Loudoun County somewhat near to the Amos Norris, Sr. family. Emanuel Day, Sr. was 50 years old and married to Virginia, aged 36. Emanuel, Sr. worked as a farm laborer and Virginia kept house. Neither of them could read nor write. They had three children. One of them, Emanuel, Jr., 4 years old, will carry the story forward. The Amos Norris, Sr. Family While Amos Norris, Jr. was boarding with a white family, his natural family lived some distance away but still in the southern district of Loudoun County, VA. The exact locations are not known but Amos, Jr. was listed on page 33 of the 1870 Census and the rest of his family was enumerated on page 171 of the census. Amos, Sr. was listed as a black male, 40 years old, working as a farm laborer. His wife, Sarah, was a black female, 30 years old, listed as keeping house. Neither Amos nor Sarah could read or write. They had six children living at home in 1870 with the oldest being 10 and the youngest being seven months old. None of the children attended school. This family will grow even larger by the census of the next decade. Laura Ann Davis Two-year-old Laura Anne will become an important member of The Community as she matures and eventually marries James Carpenter. For now, in 1870, she was living with Eliza, 96 Item a. 15 her 42- year-old mother and five siblings. Eliza was keeping house, apparently without a husband or head of household in residence though other records indicate that William Manning had some sort of lifelong relationship with her including being the father of Laura Anne and bequeathing both of them property in his last will and testament. In 1870, Eliza was neighbors with the James Tolbert family and the Landon Webb family. The Community Grows as the Decade Passes Up to this point, the nucleus of The Community has been essentially four African- American families: Webbs, Tolberts, Days, Davis and the Norrises. Beginning with the 1880 Census, the names and families that make up The Community will increase. Also, in 1883 members of The Community will found a church and, sometime later, establish a cemetery. While no direct link has been established between the church and cemetery, many early leaders of the church are likely buried in the cemetery and/or have family buried there. Names of others that may be buried in the cemetery were, at times, neighbors of prominent church members. They were all part of this evolving community. The focus of the information to follow will be on identifying those people named in the Slack records, Abstracts from Loudoun County Death Certificates, oral history or who have a documented connection to the church. These people and some of their neighbors were the mainstays of The Community and supporters of the church. A brief recounting of the early church history will highlight many community names that will become part of The Community. 97 Item a. 16 The Community Founds a Church According to one brief history, the area known as lower Sycolin was populated largely by blacks, many of them former slaves from nearby estates. They organized a non-denominational church in 1884. Another brief history states that it was the First Baptist Church of Sycoline that was founded on November 4, 1884. The original church was located near the site of the current First Baptist Church that was erected by parishioners in 1899 on land donated by William Manning. He was a black male and a lifelong bachelor who was working as a carpenter in the 1890’s, according to the Census. He, too, was probably born a slave and census records show he never learned to read or write. On the founding day of the church, some people were baptized including Sally Daye, a name already introduced, and Charles Norris, related to the Amos Norris family. Also, one of the founders, James Carpenter, was an original deacon. He and his family appear to have been an integral part of the community, too, though they won’t become part of this narrative until the 1900 Census. Of the six men who were deacons and trustees when the present church was built in 1899 five were later buried in the SY cemetery and the sixth, James Carpenter was not only buried there in 1941 but interred an adult daughter and son, a granddaughter, a son-in-law and likely other infants and children. Also, his wife, Laura Anne Carpenter was buried there in 1948. Three of the deacons have already been introduced: Landon Webb, Sr., Emanuel Day, Jr., son of Emanuel Day, Sr., and Fenton Tolbert, son of James Tolbert. The other names that will become familiar are: Robert White and Osborne ‘Fishy’ Gant. The sixth trustee and deacon was the community leader, James Carpenter and he will appear for the first time in the 1900 census. 98 Item a. 17 The Community Expands and Strengthens: the 1880 Census Reading multiple family histories can be tedious and difficult to follow. The information presented below will provide the broadest outline of The Community and greater detail only when necessary to illuminate the narrative. Coming up next are the five families that have already been introduced. They will get updated histories. Following them, other families who were part of The Community will be presented. There is no significance to the order of presentation. The Tolbert Family Young Fenton, who will carry the story forward, was 21 years old and living with his parents, James and Jane Tolbert and three siblings. He apparently was taking a step toward making his way in the world: on June 9, 1880 a census taker recorded him as living at home with his parents and three siblings in Leesburg Township in Loudoun County, VA. He could not read or write and was not employed. Neither was his father. Then on June 14th, 1880 the very same 21-year old Fenton was counted again as living with a large white family and listed as laborer on the farm. He was one of four black boarders on that farm. Apparently, he found work and split his time between residences. He will eventually settle in Leesburg, raise a family, become a church leader, and bury his married daughter and his father in the SY cemetery about 19 months apart. This would have been in the midst of the Great Depression. However, in 1880 living next to one another were the Tolberts, Deans, Washington Days and the Gants. These W. Days do not seem to be related to the Emanuel Days. Members of these families will play prominent roles in the life of The Community. 99 Item a. 18 The elder James and Jane Tolbert do not appear on later census enumerations. However, the record of deaths for Loudoun County will list Jane as dying in 1914 and being buried in the SY Cemetery. Her age was listed as 92, though this is likely an approximation. Noted in the record was her birthplace as being Warrenton, Virginia and her parents were Edmond Turner and Sarah Jane Bell. A census search for those names and Jane Bell or Jane Turner did not yield any results. This is not surprising given that Jane would have been in her mid-to-late thirties at the end of the Civil War when she would have gained her freedom. The Webb Family In 1880, the Webbs lived next door to the Norris family in Leesburg Township. Landon, Sr. became a prominent member of The Community until his death in 1913 while Landon, Jr. would move to Washington, D.C. before 1900, marry a local woman and apparently not return to The Community. However, a grandson of Landon, Sr. and son of Moses Webb, was named Landon and will become part of The Community in 1930. Landon Sr. was listed in the 1880 Census as a 50-year old mulatto male, a widower and worked as a laborer. He had nine children in the household and was undoubtedly helped by his 18-year old daughter who was listed in the census as keeping house. All of the children were listed as mulatto. Also, living nearby are families that are familiar or will soon become familiar to the reader. They are the Gants, Deans, Tolberts and the Washington Day family. 100 Item a. 19 The Emanuel Day Family Young Emanuel was 14 years old in 1880, living with his family and had attended school within the past year. Apparently, he could both read and write. The family resided in Leesburg Township but not in close proximity to other members of The Community. Three generations of Days lived in the household: grandfather, Julius, was 90 and his wife, Ginnie, was 86. Father Emanuel was 61 and his wife, also Ginnie, was 45 years old. They had six children ranging in age from 20 down to 4. They formed their own community! The Norris Family Keller B. Norris, a stepson of Amos, Sr. and Sarah Norris, will carry the story of the Norris family forward. Amos, Sr. and Sarah were described in the 1870 Census. Keller is the one to focus on because he will later bury his wife and stepbrother in the SY cemetery. In the 1880 Census he is listed as a 20-year old stepson along with two other stepchildren of Amos and Sarah Norris. In addition, there are seven natural children including 22-year old, Amos Jr., who was previously introduced. It is unknown why some of the children are described as stepchildren. Perhaps they were cousins, nieces or nephews who needed a home. Keller’s stepbrother, Charles, was nine years old in 1880. In 1930, Keller Norris will make funeral arrangements with Slack to prepare his stepbrother’s body for burial in the SY cemetery. Sadly, Kellor would have been familiar with the process, having already buried his wife in the SY cemetery in 1923. 101 Item a. 20 Laura Ann Davis 1880 finds the future Mrs. James Carpenter, was 13 years old and living at home with her mother, four siblings and four nieces and nephews. Nearby by neighbors include the Webb, Deans, Tolberts, Gants and the Washington Day family. In 1886, Laura will marry and by the next time we meet her, she will be managing a busy household. Osborne Gant Family At some point, Osborne became known as “Fishy” Gant. In 1880, he was 45 years old with no occupation listed, married to Tisha who was 35 years old and keeping house. They had two young boys, 4-year old Charles and 1-year old Jerry. Sadly, Fishy will make funeral arrangements for Charles in 1914 to be buried in the SY Cemetery and will join him in 1927 with arrangements made of his sole surviving son, Jerry. In 1930, Jerry will be found residing in the same District of Columbia boarding house as Kellor Norris. A small part of The Community continued, moved to a city full of strangers. Eventually, Fishy Gant will become one of the deacons and trustees of the First Baptist Church when the present building was constructed in 1899. Washington Day Family Last contact with Sarah Day was in 1870 when she was living with the Webb family. Her husband and daughters could not be found in the census records. In 1880, they were all living together and very much a part of The Community with the Dean family on one side, the Gant family on the other and the Tolberts two doors away. Washington Day, Sarah’s husband, 102 Item a. 21 worked as a laborer. She will be baptized in 1884 at the founding of the Baptist Church and that is the last we’ll hear of her or the rest of her family. They do not appear on later census records. William Manning Manning was a bachelor, 47 years old in 1880, and working as a laborer. As noted earlier, he was the father of Laura Anne Davis, the future Mrs. James W. Carpenter. Manning will donate land in 1899 on which the current First Baptist Church will be built. Over the years his skill level improved and he became a carpenter, probably playing a large role in constructing the new church building. He never learned to read or write and signed his will with an ‘X’ in 1902. Bushrod Murray In 1880, Bushrod was 21 years old and boarding in a household containing 10 people. Apparently, he earned his keep as a servant laborer. His connection to this story in the future is through a son, Lindsey. Rather mysteriously, Bushrod disappears from the census record until 1910 when he reappears still married to the same woman with whom he had seven children including Lindsey. He again disappears only to reappear in the 1930 Census still married to Martha and employed as a public school teacher. One possible explanation for these gaps is that he may have lived apart in order to find employment as a school teacher while leaving his family to be near The Community. However, the son Lindsey will carry the story forward when we again meet him in 1900. 103 Item a. 22 The Richard White Family Robert White, the 11-year old son of Richard and Fanny White, will carry the narrative forward for this family. He has three siblings and they live near William Manning, and not too far from other familiar names given above. Oddly, they live just a few doors from the Etchers, former slave owners who had boarded young Amos Norris in 1870. Later, Robert White will become a trustee and deacon of the church and reappear on the 1910 Census at age 43, married to Frances and owning a truck farm. Much later, Frances will make funeral arrangements for his interment in the SY cemetery. She, too, would be buried in the SY cemetery alongside her husband. But, that’s still more than 70 years in the future. An interesting note, the grave of Frances White is only other grave, besides Chester Sidwell, that can be exactly located in the cemetery. Burr Jones Burr becomes part of this narrative because his daughter and wife will eventually be buried in the SY Cemetery. In 1880, he was a 20 year old laborer living with a white family. He will not reappear until the 1910 Census. James Green In 1880, James Green was 24 years old and listed as a servant and works on farm. It seems he was living in a large white household along with to other blacks. Living nearby was Peyton Webb who was 17 years old. He was working on a large farm and living in the farm household consisting of 20 people including four blacks and Peyton listed as mulatto. This was on June 18th. Previously, on June 9th, Peyton was counted living at home 104 Item a. 23 with his family and listed as Landon P. Webb. We know from the 1870 Census that Landon sometimes went by Payton. All of the Webbs in the household were listed as mulatto. This double counting also happened to Fenton Tolbert on the 1880 Census. He was counted on a farm and living at home. The lost Census: 1890 A large part of the 1890 Census, including the Virginia portion, was destroyed by fire. As a result, there is a 20-year gap in information about The Community. This is unfortunate because undoubtedly much happened that could add information about The Community. The Community at the Beginning of a New Century: The Census of 1900 In the natural course of things, the older generation begins to die off and the younger generation emerges to take the lead. This appears to be true for The Community at the start of a new millennium. Memories of slavery are fading though discrimination remains strong. Familiar names in The Community move forward into the next generation and there were reasons to hope for better opportunities. Many of the old ways remained but children were being educated, houses bought and, gradually, some community members moved away to opportunities available in large cities. Soon, the world that condoned slavery would begin to seem remote and the world would be focused on new advances, such as the telephone, airplane, automobile, picture shows and the phonograph. But, these modern wonders would soon enough be tempered with the horrors of a World War and crushing collapse of prosperity brought on by the Great Depression and persistent racism. 105 Item a. 24 The Community Begins the New Century Thirty years have passed since the Norrises, Webbs, Days and Tolberts emerged from the shadow of slavery and formed their own community. Again, we’ll start with updating them followed by other familiar names. The Tolbert Family: James and Jane In 1900, James and Jane celebrated 50 years of marriage. Apparently, they were married in slave times and the 1870 census shows that three of their children, including Fenton, were born before Emancipation in 1865. Eventually, they would have 13 children with 10 surviving in 1900. The Senior Fentons lived next door to a longtime friend, Landon Webb and near Amos and Sarah Norris, also life-long friends who had been married almost a half century, if not longer. The Tolbert Family: Fenton Grows Up When we last met Fenton he was just 21 years old and making his first steps towards independence. In 1900, he was 44 years old, had been married to Nora E., 26, for six years. They had three surviving children and rented a house a few doors away from his parents. Fenton worked as a farm laborer and could not read or write though his wife could. He was a deacon and trustee of the First Baptist Church of Sycoline. In 1930, Fenton would be laid to rest in the SY cemetery near his daughter who would predecease him in 1929. Between these two deaths, Charles Norris, stepbrother of Callor Norris, was buried in the SY cemetery. They were part of The Community in life and death. 106 Item a. 25 The Webb family: Landon Sr. and Jane With the 1900 Census, we find that Landon, 60 years old, has remarried after being a widower for about 20 years. He married Jane in 1888 when she was 50 and he was 48. In 1900 they own a home with a mortgage and he worked as a whitewasher. Their house was between the Deans and the senior Tolberts and near other members of The Community. The Days are Diminished The years since 1880 must have been trying for the Days. Emanuel, Sr. had passed away and Emanuel, Jr. had married and become a widower. In 1900, he was 35 years old and lived with his mother and a brother and his family. Emanuel worked as a farm laborer along with his brother. Both could read and write. The mother, Ginnie, 65 years old, worked as a laundress along with her daughter-in-law, Juliet. Juliet could both read and write. The house they lived in was owned free and clear, with friends nearby including the Murrays who resided just a few doors away. Things will soon look up for Emanuel. He remarried in 1904, started a family, owned a farm outright and lived in the same neighborhood as many others in The Community. The Norris Family: Amos and Sarah The elder Amos Norris was 76 years old in 1900, still married to Sarah then 72 years old. The Census reveals that they were married in 1865 likely meaning that they prohibited from being legally married while enslaved. Together they had 10 children of which 7 were alive in 107 Item a. 26 1900. Living with them was a 31-year old daughter, an unemployed cook, and two grandchildren. They owned a farm free and clear and were next door neighbors with the James Carpenter family. Living nearby were the Fenton Tolberts, James Tolberts, Deans, Webbs, Gants and William Manning. Along with the new church building, The Community was moving smartly into the new century. The Norris Family: Kellor Makes His Own Way By 1900, ‘Kellor’ became ‘Callor’ and he’d moved on to the wider world but would eventually make his way back to The Community. The new century finds Callor 42 years old, single, working as a teacher in Newport, Rhode Island and boarding with a black family, a husband and wife from Virginia. By the time of the next census, Callor will have returned to The Community and become a family man, and caretaker of his aging father. The Gant Family The new century finds the Gants seemingly doing well. Fishy and Tisha had been married 25 years, owned a house free and clear and added a daughter to their two sons. All three adult children live at home. Fishy worked as a farm laborer along with his two sons. They lived near other members of The Community and Fishy was a deacon and trustee of the First Baptist Church. Neither Fishy nor his wife could read or write but all of their children could. Charles was 24 years old, still living at home and working as a farm laborer. This is the last we will hear of him except for his notice of death in 1914. He will be buried in the SY 108 Item a. 27 Cemetery and followed by his father in 1927. The sole surviving son, Jeremiah, will make the arrangements for Fishy with Slack Funeral Home. The Dean Family The 1900 Census introduced the Dean family. John H., age 46, was a widower and head- of-household with four children ranging in age from 7 to 18. He couldn’t read or write though his children could and had attended school in the past year. John owned a home with a mortgage and the next time we meet him in 1920 he will have started a whole new family. The Deans lived in a neighborhood that included the Webbs, Fenton Tolberts, and Gants. William Manning In 1900, William Manning was 64 years old and a lifelong bachelor. He had to be pleased with himself having recently donated land for the new Baptist Church on Sycolin Road and helped with the construction. He couldn’t read or write but had acquired considerable property in the Leesburg area and a lot in south Washington, D.C. Undoubtedly, he was one of the senior community leaders and a strong supporter of the church. In his will of 1903, he bequeathed three building lots on Sycolin Road to Laura, his daughter and the wife of James Carpenter (fig. 15). James was one of the original founders of the church and a longtime deacon and trustee. More information about the Carpenters will follow below. William Manning likely died before the 1910 Census. This would have been a real loss to The Community. 109 Item a. 28 The Murray Family Lindsay, the Murray who will carry this story forward, was 10 years old in 1900. He lived with his 40 year old mother, four brothers and two sisters. The mother and school age children could all read and write. The home was owned and had a mortgage. No occupation was listed for the mother, Martha, but the three oldest boys worked as farm laborers. Later on, Lindsay will have his own family, bury his wife Mary Carpenter Murray in the SY cemetery and will move away probably for economic reasons. The details will come later in the narrative. Robert White For unknown reasons, no record of Robert White is found in the 1900 Census. In 1899 he was a trustee and deacon of the Baptist Church and surely a prominent member of The Community. In 1903, he will marry Frances and they will be partners for nearly a half century. He will be counted in the 1910 Census. The James Carpenter Family From other sources, we know that James Carpenter was a founder of the First Baptist Church of Sycoline in 1884 and served for years as a trustee and deacon. However, this is the first census record of him. The 1900 Census lists him as being 35 years old, married to Laura Ann Davis, who was 32. They’d been married for 14 years and had five children. The parents could not read or write but the school age children were attending school, perhaps at the church- sponsored school. James worked as a laborer in a lime kiln along with two other members of The Community. The Carpenter’s owned a home with a mortgage and an adult daughter and a 110 Item a. 29 grandson lived with them. Next door to them was Amos Norris who was 76 years old along with wife who was a year younger. William Manning lived nearby and would bequeath three tracts of land on Sycolin Road to his daughter, Laura Carpenter, in his will dated 1903. The Carpenters will name a son, William Manning Carpenter, who was born in 1901 and apparently died in infancy. Looking ahead, the family will own a farm, perhaps the Manning gift, and remain prominent members for The Community. Sadly, James and Laura will bury an adult daughter and son named John W., a granddaughter and a son-in-law in the SY Cemetery and possibly several other children. Of interest, the Carpentry family bible contains handwritten notes about some family members. Many of the children are listed with the place of birth being Sycoline, Virginia adding credence to the notion that Sycoline, the location of the cemetery, church, school and post office, was a distinct community. Elizabeth Greenlease (Tinsley) Actually, two names were added to the list of people buried in the SY Cemetery through oral history. Elizabeth Greenlease Tinsley and her son, Frank G. Tinsley were buried in the SY Cemetery according to Hayward Johnson as told to Robert Moore and relayed to the author by Jim Roberts. All three of these gentlemen are African-American and lifelong residents of Loudoun County. In 1900, 14-year old Elizabeth Greenlease was living in a household headed by George Greenlease 50, and Hattie Greenlease 62. They’d been married 14 years and Elizabeth was listed 111 Item a. 30 as an adopted daughter. Also, living in the household was William Greenlease, 2, who was listed as a grandson. They lived close to William Manning and near to the Amos Norris family. Paul Franklin Johnson A more complete history of Paul F. Johnson can now be told thanks to information provided by one of his descendants, Ms. Stacey Archer. And, she provided the readers of this narrative the only photos of someone buried in the SY Cemetery. They are shown on the next two pages. In 1900, Paul was 13-years old and living with his parents, Frank and Lucy Johnson. There were three other siblings in the household. One of the photos is of him at about this age. Much later, Paul will marry into the Carpenter family and then encounter some very trying times. More will be detailed at the end of this study. James Green Times must have been tough for James since 1880. Apparently, he was married and then became a widower in that time. They had no children. Living nearby was William Manning and George Greenlease, both members of The Community. The Community in 1910 The Community continued to remain together in 1910 though Fenton Tolbert cannot be accounted for in the Census record. It appears that his wife died in 1901. In the next census in 1920 he will be remarried and will have started another family. In the meantime, His father had 112 Item a. 31 passed away and his mother was living with another son, William and his family. The older generation was gradually passing as the younger generation matures and asserts its place in The Community. Landon Webb, Sr.: 1839-1913 Landon was living alone in 1910 having lost his second wife, Jane, since the last Census. They were likely married 20+ years. He resided on a farm that he owned and was listed as a farmer in the census. In 1913 at the age of 74 Landon died and was buried in the SY cemetery. Funeral arrangements were made with Slack by his estate. Having been a part of The Community for his entire life it seems certain that his old friends and the younger generation would have been in attendance when he was laid to rest. The burial arrangements for Landon were one of three that were made in 1913; the earliest documented burials in the SY Cemetery. The two others were Maggie Jones Woodson, just 19 years old and Edna Murray, an infant. Hopefully, the families involved received some solace by being part of The Community. Emanuel Day Family Things are looking up for Emanuel Day: he remarried in 1904 and started a new family. His wife, Emma, was 33 years old in 1910 and Emanuel was 50. They had two boys age 6 and seven months. Emanuel worked on the family farm that they owned free and clear. Both he and his wife could read and write. They lived close to the Callor Norris family and near other members of The Community including the Whites, Deans, Gants, Murrays, Carpenters, Landon 113 Item a. 32 Webb and the William Tolbert family, brother of the seemingly absent Fenton Tolbert. It is assumed that the Days were still involved with the Baptist Church. Many years in the future, Emanuel will be laid to rest among friends at the SY cemetery, the arrangements made by his son, William. The Callor Norris Family The 1910 Census shows not only the return of Callor to The Community but that he had been married for seven years to Mary and had a son. Callor was listed as being 50 years old and working as a school teacher in the County free school. His wife was 40 years old and they owned a farm free and clear. This was probably his father’s farm since he, Amos, was an 80 year old widower and living with them. In the previous census, Amos, Sr. was listed as owning a farm. The Norris family lived just a few doors from the Emanuel Day family and close to the Whites, Deans, Gants, Murrays, Carpenters, and the elderly Landon Webb, Sr. Osborne Gant Family In the ten years that have past, the Gant’s children have moved away to be replaced by two grandchildren. Both Fishy and Tisha were 60 years old and had celebrated 30 years of marriage. They owned a farm free and clear and he was listed as a farm laborer. No one in the household could read or write. Besides living near other members of The Community, the Gant’s lived right next door to the Deans and the Whites. They too, owned farms. It will still be some time before Fishy is laid to rest in the SY cemetery. 114 Item a. 33 The John Dean Family The census shows that John had been married to Lulu since 1903 and had become stepfather to her four children. In 1910, John was 64 yeas old and Lulu was 39 years old and the census shows they also had a 1-year old boy, John Jr. A daughter, Dorothy age 4, will be laid to rest in the SY Cemetery while still a teenager. The parents could read and write as well as could all of the stepchildren. They owned their farm free and clear and lived between the Whites and the Gants and near the Callor Norris family and Emanuel Day family. Curiously, Slack records show that John Dean had made funeral arrangements for a Maggie Reid in 1910 to be buried in the SY cemetery. There is no record of an African- American or Caucasian by that name in the Census record from 1870 to 1930 in Loudoun County. William Manning: 1835-1905? This stalwart of The Community died before 1910. He was likely close to 70 years old when he passed. In his last will and testament, dated 1902, he was generous to family and friends, leaving three lots of land on Sycolin Road to his daughter, Laura Anne Carpenter, wife of James Carpenter and to the mother of Laura Anne, Eliza Davis. The witness to Manning signing his will was a white man, Sterling Murray. This may be a potentially interesting connection between The Community and the larger, white community. Murray was a farmer who lived near Manning in 1880 and 1900. In fact, in 1880, the stepfather of Elizabeth Greenlease Tinsley (see below) lived in the Murray household along with his first wife and, just two doors away, lived William Manning. Also, other familiar names lived near Murray – Norris’s, Carpenters and Gants. In 1900, Sterling Murray lived near Manning, the 115 Item a. 34 Norris’s, Webbs, Gants, Tinsleys and Tolberts. The exact nature of the relationship between Murray and The Community may never be known but it appears he was likely a trusted friend to certain members. It is not known if Manning was buried in the SY cemetery, but in his will he asked, “I commit my soul to a merciful God and my body to the earth to be decently buried.” It is hoped that he rests in the SY cemetery among family members and lifelong friends. The Murray Family Bushrod Murray is once again listed with his family in the 1910 Census and was employed as a school teacher. The family lived next door to the Carpenters and near the Days, Norrises, Gants, Deans, Whites and the widower, Landon Webb. Lindsay was 19 years old and still living at home. He could read and write and worked at odd jobs. However, later in June of 1917, when he was 26, he was required to register for the draft. The First World War was raging in Europe and the U.S. entered the War on April 6, 1917. Lindsay was apparently given a deferment because he was a father and supporting a family. Of interest to this story is the amount of information about Lindsay Clifton Murray provided by the draft card: he was born on October 24, 1889 in Little Washington, VA and was a farmhand working for Laurence Lee near Leesburg. He had a wife and four children. In the category for “Race (specify which)”, Lindsay responded, “Ethiopian.” He was described as short, with a medium build, brown eyes and black hair with no obvious disfigurements (fig. 16). In 1910, the future Mrs. Lindsay Murray was 18-year old Mary Carpenter, the daughter of James and Laura, and they lived next door to the Murray family and 19-year old Lindsay. 116 Item a. 35 Unfortunately, Lindsay and Mary Murray lost an infant daughter, Edna Marian Murray, in 1913. She was probably their first child when Lindsay was about 22 years old and Mary about 21. Sadness will follow Lindsay and he will eventually leave The Community. Robert and Frances White In 1910, the Whites are counted as a married couple having wed in 1903 in what was presumably a late blossoming love. At the time, he was 35 and she was 33 and this was the first marriage for either of them. They purchased a farm next door to the Deans and Gants and lived near all the other family families in The Community. Robert was listed as a deacon and trustee of the First Baptist Church in 1899 and likely continued his church activities. The Carpenter Family James, Laura and the children appear to be doing well in 1910. They own a farm free and clear, they can read and write and school age children had attended school. James and Laura had celebrated their 20th wedding anniversary and had welcomed a granddaughter into the household. The family remained a bulwark of The Community and that will continue through to the end of this story when they will welcome another grandchild into their household, a third generation Lindsay C. Murray. However, this event was precipitated by much sadness that will be detailed later in the Murray family saga. Elizabeth Tinsley Family Elizabeth Greenlease married a man named Tinsley in 1904 when she was about 19. By the 1910 Census, she was head of household and had a son, Frank G. 13, a daughter 4, and 117 Item a. 36 another son 4. In addition, the Census record states that she had a total of five children with three surviving. Her son, Frank, will be buried along with his mother in the SY Cemetery according to oral tradition. Elizabeth was renting a house and working as a servant for a private family. There was no listing for a Mr. Tinsely in the Census. Burr S. Jones 45-year old Burr becomes Bird in the 1910 Census. He was married to Bell D. who was 34 years old. Apparently, Burr had a previous relationship that produced Maggie, age 15, and Newton, age 8. The census listing for Bell describes her as having no children and married 0 years, probably meaning less than one year. Burr is a laborer at a lime kiln, a place where at least two other Community members had worked. The Jones family was neighbors with the Moses Webb family, son of Landon Webb. The Webb’s continued the tradition by naming one of their boys, Landon. Sadly, young Maggie Jones died in 1913 probably just after being married because she was just 18 years old at the time. She’s listed on the death certificate as Margaret Jones Woodson. A search of the census records could not identify any Woodson that could have been her husband and only her parent’s names are listed on the death certificate. The Jones family won’t be counted again until the 1930 Census. James Green 1856-1917 Things did not seem to improve for James. He remained a widower though an aunt was living with him. He worked general farm labor and she took in laundry. They lived in a largely 118 Item a. 37 white neighborhood and nearby, living in a white household, was young Lindsay Murray. He was 18 years old and listed as a hired man. James died in 1917 at age 61. His death was reported by Robert White, one of the stalwarts of The Community. Chester H. Sidwell The name that started this research quest turned out to be the most elusive. In 1910, Chester would have been 30 years old. The only census taking that finds him is in 1930. Based on that information, he would have been single in 1910 and probably working as a farm hand. He was born in Nichols County, Kentucky but his location in 1910 or 1920 could not be determined. More information will be presented with the 1930 picture of The Community. The Community at the Start of the Roaring Twenties The 1920’s were a time of unprecedented economic and technological growth for the United States. In addition, the decade will witness what became known as The Great Migration. This migration involved the relocation of more than a million African-Americans from the southern states to northern cities in search of work and in an attempt to escape racial discrimination. Viewed at the local level, The Community in 1920 appeared stable with most members owning farms or houses and going about their daily lives as they had done the previous decade (fig. 17). This would eventually change and the 1930 Census will show that The Community was slowly diminishing due to the passing of prominent members, while adult children moved away to seek better lives in places like Washington, D.C. This does not appear to be a wholesale 119 Item a. 38 migration but rather a slow attrition of members as wider social, economic and technological forces affected The Community. Life in small town American would forever change by the end of the 1920’s with the Great Depression and with World War II, there was no turning back. Tolbert Family Ida (Tolbert) Day: 1902-1929 Fenton Tolbert returns to the 1920 Census having become a widower in 1901 and was missing from the 1910 Census. For a time, it appeared that things were looking up for Fenton. In 1920, he was remarried to a woman named, Harriet. He was 64 and she was 57. Living in the same household was a married daughter, Ida Day, who was 18 years old. If Ida was their natural daughter, Harriet would have been about 39 years old when the baby was born. Regardless of parentage, Ida and her husband, Richard Day lived with the Tolberts. The farm was owned free and clear and nestled between the Callor Norris family and the Lindsey Murray family. Two doors away was the James Carpenter family. Also living nearby were the Whites, Days and Deans. A few months before the start of the Great Depression, in May of 1929, 27-year old Ida Day was laid to rest in the SY cemetery. Fenton passed away in December 1930 at the age of 74 and joined his daughter in the SY cemetery. This marked the passing of another stalwart of The Community and leader of the First Baptist Church. Two other church leaders were already buried in the SY cemetery, Landon Webb and Fishy Gant. 120 Item a. 39 Landon Webb, Sr.: 1839 - 1913 The Day Family Emanuel, Emma and their two boys remained part of The Community. They owned a farm and lived near the Carpenters, Norris’, Tolberts, Murrays and Whites. The Callor Norris Family Amos Norris, Sr.: 1829-1912? Mary B. Norris: 1870-1923 By 1920, Amos Norris, Sr., Callor’s stepfather had passed away. In the previous census, Amos was 80 years old and living with Callor and his wife and teenage son. With the death of Amos Norris, Sr., a direct link to African-American life before Emancipation, and the genesis and growth of The Community was lost. Both Callor and Mary were listed as teachers in public school and 16-year old Carlton attended school. All three were listed as being mulatto, a change from the 1910 listing as being black. They were still very much a part of the Community living between the Carpenters and the Tolberts and one house away from the Murrays. Mary B. Norris, wife of Callor and mother of Carlton, passed away in 1923 at the age of 53. She was laid to rest in the SY cemetery though arrangements made with Slack by Callor. 121 Item a. 40 By the 1930 Census, Callor had moved to Washington, D.C. Perhaps the Great Depression caused this relocation. But, he will briefly return to Leesburg to bury another family member in the SY cemetery. The Gant Family Osborne ‘Fishy’ Gant: 1849 – 1927 There is some confusion about the final years of Osborne ‘Fishy’ Gant. Slack records have Jeremiah, Fishy’s son, as making funeral arrangements on March 21, 1927. Fishy would have been about 78 years old at the time. Yet, the 1920 Census lists a household that has to be the Gant household but Tisha, who was Fishy’s wife, was listed as a widow. Also, in the household was the bachelor son, Jerry and a married daughter with a child of her own. Jerry was listed in the Slack records as making the funeral arrangements for his father. In 1920, the remaining Gants were still very much a part of The Community. Living in a row were the Gants, Murrays, Tolberts, Norrises and Carpenters. By 1930, Jerry Gant, age 55, was residing in Washington, D.C. living in a boarding house with Callor Norris. Jerry was a bachelor and working as a railroad porter. Callor was 65 years old, a widower and working for the U.S. government as a messenger. Apparently, they made their own small community in a town full of strangers. The Dean Family Dorothy Dean: 1906-1925 In 1920, John Dean’s second family was apparently doing fine. He was 63 years old, his second wife, Lulu was 48, a daughter, Dorothy was 14, John Jr. was 11 and the twin boys were 8 122 Item a. 41 years old. John Sr. was a farm laborer and Lulu was a cook for a private family. The two older children could read and write. So could Lulu but John, Sr. could not read. Unfortunately, mid-decade would bring tragedy to the Dean family. Funeral arrangements were made for 19-year old Dorothy on January 3, 1925 by John Dean, Sr. He was about 71 years old at the time. By 1930, Junior was married and had moved to the Jefferson District of Loudoun County. He worked as a laborer for the State Roads. The Lindsay Murray Family Mary Carpenter Murray: 1893 -1922 In 1920, the Murrays owned a farm next door to the Tolberts and Gants, and were neighbors to the Norrises, Carpenters, Whites and Days. Both husband and wife could read and write, and the two oldest children had attended school. Lindsay was listed as being 30 years old and his wife, Mary 27. He’d been exempt from military service in World War I because of being married and having four children. Apparently, Mary died in childbirth though the boy, named Lindsay, survived. He will be found living in his grandparents’ home, James and Laura Carpenter, by the next census in 1930. According to Slack records, Lindsay made funeral arrangements for his wife, Mary, on February 16, 1922 to be buried in the SY cemetery. Grief, economic necessity or both pushed Lindsay to move to Washington, D.C. and start a new life. By 1930, he will be remarried to another Mary and living with three stepchildren. The children’s last name was Ashton. No earlier Census listing could be found for a Mary Ashton so possibly the children were simply taken in or Mary’s children or they were simply missed in previous census enumerations. 123 Item a. 42 Robert and Frances White Robert was 53 years old and Frances 54 years old in 1920. They lived on a farm and were paying off a mortgage. Robert was listed as a truck farmer. Of the 11 adjacent households on the census listing page, they are the only African-American family. But, on the next census page are listed familiar names of the Community – Carpenters, Norrises, Tolberts, and the Murrays. On the next page, the Emanuel Day family was listed. The James Carpenter Family James was 54 in 1920 and the family lived on a farm owned free and clear. Of the five children living at home, the two older boys probably worked the farm with their father. The 1910 Census lists the parents as being able to read and write. However, the 1920 Census lists them as unable to read and write. All of the children could read and write. The Carpenters likely continued to be a positive force for The Community. They lived in a row alongside the Norrises, Tolberts, and Whites and near the Days. Not far away was the Dean family. Surely, they needed their support dealing with the death of Mary Carpenter Murray in 1922 that was preceded by the death of Mary’s infant daughter and James and Laura’s granddaughter in 1913. Both mother and daughter were buried in the SY Cemetery. Elizabeth Tinsley Family In 1920, Elizabeth and her four children had moved to a farm owned by the widowed stepfather, George Greenlease. Elizabeth, Lizzie in the Census, was 38, a widow and listed as a 124 Item a. 43 housekeeper, probably for her stepfather. Her oldest son, Frank 22, was a farm laborer undoubtedly working on the family farm. Three other Tinsely children lived in the household. Typical of members of The Community, the Tinsleys were neighbors to familiar names: Days, Carpenters, Norrises, Tolberts, Murrays, Gants and Whites. The 1930 Census: The Great Depression The full force of the Great Depression had struck the entire nation by census taking time in Leesburg, VA in May. Some members of The Community had probably left in search of work. Jeremiah Gant was living in a Washington, D.C. rooming house along with Callor Norris. Also, Lindsay Murray had moved his family to the District. A prominent member of The Community would pass away in 1930 as would a lesser known member. The 1930 Census is the latest publicly available census. Consequently, the information below will be the final accounting of The Community for this story. The Tolbert Family Fenton Tolbert: 1856-1930 In the year 1930, family tragedy continued for the Tolberts. Their married daughter, Ida Day, had passed the previous year. Then, about eight months after the census taker visited the Tolberts, Fenton passed away at the age of 74. He left behind his second wife, Harriet, and a 16- year old grandson who was living with them. The census listed Fenton as being a laborer of odd jobs and Harriet as a laundress at home. The family was still a part of The Community and had rented a house near the Carpenters, Whites, Deans and the Bushrod Murrays. Fenton was laid to 125 Item a. 44 rest in the SY cemetery to be near his daughter and other members of The Community and the church. The Norris Family Mary 53, passed away in 1923 and by 1930, the widower, Callor Norris had relocated to Washington, D.C. Their only child, Carlton would have been about 26 years old. He was not listed on the census for 1930 and his whereabouts could not be determined. Fortunately, Callor found work as a messenger for the U.S. Government and was living in the same rooming house as Jerry Gant. A little bit of The Community reunited in the big city. Charles Norris: 1871-1930 Slack records list Callor Norris as making funeral arrangements for Charles Norris on January 5, 1930. The only census record for Charles Norris was in 1880 when he was listed as the 9-year old stepbrother to Callor, then 20 years old. That’s the extent of information found about Charles. The Dean Family By 1930, John Dean was 73 and his wife, Lulu was 57 years old. They owned a house valued at $3,000 and lived not too far from the Carpenters, Tolberts, and Murrays. In the third decade of the twentieth century, the Census had John was listed as working as a laborer in a lime quarry. Other members of The Community were working at the place. The census records one of James Carpenter’s sons and Landon Webb’s grandson as working in the same quarry. 126 Item a. 45 Robert and Frances White Robert White: 1872-1952 Frances White: 1874-1954 The exact location of her grave has been marked in the SY cemetery by the author. Robert’s grave is presumed to be immediately next to Frances and was also marked by the author. These two graves are set somewhat apart from the others. In 1930, the Whites were the only family in The Community to own a radio. Apparently, this meant that they were financially secure despite the poor economy. They owned a farm valued at $2,500 and Frances took in laundry to help support the family. The census listed a 13-year old son, Albert Nokes, as living with them. The Whites must have adopted Albert but there was not any record of him in the 1920 Census nor was there any Nokes who might have been family. However the adoption came about, it was surely helpful to the childless couple to gain an extra hand for the farm chores. Albert had attended school and could read and write like his adoptive parents. The James Carpenter Family and an Unexpected Addition As previously described, Mary Carpenter Murray died in childbirth in 1922. A boy named Lindsay survived. The 1930 Census shows this child living in the Carpenter household, a sad though surely much loved addition. The Carpenters appeared to be weathering the Great Depression fairly well. They owned a farm with two of their three sons helping on the farm and living at home. The third son lived at home, too, but worked as a laborer in a lime quarry, probably alongside the elder John Dean. Also working at the quarry as a laborer was Landon Webb, son of Moses Webb and grandson of 127 Item a. 46 the elder Landon Webb. In the 1910 Census, Burr Jones was also working at the quarry. It seems that the quarry likely provided employment for other members of The Community. Also, Laura and her daughter took in laundry at home. The family lived near other members of The Community including the Tolberts, Whites and the Bushrod Murrays. The John Dean family was not far away. Burr S. Jones Family In 1930, Burr was 65 years old and we find out that Bell, his wife, is short for Isibel. She was 55 years old and working as a laundress at home. Burr continued to work as a laborer. Perhaps leaving some of their sadness behind, they now have a 14-year old daughter, Eliza E. Jones. Bell would have been 41 years old when they received this surprise. They were neighbors with the Carpenter family, and Fenton Tolbert along with his wife, Harrot (Harriet). He was 78 years old and she 68 years old. Also, they lived near a white family consisting of Daniel Hagins, his wife and daughter, Otie Drake. See the Sidwell family narrative below for more information on these folks. The 1940 Census was not available to the public when this narrative was first completed. However, it is now and helps identify another person interred in the SY Cemetery. The Slack records list a Sarah Isabel Jones who died in 1959. The 1940 Census lists a widow, Sarah Jones, age 62, as head of household living with three grandchildren ages 1, 3 and 6. She responded, “yes” to living on a farm. Nearby, are James and Laura Carpenter and Robert and Frances White, original members of The Community. All of these lifelong friends were in their 70’s. 128 Item a. 47 The Sidwell Family Chester H. Sidwell: 1876-1946 The quest to identify members of The Community began with the chance finding of the headstone marking the grave of Chester Sidwell in the SY cemetery. It was the only permanent headstone in the cemetery and was finely chiseled with this information: Chester H. Sidwell Feb. 22, 1876 Dec. 13, 1946 This headstone was the only tangible direct link to The Community. Indirectly, Chester Sidwell was listed in the Slack records with the funeral arrangements being made by his wife, Nellie. It was quite likely that he was either connected to the First Baptist Church or somehow knew members of The Community. Chester was born in Kentucky and his wife, Nellie, was born in Tennessee. In 1930, Chester was 52 years old and Nellie was 29. They had an infant son, Chester, Jr., who was born in Virginia. There is no record of Chester, Sr. in earlier Census records. In 1930 the family rented a house and Chester worked as a farm laborer and Nellie was employed as a cook for a private family. Both could read and write. More is known about Chester from a 1942 draft registration card. It lists Chester as being 62 years old, born in Nichols County, Kentucky, married to Nellie Sidwell of Leesburg, VA and working for a white woman, Mrs. Otie Drake, also of Leesburg (fig. 18). 129 Item a. 48 In 1920 Otie was single, 27 years old and living with her parents on a farm in the Leesburg District near the Days, Whites, Carpenters, Norrises, Tolberts, and the Lindsay Murray family. By 1930, Otie had been married and widowed and was back living with her parents on their farm near the Carpenters, Tolberts, Whites and the Bushrod Murray family. Otie was listed as teaching at a private school. By 1942, when Otie employed Chester Sidwell, both of her parents were dead and she probably was the sole owner of their farm. Very likely, both the Hagins/Drakes and Chester and Nellie Sidwell were formerly connected somehow back in Kentucky and Tennessee. Daniel Hagins’ mother and Otie’s grandmother were born in Virginia but had moved to Kentucky. While it is pure speculation, land inheritance or a family connection through Otie’s grandmother may have been the lure to bring them to Loudoun County, VA. None of that directly connects Chester or Nellie Sidwell to The Community. The headstone in the SY cemetery is the only true link confirmed by the paper record kept by Slack. Elizabeth and Frank Tinsley Both of these names are missing from the 1930 Census. No more is known about them expect burial in the SY cemetery by oral tradition. However, Elizabeth’s stepfather, George Greenlease, was still alive though 80 years old. Living with him was Harriet Tinsley 17 and Julia Tinsley 7. Harriet was listed as a daughter of Elizabeth in the 1920 Census but is listed as a niece of George Greenlease in 1930. Julia, likely another daughter of Elizabeth, was also listed as a niece in the 1930 Census. 130 Item a. 49 Two More for the SY Cemetery Charles Norris: 1871-1930 Slack records list Callor Norris as making funeral arrangements for Charles Norris on January 5, 1930. The only census record for Charles Norris was in 1880 when he was listed as the 9 year old stepbrother to Callor, then 20 years old. That’s the extent of information found about Charles. Paul Johnson: 1903-1947 The only census record of a Paul Johnson living anywhere near Leesburg was in 1930. There was a listing for a 27 year old black male named Paul Johnson and lodging on a farm in the Leesburg Magisterial District. He could read and write and worked as a general farm laborer. Apparently, Paul married Anna, daughter of James and Laura Carpenter, sometime in the early 1930’s when he was about 45 years old and Anna about 31 years old. In 1933 they had a boy named, Paul Johnson, named after his father. It appears tragedy was soon to follow because by 1940, Anne and Paul, Jr. are living with back home with her father and mother, James and Laura Carpenter. It seems as if Paul, Sr. became seriously ill and was committed to the Central State Hospital far from Leesburg in Dinwiddie County, VA where he died from tuberculosis in 1947. Anna was listed as Paul’s wife on the death certificate and she made arrangements for burial in Leesburg using Slack Funeral Home. 131 Item a. 50 The End Name Variations Sometimes census takers relied on people to spell their names if the pronunciation was unusual or the word hard to understand. Given that many of the people in this story were illiterate, some confusion in the spelling of names would be expected. Below, are name variations found in the Census records for some members of The Community: Osborne “Fishy” Gant Family There were four variations on the spelling of the first name of Fishy Gant’s wife. In 1880 she was Tisha. In 1900, she was Lydia, in 1910 Lathisa and in 1920, Tina. The Census records support the fact that all of these names belong to Fishy’s wife of more than 30 years. Callor Norris In 1880, a Kellor Norris was listed in the Census. By 1900, it was changed to Callor and remained that way for the 1910 Census and 1930. The 1920 Census lists his name as, Callar. Fenton Tolbert Fenton’s last name had several spellings beginning with ‘Tolbert’ in 1870 and ending in 1930 with the same spelling. But, in 1880 it was ‘Talbert’; in 1900 ‘Talbot’; and in 1920 ‘Tolbott’. His first name, Fenton, was the constant. Lindsay Murray 132 Item a. 51 In 1900, Lindsay was spelled Lindsey. By 1910 it was Lindsay and the same for the 1930 Census and on his draft registration card. In 1920 it was spelled, Linsey. Special Recognition The author used the Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, VA for researching local history and on-line access to U.S. Census records. It is an excellent resource for researching topics about Leesburg, Loudoun County and Virginia. Mary Fishback, Library Assistant, was most helpful throughout the research phase of this project and provided the names that prompted the 2013 updating of the narrative. Special thanks to Mr. Jim Roberts, a resident of Leesburg and a person who is very knowledgeable about the local African-American community and town history. Mr. Roberts provided encouragement as well as his extensive knowledge of local history. As always, my wife, Susanne, provided encouragement and had final editorial control over the readability of this paper. The SY Cemetery in 2011 At the completion of this story in May 2011, the continued survival of the SY cemetery is uncertain even though it is located on publically owned land. Though none of the individuals identified in the graves gained significant historical prominence beyond their local community, the cemetery should receive fitting recognition for its representation of a unique historical and cultural tradition of an African-American community. Also, preservation of the SY Cemetery should be done for several other important reasons: it has all of the characteristics of a traditional African-American cemetery; it is a bona-fide cemetery and demands preservation as would any 133 Item a. 52 other cemetery; the identified dead were part of a community long since dispersed but represent a certain class of African-Americans living in the south from the Civil War to the Great Depression. They formed their own community, founded a church and a school, and peacefully blended with the larger white community at a time of great racial and economic turmoil. The author has corresponded with senior Town staff and given them a tour of the SY Cemetery. The existence and significance of the cemetery was conveyed to Town staff along with a request that the Town provide for preservation of the site. Also, a small group of Leesburg residents and the author offered to provide volunteer labor for the preservation effort if the Town lacks the resources. [The author has an advanced degree and professional experience in managing and preserving historical resources.] Thus far, preservation of the SY Cemetery has not moved forward. The author hopes that by publishing this paper, there will be heightened awareness of the need for action to publically recognize and preserve the SY Cemetery for future generations. The SY Cemetery in 2013 The updating of this narrative was completed in August of 2013 and the fate of the SY Cemetery is very much in doubt. It’s been more than a year since Jim Roberts kindly offered to help with a clean-up. We spent a Saturday removing debris. Jim used his chainsaw to cut up fallen trees and I tossed the chunks outside the cemetery. Neither one of us are young and Jim is probably 10 years older than me. I periodically use one of my lunch time walks to check on the cemetery. Many more trees have fallen though all of the grave stakes remain intact. Besides neglect, the real threat is continued development. Since 2011, a 500 car commuter parking lot has opened nearby and a large, lighted privately owned soccer complex 134 Item a. 53 now sits within eyes sight of the cemetery. The Town of Leesburg has yet to determine the re- alignment of Sycolin Road and The County will soon be constructing a segment of four lane highway, Crosstrails Boulevard. That portion will cut across Boland Park east to west and stop at the east side of the commuter lot until the Town decides on the re-alignment of Sycolin Road. The convergence of these two road projects may spell doom for the SY Cemetery. The author can be reached at: grayshopcat@gmail.com 135 Item a. 1 “They Were a Community of African-Americans in Leesburg, VA, 1870-1930” This is a brief account of my discovery of an African-American cemetery and an anonymous community that began in slave times and lasted through the 1950’s. Their story would probably not have been told if it weren’t for a chance discovery of a single granite headstone in a tangle of woods during one of my lunchtime walks. That’s because the individuals that made up that community and who were buried in that forgotten cemetery were unremarkable to the outside world. However, to each other they likely represented the heroic struggle to emerge from slavery and succeed socially and economically when their best efforts were often met with overt hostility. All shared bonds of family, friends, neighborhood, a church, and the experience of growing up black or mulatto and living in a small southern town within a rural farming county where there were constant reminders of slavery. Even today, a statue of a larger- than-life Confederate soldier stands guard in front of the County courthouse in the center of Leesburg. The community had no formal name as far as can be determined. Over time they’d found a church, open a private school, establish a cemetery, open a post office and were surely a source of comfort and support to each other in good times and bad. The common thread was a connection to the First Baptist Church of Sycoline and/or some connection to a now forgotten cemetery hidden in the woods near the church, but separate from church property. Of the six men who were deacons and trustees when the present church was built in 1899, all were buried in the cemetery and/or had family members buried there. Many folks were also neighbors or lived near each other starting with Emancipation and continuing until possibly as late as the 1950’s. 136 Item a. 2 According to the 1860 U.S. Census there were 5,501 slaves and 1,252 free blacks and mulattos in Loudoun County. None of the names that eventually comprise this particular community are listed on this Census. They were likely slaves and therefore were not counted by name or, if free, they were overlooked by census takers. There was one tiny glimmer of information from slave times that may hint at the beginnings of the community. In the 1860 Slave Census for the southern district of Loudoun County, a John F. Lynn owned 10 slaves. While the ages, sex and color of these slaves was provided, there is no indication of their familial relationships. However, based on subsequent information one can speculate that two slaves who were to become members of the community, can be tentatively identified: a one-year old black male is perhaps Amos Norris; and a 21 year old black female may be his mother, Sarah Norris. The Norris’s and the other names that eventually make up the community begin appearing with the 1870 Census. At least twenty families were eventually documented as being part of this community and, of the total, 42 individuals are likely buried in the cemetery. It’s been more than a decade since a single headstone caught my attention while hiking in the woods off Sycolin Road on public land just south of Leesburg. In the years since my discovery, the immediate area has changed dramatically with the development of a huge County park, construction of 500 car commuter parking lot, construction of a large privately owned soccer complex and currently being constructed, is a divided four lane highway. Also planned for an adjacent property is construction of a Mosque and the Town is considering realignment of Sycolin Road to accommodate expansion of the Leesburg Airport. This potential realignment is the most likely threat to the cemetery besides benign neglect. Why should this particular cemetery be preserved? After all, when they are in the way of progress, cemeteries get moved or destroyed, or they’re just simply forgotten and eventually 137 Item a. 3 disappear from sight. In particular, traditional African-American cemeteries are lost or destroyed because they do not follow the western model of creating a delineated and formally decorated place to bury the dead. In traditional African-American cemeteries it was common that there were no permanent grave markers. Instead, importance was placed on the burial ground as a whole rather than on the single precise burial spot. If there was a marker, a simple fieldstone or piece of wood sufficed. The community rather than the individual was accorded significance. The traditional African-American cemetery, much like any community, had a random arrangement. Graves of family and friends were placed in locations and groupings that suited them though individual graves were usually oriented on an east-west axis. While this is considered a Christian tradition some think that African-Americans also wanted to be pointing east toward Africa when laid to rest. Being near a water feature was important, too. The notion was that the spirit could follow the water to the ocean and eventually return home to Africa. Formal landscaping was not part of the burial tradition though flowers and greenery were sometimes planted as decoration. The forgotten cemetery in the Leesburg woods has all of these characteristics: there is no formal landscaping; markers were temporary except for one formal headstone and a small field stone marker; there’s evidence that flowers and talismans adorned several graves and some were decorated with non-native ground cover; graves are oriented length-wise on an east-west axis and they seem to have been deliberately arranged in groups probably because of family connections. Each group is roughly in a row or rows and the groups appear to be randomly placed in the cemetery. There is a creek just to the east of the cemetery. The place is 138 Item a. 4 anonymous, overlooked, and is gradually being destroyed due to weather and unknowing neglect, and may be overtly threatened by future plans to extend the airport runway. Preservation of the cemetery should be done because it is a bona-fide cemetery with all of the characteristics of a traditional African-American cemetery. More importantly, it is likely the largest traditional African-American cemetery known and should be preserved for its unique historic importance. Additionally, the identified dead were part of a community long since dispersed but represent a certain class of African-Americans living in the south from the Civil War to the Great Depression. They formed their own community, founded a church and a school, and peacefully interacted with the larger white community at a time of great racial and economic turmoil. This too, is worthy of further study. I guess you are probably wondering how I discovered the cemetery and identified about half of those people buried there? It started around 2005, when Loudoun County purchased 500 acres of undeveloped land just outside the Town limits near the Leesburg Airport. Some of the land would eventually become Boland Park, some would be used for he construction of a four lane divided highway, some for a large commuter parking lot and some for future construction of government buildings. But, before all of that it was abandoned farmland and woods and a great place to hike. Fortunately, my office was nearby and I spent nearly every lunch hour exploring the property. What I didn’t know at the time was that the Town owned several acres abutting Sycolin Road adjacent to the County property. The area is primarily dense woods with no property markers dividing County land from Town. However, it all looks pretty much the same to the casual hiker. It was on Town property, literally a stones throw from County property, that I found the granite headstone of Chester 139 Item a. 5 Sidwell and discovered 41 other unmarked depressions. For many months afterwards, I spent my lunch breaks clearing away overgrowth and natural clutter. Amid the debris that had accumulated in some of the depressions I found a number of temporary grave markers. Each marker was a 4”X6” pressed sheet iron rectangle with a glass insert (usually gone) on a 14” attached metal post for anchoring in the ground. They were impressed with patent dates of 1925 and 1927. To me that meant that most of the burials had to have been after 1927 and probably before 1946 when Chester Sidwell was buried. Subsequently, I determined that the last burial in the cemetery may have been in 1959. In what seemed an improbable discovery, among the temporary markers I’d found, two had fragments of paper still intact and legible. One had the handwritten date of 1939 and the other 1954. These two lone fragments, along with the headstone, provided just enough potential information with which to get a start in my research quest. The three names that I’d found – Chester Sidwell on the headstone and ‘Dean’ and ‘White’ from the paper fragments – all pointed to an initial conclusion: this was an African-American cemetery. My early research eventually identified 15 of the people who are likely buried there. This was made possible because on the two paper fragments was a printed name, “Slack.” Lloyd Slack was an undertaker and licensed embalmer in Leesburg. The company kept records of names and dates for funeral arrangements and some of Slack’s records are now in the collection of the Thomas Balch Library in Leesburg. The names of two other people probably buried there, were later obtained from oral history and, several years later, six more names would be added for a total of 21. It’s likely that further research could identify all of the people buried in the cemetery but I’ll leave that to others. 140 Item a. 6 It’s with some ambivalence that I’ve promoted preservation of the cemetery. Traditional African-American cemeteries were meant to be anonymous to the larger white world and were to be held closely by those in the African-American community. Through my research I’ve come to know, in some measure, those buried in the cemetery and their families. I can’t help but feel that it was meant to be a sacred, separate place for them to bury their dead and probably not meant to be a space for the general public. But, without recognition it will surely disappear and this would be a terrible loss. What I’d like to have happen is formal agreement by the Town of Leesburg that the cemetery will not be disturbed. Preservation, as I envision it, would be minimal involving periodic clean up such as removal of downed trees and dense undergrowth, control measures to prevent erosion and, most importantly, documenting the location of each grave. The cemetery could also be used to teach about little know African-American traditions and include an overview of race relations in Leesburg from slave times to today. For this I’d like to see an interpretive hiking trail with one of the waypoints being a viewing stand built a short distance from the cemetery where hikers can view the cemetery but not intrude on the grounds. Before closing, I want to give special recognition to Jim Roberts who provided invaluable support to my research and greatly helped in the clean up of the cemetery. Also, Mary Fishback, provided assistance and guidance during my research and gave much needed encouragement. Now, if there’s time, I can answer questions. 141 Item a. Date of Council Meeting: April 12, 2021 TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Subject: Town of Round Hill’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Staff Contact: Susan Berry Hill, Director of Planning and Zoning Council Action Requested: On November 23, 2020, Council requested a presentation from a representative of the Town of Round Hill on their Accessory Dwelling Unit Zoning Ordinance. Melissa Hynes, Town Administrator for Round Hill, will provide the presentation to Council. Staff Recommendation: None. Commission Recommendation: Not applicable. Fiscal Impact: None. Work Plan Impact: None. Executive Summary: In a work session on November 23, 2020, Council discussed the topic of affordable housing. During a discussion on the different types of affordable housing, staff noted that some communities have amended their zoning ordinances to allow for accessory dwelling units. It was also noted that the Town of Round Hill recently adopted an amendment to their zoning ordinance to allow for accessory dwelling units. As such, Council requested that a representative from the Town of Round Hill attend a future work session to explain their ordinance provisions. Background: A request was made by Council at their work session on November 23, 2020 to learn more about the Town of Round Hill’s Zoning Ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. These are residential rental units that are either attached to a primary structure, or separate and subordinate to a primary structure. These ADU units can make homeownership more affordable by providing a revenue stream to the homeowner from the rental unit. The Round Hill Zoning Ordinance has two definitions for ADU’s. EXTERIOR ACCESSORY APARTMENT: an independent dwelling unit, the presence and use of which is clearly subordinate to a single-family detached dwelling and in which no more than three (3) persons reside. It does not share a common wall, ceiling or floor with the main house. Examples of this type of apartment include a smaller structure in the rear yard or a unit above a detached garage. INTERIOR ACCESSORY APARTMENT: an independent dwelling unit, the presence and use of which is clearly subordinate to a single-family detached dwelling and in which no more than three (3) persons reside. It is contained within the structure of a single-family dwelling. It will 142 Item b. Round Hill Accessory Dwelling Units April 12, 2021 Page 2 share a common wall, ceiling or floor with the main house. Examples include basement apartments, attic units and apartments within an addition attached to the primary residence. Staff notes that the Town of Leesburg currently has a similar provision in the Zoning Ordinance called the Extended Family Residence which is an option in the R-4, R-6 and R-8 districts. It is a permitted use when all use standards are met. If the use standards cannot be met, the applicant can seek approval though a special exception application. It was intended to be used to allow relatives of the homeowner to live in the accessory unit, but could be extended to non-relatives through approval of a special exception. For full information about accessory Dwelling units click on the following link: https://www.roundhillva.org/planning-zoning/pages/accessory-apartment-information 143 Item b. 4/1/2021 Accessory Apartment Information | Round Hill VA https://www.roundhillva.org/planning-zoning/pages/accessory-apartment-information 1/6 Search   Home ›› Departments ›› Planning & Zoning Accessory Apartment Information What is an Accessory Apartment? An accessory apartment is a separate living unit located on a residential lot with an existing single-family dwelling. An accessory apartment includes one or more rooms used to provide living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation, located within a single-family dwelling (interior apartment) or in a detached structure on the same property (exterior apartment). Accessory apartments are subordinate in size to the primary dwelling and may be used as accessory homestays, rental units, family-caregiver suites, private recreation spaces or guest houses/rooms. How do I know whether I can develop an Accessory Apartment? Review the Accessory Apartment Ordinance, Article 25.3.1 and Article 25.3.2 of the Round Hill Zoning Ordinance, and check below for Accessory Apartment Standards. You can also call the Town Ofce to speak with the Staff regarding specic regulations that may apply to your pro- ject, as well as other options that are available to you to help you achieve your goal. Is there a fee?  Government Residents Business How Do I 144 Item b. 4/1/2021 Accessory Apartment Information | Round Hill VA https://www.roundhillva.org/planning-zoning/pages/accessory-apartment-information 2/6 Fees may vary depending on your project. Check the current Fee Schedule for additional information. Zoning Application Fee: Accessory Structures < 200 square feet - $25.00 Accessory Structures > 200 square feet - $100.00 Water/Sewer Fees: (if applicable) Water Extension - $250 (contractor completes the work) Sewer Extension - $500 (contractor completes the work) Can I legalize an existing apartment? Yes! The Town will work with property owners to legalize existing accessory apartments. Anyone with an existing apartment is encouraged to reach out to the Town Ofce to determine the best course of action. All accessory apartments must comply with all ordinances and safety codes. How do I report an illegal apartment? If you would like to anonymously report an illegal apartment, you can do so by calling the Town Ofce at 540-338-7878 or by submitting a Zoning Complaint Form to the Zoning Administrator at PO Box 36, Round Hill VA, 20142. Why is “intended use” important? Identifying the intended use of an accessory apartment will help the Town determine addi- tional permits and fees required for you to legally operate your apartment. What is the application process? Before you Apply Read the Accessory Apartment Ordinance (Article 25.3.1 and Article 25.3.2 of the Round Hill Zoning Ordinance) to learn what you’ll need to ensure a successful project. Call the Town Ofce with any questions specic to your project prior to submittal 145 Item b. 4/1/2021 Accessory Apartment Information | Round Hill VA https://www.roundhillva.org/planning-zoning/pages/accessory-apartment-information 3/6 Step 1: Application Packet The following documents must be included in your Accessory Apartment application packet (as applicable). Payments can be made to The Town of Round Hill and all applications can be submitted via mail to PO Box 36, Round Hill, VA 20142 or dropped off at the Town Ofce at 23 Main St., Round Hill. Zoning/Land Use application (include fee payment) Current plat of existing property with placement and footprint of the accessory apartment (internal or external) and proposed water/sewer lines drawn (if applicable) Construction or design plans for your accessory apartment Water/Sewer application (if applicable) Accessory Apartment Permit Application Includes signed certication of understanding of ZO §25.3.1 and §25.3.2 Step 2: Review Process Staff will review your packet for completeness and the Zoning Administrator will make a nal determination of your application. Please allow up to two weeks for the review process Staff will issue a determination letter which will allow you to apply for a county building permit Step 3: Building Please refer to the Loudoun County Building & Development Ofce for guidelines on how to apply for necessary permits and inspections related to construction Step 4: Certicate of Occupancy After all work is completed and nal inspections have occurred, you must le for a Certicate of Occupancy through the Town. A County Occupancy Permit may also be necessary if County building permits were required. Step 5: Business License (if necessary) Depending on your intended use, you may need to apply for a Town Business License to legally operate your accessory apartment. Please contact the Town Ofce at 540-338- 7878 for additional information. 146 Item b. 4/1/2021 Accessory Apartment Information | Round Hill VA https://www.roundhillva.org/planning-zoning/pages/accessory-apartment-information 4/6 What is the renewal process? Accessory apartments applications must be renewed each year. On or around July 1 you will re- ceive a letter from the Town notifying you of a deadline for renewal. A renewal application will be included with the letter. Fill out the application accordingly and return to the Town Ofce before the deadline. Accessory Apartment Standards*: Only one accessory apartment (interior or exterior) is allowed per property The property owner must occupy either the principle dwelling unit or the accessory apartment as their primary residence Not more than three (3) persons can live in an accessory apartment Interior apartments must be contained completely within the primary residence and must maintain the character of a Single-Family Home Exterior apartments (located in a detached structure on the same property as a SFH) shall utilize complimentary design elements and shall be secondary to the primary residence both in size and scale *Additional standards apply, please see RHZO §25.3.1 and §25.3.2 for a complete outline of guidelines and requirements* Resources: Round Hill Zoning Ordinance Accessory Apartment Application Zoning/Land Development Application Residential Building Public Water & Sewer Application Zoning Fees Loudoun County Building & Development Ofce Round Hill Business License Application 147 Item b. 4/1/2021 Accessory Apartment Information | Round Hill VA https://www.roundhillva.org/planning-zoning/pages/accessory-apartment-information 5/6 Accessory Apartment Information Land Planning & Zoning Documents Special Zoning Districts Subdivision & Land Development Ordinance Zoning Complaint Form Zoning Fees Zoning Ordinance Contact Info Phone: (540) 338-7878 Address: Planning & Zoning 23 Main Street Round Hill, VA 20141 United States See map: Google Maps Key Contacts Danni Albright (540) 338-7878 Projects & Initiatives  148 Item b. 4/1/2021 Accessory Apartment Information | Round Hill VA https://www.roundhillva.org/planning-zoning/pages/accessory-apartment-information 6/6 The Town of Round Hill 23 Main Street, Round Hill, VA 20141 M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM Town Ofce: (540) 338-7878 Utility Department: (540) 338-4772 Water & Sewer After-Hour Emergencies: (540) 454-1975 Contact Us Disclaimer Government Websites by CivicPlus® Login Consumer Water Report FOIA 149 Item b. Date of Council Meeting: April 12, 2021 TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Subject: Affordable Housing Staff Contact: Susan Berry Hill, Director of Planning and Zoning Council Action Requested: At their March 9, 2021 meeting, Council requested a work session discussion on affordable housing with a particular focus on “workforce housing”, and how this issue is being addressed in the draft Legacy Leesburg Town Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council provide general guidance on the topic of affordable housing in regards to how this issue should be addressed in the Legacy Leesburg Town Plan. Commission Recommendation: On April 1, 2021, the Planning Commission held a general discussion on the five Guiding Principles that are provided in the draft Legacy Leesburg Town Plan. The Guiding Principle for housing and neighborhoods is noted below. There were mixed opinions on whether affordability should be an issue that is addressed by the Town with some members of the Commission feeling that it is the responsibility of the ‘market’ to provide affordable housing, and other Commissioners expressing the opinion that the Town should play a more active role in addressing the issue of affordable housing. The Commission will have a more in-depth discussion of affordable housing when they discuss the housing and neighborhoods chapter of the Draft in May. Fiscal Impact: None identified at this time. Work Plan Impact: The Planning Commission will discuss affordable housing in the context of the Legacy Leesburg Town Plan at a work session in May. Executive Summary: The topic of affordable housing has been generally discussed by Council in previous work sessions. Often this discussion has occurred in the context of individual developer recommendations for the downtown, and it is presently being discussed in the context of the Legacy Leesburg Town Plan. Through the Plan review process, the Planning Commission and Council will each have opportunities to weigh in on, if and how the Town should address affordable housing now and in the future. Background: Council requested a work session to begin discussions about affordable housing, to reach an understanding of work force housing, and to understand how the draft Legacy Leesburg Town Plan is approaching the subject. Many communities locally and nationally are tackling the difficult and complex topic of affordable housing. Leesburg has heard anecdotal input during the Legacy Leesburg Town Plan public 150 Item c. Affordable Housing April 12, 2021 Page 2 engagement process that affordable housing is a problem that should be addressed. It was also identified as an issue during the Economic Development Steering Committee discussion several years ago when local business owners lamented hiring difficulties that were rooted in the fact that employees could not find local affordable housing. Work force housing is a term that is often used to describe housing that is priced for middle income persons and families earning between 80-120% of average median income. Middle income jobs can include such professions as teachers, police and safety professions, and government workers. In Loudoun County, the average median income (AMI) for a family of four is $126,000. The AMI for a single person is $88,200. Standard guidance for how much to spend on housing is typically 30% of total household income. In geographic areas such as Northern Virginia, where housing is relatively expensive, many families find that this guideline must be stretched further, and they spend more on housing than is advisable. The term of art for such households is ‘housing cost-burdened’. Rather than referring to affordability through terms such as ‘work force’ or ‘attainable’ housing, it is often more descriptive to describe affordability on a continuum. An extremely low income household is below 30% AMI. Low income households are 50-80% AMI. Moderate income households are between 80-100% AMI. The consultant team for Legacy Leesburg conducted a general assessment of housing affordability in Leesburg using Loudoun County data, and found that there is a segment of residents who are housing cost burdened. They found that 50% of renters and 25% of homeowners are spending more than 30% of their incomes on housing. These residents have to make the difficult choices. They may pay more than they can afford for housing; or, they may increase occupancy of their rental unit or single family home to cover rent or mortgages which can result in overcrowding problems in neighborhoods. Also, residents may be forced to seek affordable housing in other communities and commute long distances to jobs thereby contributing to road congestion. As a result, affordable housing issues impact a community’s quality of life in a number of ways. As noted above, it can also affect the business and economic development health of a community particularly hospitality and service sectors when it is difficult to find workers to fill job openings because they cannot afford to live in in a specific area such as Leesburg. The Legacy Leesburg Town Plan draft has five Guiding Principles to guide community development decision-making. The Guiding Principle for housing and neighborhoods reads as follows: 151 Item c. Affordable Housing April 12, 2021 Page 3 The Planning Commission discussed this Guiding Principle on April 1, 2021, and had differing viewpoints about what the Town’s role should be in seeking “…opportunities to offer a variety of housing types at a variety of price points …and enable residents to live in Leesburg throughout all stages of their life.” . Some members of the Commission felt that affordability should only be addressed through the market. Others felt that the Town should have a more active role in working to assure that all residents of Leesburg have affordable housing opportunities. Under this Guiding Principle, the Plan offers a number of housing strategies, most notably that the Town could do a study to understand the specific unmet housing needs that exist in the Town. Another strategy recommends that the Town do an affordable housing study, or strategic plan, to address affordability issues. The Planning Commission is scheduled to discuss these strategies in May. A good reference on this subject is Loudoun County. In 2017, the Board of Supervisors directed an unmet housing needs study that was conducted by George Mason University. In 2019, the County adopted a new comprehensive plan, and one of the key goals was to build upon past efforts to address affordable housing and to address unmet housing needs. After adoption of the Plan, the Board of Supervisors directed an implementation step to develop an Unmet Housing Strategic Plan. As a part of this process, County staff was directed to conduct a robust stakeholder input process with the Loudoun community, and to develop the strategic plan. On April 1, 2021, Loudoun County staff released a draft Unmet Housing Needs Strategic Plan (UMHNSP), and it will be presented to the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2021 with a public hearing scheduled for May 12, 2021. Here are some key data points in the draft that indicate the degree of the affordability problem in Loudoun County:  A study in 2019 determined that more than 35,000 households in Loudoun County are spending more than 30% of their income on housing.  A vast number of these households are very low income households i.e. 1 in 3 persons is spending more than 50% on housing.  The County has a deficit of more than 2,000 multifamily units for households with less than 30% Average Median Income (extremely low income households). 152 Item c. Affordable Housing April 12, 2021 Page 4  A person earing $26,500 (30% AMI) should be spending no more than $750 per month in rent. Average rents in Loudoun County are $1,674.  Median sales price on a single family detached home in Loudoun County is $600,000. Only 23% of for-sale housing is affordable to first time homebuyers with incomes up to 100% AMI. Of the units built in Loudoun County between the years 2015-2020, only 6.6% of the housing was affordable to low income households (those with incomes less than 80% of AMI). In the future, it is anticipated that there will continue to be a shortage of housing being built, and that the current affordability problem will increase. Therefore, the report concludes that the market is not producing enough housing in general, and specifically, it is not producing enough middle income housing at diverse price points to meet the needs of residents. The UMHNSP report offers many strategies for increasing affordable housing. The County has traditionally relied on two means. The first is the administration of federal programs such as voucher programs or educational programs that assist residents with navigating rental agreements or homeownership loans. The second was to rely on the development community to provide affordable dwelling units through inclusionary zoning. The UMHNSP proposes to expand the County’s role significantly by focusing on a holistic approach that addresses the issue in a “strategic and systemic way” to address all needs on the affordability spectrum. This information is relevant and informative for the Town as we consider if, and how, to address affordable housing in a broader way in the future. Council has asked what ‘tools’ could be added to our ‘toolbox’ for addressing affordable housing. This could be explored through development of a strategic plan which considers approaches that are specific to needs of residents in Leesburg as well as the abilities of the Town to address such needs. The types of strategies could include things like further changes to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for affordable projects, or re-considering the density bonus provisions that are currently in the Ordinance to see how they can be updated to get greater numbers of affordable units. It could include fast track reviews for affordable housing projects or encourage participation in Virginia’s Low Income Tax Credit Program through designation of areas in Leesburg for more affordable housing. Lastly, it could include partnering and collaborating with Loudoun County on initiatives they are doing to increase affordability. If, on the other hand, Council determines that the Town should not proactively seek ways to get more affordable housing then such a recommendation would be helpful to the Planning Commission as they discuss this topic in May. 153 Item c. Date of Council Meeting: April 12, 2021 TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION INFORMATION MEMORANDUM Subject: Airport Ad Hoc Committee Final Report Staff Contact: Scott Coffman, Airport Director Russell Seymour, Economic Development Director Council Action Requested: The Ad Hoc Committee has provided a final recommendation regarding the structure, composition, and role of the Airport Commission. Although no formal action is required by Council at this time, direction by Council on how and when to proceed is needed. Staff Recommendation: No staff recommendation at this time. Commission Recommendation: None. Fiscal Impact: None. Work Plan Impact: The final recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee will have no impact to the airport’s work plan. Executive Summary: On February 9, 2021, Town Council passed Resolution 2021-031 creating an Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring (“Committee”). The Committee, Chaired by Vice Mayor Marty Martinez, included representatives of airport businesses, pilot tenants, members of Council, and members of the Airport Commission. The Committee since met, and has provided final recommendations regarding the structure, composition, and role of the Airport Commission. The Committee makes the following recommendations:  The airport businesses should create an Airport Business Association (“ABA”). The ABA would be an organization outside of the Town government consisting of airport business owners and/or their representatives.  The ABA may designate a representative to serve as an eighth voting member of the Airport Commission. The term of the ABA Representative shall be determined by the ABA.  Individual business owners in the ABA may communicate directly with the Airport Commission and the Council if desired.  A member of the Leesburg Economic Development Commission should be designated as a non-voting liaison to the Airport Commission.  The Council should make no changes to the current process for the appointment and confirmation process of Airport Commission members. 154 Item d. Airport Ad Hoc Committee Report April 12, 2021 Page 2  The Committee recommends that the Commission operates as an advisory board to the Council. Background: In accordance with the Town Code, the Airport Commission oversees the rules and regulations at the Town’s airport and makes recommendations to Council and the Airport Director regarding the effective and efficient administration of the airport. The airport provides a significant economic impact to the local region, and the growing demand for services and facilities requires careful management. Council recognizes the importance of an Airport Commission to provide guidance for the airport’s future, and has created the Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring. The Ad Hoc Committee was tasked with evaluating the structure, composition, and role of the Airport Commission, and with providing a recommendation to Council. The Ad Hoc Committee was chaired by Vice Mayor Martinez and included two members of Council, two members of the Airport Commission, representatives from each airport business, and two pilot hangar tenants. The Committee met on three occasions. In order to provide the committee members with background information on the airport functions, history, funding sources, and economic impacts, presentations were provided by the following:  Chad Carper, Federal Aviation Administration Engineer - presented information regarding the FAA and State funding programs, prioritization of projects, the airport grant assurance conditions of receiving federal funding, and airport development.  Scott Coffman, Airport Director - provided information regarding the role as a general aviation reliever airport, history of the airport’s development, and the Airport Master Plan.  Russell Seymour, Economic Development Director - shared information on the airport’s economic impact study, growth, and adjacent business areas.  Chris Spera, Town Attorney - provided information on the Town Code in regards to the Airport Commission, and its role as an advisory commission to the Council.  Dennis Boykin and Dan Duenkel, Airport Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman - presented information on the Commission’s history, its efforts to serve executive business travel, the current membership makeup, and the recent creation of a business operator’s subcommittee. Comments and recommendations from Committee members were organized for final discussion and vote at the third meeting. The recommendations centered on three goals: 1. Improve Airport Business Operator input and communication with the Airport Commission: The Committee recommends creation of an Airport Business Association (“ABA”). The Committee recommends the representative of the ABA as an additional (eighth) voting member of the Commission. 2. Improve Citizen Involvement in the Airport Commission. The Committee recommends appointing a member of the Economic Development Commission as liaison to the Airport Commission. 155 Item d. Airport Ad Hoc Committee Report April 12, 2021 Page 3 3. Ensure a membership with diverse expertise in relevant airport business and operations: The Committee did not support changes to the current Council process of appointing and confirming Commission members. Ad Hoc Committee membership: Marty Martinez, Vice Mayor Kari Nacy, Council member Neil Steinberg, Council member Julie O’Brien, ProJet Aviation Scott Kuhn, SK Aviation Tim Fisher, Aero Elite Flight Training Jim Odenwaldt, Papillon Air Maintenance Services Stasi Poulos, Mindstar Aviation Charlie Bobbish, Airport Tenant/Pilot Tom Saxon, Airport Tenant/Pilot Brittany Youkers, Leesburg Economic Development Commission Ryan Zerbe, OpenAir Flight Training Bob Garity, NOVA Pilots Bruce Reggeri, PHI Air Medevac Dennis Boykin, Leesburg Airport Commission Dan Duenkel, Leesburg Airport Commission Attachment: 1. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee 156 Item d. Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring 1001 Sycolin Road SE, Suite 7, Leesburg, Virginia 20175  703-737-7125  www.leesburgva.gov/airport Hometown of the 21st Century To: Leesburg Town Council From: Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring Subject: Report of the Committee Date: February – March, 2021 In accordance with Town Resolution 2021-031, an Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring was created, met, and is hereby providing a report to the Leesburg Town Council regarding the current structure, composition, and role of the Leesburg Executive Airport Commission. The Committee was chaired by Vice Mayor Marty Martinez and included members of Council, the Airport Commission, representatives from airport businesses, and pilot tenants. The Committee met for three meetings. To provide a base level of relevant information to all Committee members, presentations were conducted by the Town Attorney, Airport Director, Economic Development Director, Federal Aviation Administration’s Engineer, and the Airport Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman. The presentations included information on: • The airport’s history of growth and focus on serving business travel. • The organizational structure of other Virginia airports. • The legal concerns and role of the Airport Commission as a citizen advisory board. • The future goals and past accomplishments of the Airport Commission. • The airport’s economic impact to the community. • The Airport Master Plan document guiding the airport’s future development. • The state and federal sources of funding for airport infrastructure projects. • The obligations of the Town to the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) on how it operates the airport to the public benefit. The Committee discussed potential changes to the membership of the Commission and all members suggested improvements. The suggestions centered around three common goals. (1) Improve airport business operator input and communication with the Airport Commission; (2) Improve citizen involvement in the Airport Commission; and (3) Provide a membership with diverse experience in relevant airport business and operations. All ideas, including those proposed by Mayor Kelly Burk to the Council, were discussed by the Committee. A vote was taken on each idea to formulate the final recommendations of the Committee. The Committee recommendations are: • The airport businesses create an Airport Business Association (“ABA”). The ABA would be an organization outside of the Town government, consisting of airport business owners and/or their representatives. • The ABA may designate a representative to serve as an eighth voting member of the Airport Commission. The term of the ABA Representative shall be determined by the ABA. 157 Item d. Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring 1001 Sycolin Road SE, Suite 7, Leesburg, Virginia 20175  703-737-7125  www.leesburgva.gov/airport Hometown of the 21st Century • Individual business owners in the ABA may communicate directly with the Airport Commission and the Council if desired. • A member of the Leesburg Economic Development Commission is designated as a non-voting liaison to the Airport Commission. • The Council make no changes to the current process for the appointment and confirmation of Airport Commission members. • The Committee did not cover specific changes to the Commission’s role and duties. The Committee recommends that the Commission operates as an advisory board to the Council. These are the recommendations of the Committee and we look forward to the work of Council to ensure the Airport Commission is well positioned to guide the future development of the Leesburg Executive Airport. For additional information on the topics and ideas discussed at the Committee, please see the attached meeting minutes. Ad Hoc Committee Members Marty Martinez, Vice Mayor Kari Nacy, Council member Neil Steinberg, Council member Julie O’Brien, ProJet Aviation Scott Kuhn, SK Aviation Tim Fisher, Aero Elite Flight Training Jim Odenwaldt, Papillon Air Maintenance Services Stasi Poulos, Mindstar Aviation Charlie Bobbish, Airport Tenant/Pilot Tom Saxon, Airport Tenant/Pilot Brittany Youkers, Leesburg Economic Development Commission Ryan Zerbe, OpenAir Flight Training Bob Garity, NOVA Pilots Bruce Reggeri, PHI Air Medevac Dennis Boykin, Leesburg Airport Commission Dan Duenkel, Leesburg Airport Commission 158 Item d. - 1 - MINUTES Leesburg Airport Commission Ad Hoc Committee Virtual Meeting February 24, 2021 5:00p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Dennis Boykin Vice Chairman Dan Duenkel Commissioners Absent: Lindsay Arrington Tom Toth Ray de Haan Sybille Miller Others Present: Town of Leesburg Mayor Kelly Burk Town of Leesburg Vice Mayor Marty Martinez Kari Nacy, Leesburg Councilmember Neil Steinberg, Leesburg Councilmember Scott Coffman, Leesburg Airport Director Russell Seymour, Leesburg Economic Development Director Julie O’Brien, ProJet Aviation Noah Holt Scott Kuhn, SK Aviation Tim Fisher, Aero Elite Jim Odenwaldt, Papillon Air Maintenance Services Ryan Zerbe, OpenAir Flight Training Stasi Poulos, Mindstar Aviation Charlie Bobbish, Airport Pilot Tom Saxon, Airport Pilot Brittany Youkers, Vice Chair, Leesburg Economic Development Commission Chris Sperra, Esq., Leesburg Town Attorney Bruce Ruggieri, PHI Helicopters Brian White, Air Care, PHI Helicopters 1. Call to Order: The Meeting was called to order at 5:06p.m. The ad hoc committee agreed to remote participation due to COVID-19 requirements. 159 Item d. - 2 - 2. Roll Call and Committee Introductions Vice Mayor Martinez called the roll, introduced commission members and others present, and requested each member state his intent for the future of the airport. Member Comments Mr. (inaudible) encourages competition at the airport, increase services, and discourages a monopoly; encourages the Commission to grant the fuel farm lease and FBO to Kuhn Jet Center. Vice Mayor Martinez seeks to learn more about business at the airport and how to be inclusive to everybody. Ms. Nacy wishes to help the airport continue to grow and make it even better. Councilman Steinberg seeks to help the airport move forward in the future and do even better. Mr. Boykin wishes to look out for the interests of all tenants on the field and continue to drive the agenda at airport. Mr. Duenkel seeks to learn what is not working and what people want to make it better. Ms. Youkers is looking at the airport from an economic development and business standpoint. Director Coffman looks forward to supporting this committee to help you needs and answer questions. Director Seymour noted the benefit of having an airport situated in Town from an economic development standpoint, and he looks forward to moving that project forward. Ms. O’Brien would like to see more inclusion, voices, and energy from the field; room for improvement. Mr. Fisher would like to become more involved and make sure businesses are represented on the field. Mr. Zerbe would very much like to be part of this project. Mr. Poulos seeks to have a voice in the operation of the airport commission. Mr. Bobbish is happy for the opportunity to participate. Mr. Saxon is happy to participate. Mr. Sperra wishes to ensure the commission structure is consistent with the law and does not expose the Town to undue or unnecessary risk, and added the role of the commission could potentially create a liability if not purely advisory. Mr. Odenwaldt would like to see a first-class service facility to take care of everybody as they come and go. Mr. Kuhn is interested in hearing what everyone has to say. 3. New Business Vice Mayor Martinez noted that Leesburg Airport is not the general aviation airport it was 25 years ago, but an instrument landing airport with a remote tower. He added there are businesses at the airport we need to speak with, wishes to explore the makeup of airport commission to see if anything needs to be changed or added; and make recommendations to Council. Vice Mayor Martinez plans to discuss the airport’s Economic Development potential; the airport itself and its make up in the Town Charter. Vice Mayor Martinez added that the FAA plans to be present at the next meeting, and that Mr. Boykin will present a bit of history. Vice Mayor indicated that this is a unique committee with many members. Vice Mayor Martinez expressed that, since there will be open discussion at this meeting, he expects there be a manner of civility among members and respect of everybody’s time. Presentations Vice Mayor Martinez indicated there will be three presenters. Director Coffman will review the airport, its history, the FAA, and the direction in which we are heading. 160 Item d. - 3 - Director Seymour will review the status of the airport in the County. Town Attorney Chris Sperra will present legal speak. Director Coffman presented to the commission a detailed report which covered the below talking points, and discussions followed. • The Leesburg Executive Airport • FAA Funding & Oversight • Rural to Executive Airport • Governing of Airports • Findings of a Virginia Survey of Public Airports • Airport Layout Plan • Future Development • Parcel Background Information Director Seymour presented to the commission a report which covered the below talking points, and discussions followed. • Key Industry Segments – VEDP/Loudoun Virginia • Economic Driver for the Town of Leesburg 4. Committee Comments Ms. Nacy appreciated the detailed presentations and is digesting everything. Mr. Boykin expressed his thanks for the presentations. Ms. O’Brien stated the presentations were great, and added that with growth and development comes safety assessment and risk management. Mr. Kuhn commented the presentations were great. Mr. Odenwaldt expressed his thanks and appreciation. Mr. Zerbe indicated that there is something special at Leesburg, and the need to protect the future interests of the Town. Mr. Bobbish expressed his desire to grow the airport as a leader not only in the State but nationally, and appreciates it from a user perspective. Mr. Saxon commented that the presentations were outstanding, and that good things are coming to the Leesburg Airport. Mr. White appreciated the presentations and comments. Mr. Ruggieri appreciated the comments. Mr. Poulos was excited to see how much activity is in the UAS field. Role of Town Attorney Chris Sperra described the role of the Town Attorney Office in overall Town operations is to ensure proper relationships as far as contracting and compliance with law in general and also risk mitigation. Mr. Sperra added his goal is not to influence policy decisions; what does the commission look like/best position of the commission as a body to give highest advice possible to the airport through the Airport Director, Council or Town Manager, while minimizing Town liability. Vice Mayor Martinez added that Mr. Sperra’s role is essentially a risk manager; who reviews business arrangements, leases etc. at the airport. Vice Mayor Martinez asked whether there were any questions or comments for Mr. Sperra. 161 Item d. - 4 - Councilman Steinberg is aware that Mr. Sperra is looking at commission rules and rewrites, and is also looking at airport regulations. Vice Mayor Martinez mentioned he would be happy to provide the Town Code to commissioners interested. Vice Mayor Martinez mentioned that his focus was to bring everybody up to the same base level regarding the airport and its economic potential. Vice Mayor Martinez will ask Mr. Boykin to make a presentation about airport failures/and is hoping to get the FAA information. 5. Petitioners/Public Comment Vice Mayor Martinez opened the floor for comments. Councilman Steinberg mentioned Council entertained the make-up of a commission, with suggestions for the number of pilots, business interest representatives, potential representatives from surrounding communities, and the Town. Presently being considered is a seven-member commission, an authority vs. a commission, and the rewriting of several airport regulations. Mr. .Duenkel asked whether an airport authority is going to be researched, and whether we plan to speak with other airports that have recently made those changes. Vice Mayor Martinez will ask Mr. Coffman to define the difference between an airport commission and authority, and why the city of Richmond, VA went from a commission to an authority. Mr. Sperra indicated an authority is a separate corporate entity, and a locality may appoint board members. He added an authority is a stand-alone, legally cognizable entity which can issue bonds. Often the decision to set up as an authority is funding driven. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated that the airport was previously an enterprise fund, and was problematic as most Federal funds had to be received as depreciation and the airport was always in red. He added that it was taken out of an enterprise fund and placed into a general fund with less impact on revenue. Ms. O’Brien challenges the group to provide term limits on the commission, including competing businesses. She added that two year terms provide new voices and opinions and holds them accountable to meeting goals. Vice Mayor Martinez will ask the Town Attorney whether term limits may be imposed. Mr. Bobbish inquired as to the desired outcome for the committee, how success will be measured, and how the success of the airport commission is presently being measured. Mayor Burk is excited to hear the ideas and perspectives, and added she has always been a great fan of the airport. Mayor Burk added that she and Mr. Boykin have put 162 Item d. - 5 - forth much lobbying effort, and wants the airport to become an even greater asset to the Town. Mayor Burk thanked Vice Mayer Martinez for putting the meeting together. 6. Next Virtual Meeting Date Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 5:00p.m. Vice Mayor Martinez noted several action items that shall be taken: • Scott Coffman will work with the FAA • Dennis Boykin will make a presentation Council Member Steinberg requested that the presentations made by Directors Coffman and Seymour are communicated to the commissioners. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:26p.m. 163 Item d. - 1 - MINUTES Leesburg Airport Commission Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring Virtual Meeting - March 3, 2021 5:00p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Dennis Boykin Vice Chairman Dan Duenkel Commissioners Absent: Lindsay Arrington Tom Toth Ray de Haan Sybille Miller Kari Nacy, Leesburg Councilmember Others Present: Town of Leesburg Mayor Kelly Burk Town of Leesburg Vice Mayor Marty Martinez Suzanne Fox, Leesburg Councilmember Neil Steinberg, Leesburg Councilmember Scott Coffman, Leesburg Airport Director Russell Seymour, Leesburg Economic Development Director Brittany Youkers, Leesburg Economic Dev. Commission Chad Carper, FAA, Program Manager and Engineer Charlie Bobbish, Airport Pilot Jake Bradshaw Tim Fisher Bob Garity Bruce Gilbert Scott Kuhn, SK Aviation Julie O’Brien, ProJet Aviation Jim Odenwaldt, Airport Pilot Stasi Poulos Bruce Ruggieri, PHI Helicopters Tom Saxon, Airport Pilot Ryan Zerbe, Open Air Flight Training 1. Call to Order: The Meeting was called to order at 5:10p.m. The ad hoc committee agreed to remote Participation due to COVID-19 requirements. 164 Item d. - 2 - 2. Roll Call Vice Mayor Martinez called the roll, and stated a quorum was present. Approval of Minutes – February 24, 2021 Motion by Vice Mayor Martinez to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2021 meeting; seconded by Chairman Boykin. Motion carried. 3. New Business Introduction Mr. Coffman introduced Mr. Chad Carper, who has roles with the FAA and DOAV, and is the FAA representative at Leesburg Executive Airport. Mr. Carper is with the Washington Airports District Office, and provides guidance on FAA and capital projects. Presentation - Chad Carper, Program Manager and Engineer, Leesburg Executive Airport. Mr. Carper indicated that the Airport organization has 550 employees, whose primary responsibility is managing the Airport Improvement Program. Mr. Carper referenced the FAA website page (FAA.gov/airports/aip/overview) and followed with a slide presentation: • What is an Airport Improvement Program? • How Much of the Project Cost Does the Grant Cover? • What Airports are eligible? • What types of projects are eligible? • What are the Obligations for Accepting AIP Funds? • How Does FAA Determine Which Projects Will Receive AIP Funds? • What is the History of the AIP? • Airport Compliance o Informal Complaints o Formal Complaints Mr. Carper discussed airport improvement program assurances for airport sponsors, and mentioned those documents are a way of ensuring grant assurances are being followed, and enables users to be informed of the expectations of how the airport should operate. Mr. Carper mentioned that a document is attached to every grant; and land grant assurances are associated with that piece of land as long as the land is there. Mr. Carper added that when investment is made in a new piece of infrastructure, the project has a life of 20 years. Vice Mayor Martinez invited Mr. Carper to discuss restricted airspace. Mr. Carper indicated that he is not well versed on the subject of air traffic for Leesburg. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated that subject may be covered by Dennis Boykin. Vice Mayor Martinez referenced bureaucratic red tape and the ILS taking years to obtain funding. Mr. Carper mentioned an Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Mr. Carper added it is a federal action signed by the FAA, the Town, and the Virginia Department of Aviation, and is a first step to identify the needs of the airport and the FAA is on board with the 165 Item d. - 3 - submission. Mr. Carper briefly discussed the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). 4. Committee Comments Councilman Steinberg commented on the section of equal opportunity and equal treatment and offering certain businesses at the airport an ex officio seat at the commission table. Councilman Steinberg asked Mr. Carper to discuss the ramifications of other businesses that were not offered a similar opportunity. Mr. Carper mentioned that this would not run afoul; and encourages sponsors rotate that position annually to enable different stakeholders or roundtable represent a group of businesses. Mr. Carper added that the State of Virginia would have to answer to laws governing a commission. Vice Mayor Martinez mentioned the importance of the airport commission and its part in the Town; and that it falls under the purview of state regulations. Presentation: Dennis Boykin, Chairman Airport Commission; Chairman Boykin began a presentation which covered the following points: • Airport Ad-Hoc Committee • The Guys Who Got This Started (History) • Start-up – The Beginning • Reviewed Arthur Godfrey (airport history) • Early Years • The Haynes Years (Aviation Industry Consultant Jim Haynes) • Move to TOL Management • Post 2000 • Personal Property Taxes have been a huge issue – able to keep at low level • Major Projects • Major Projects – Leadership • Projects – Commission Coordination Required Presentation - Dan Duenkel, Vice Chairman Airport Commission Vice Chairman Dan Duenkel presented a review of the last two slides: • Airport Commission Makeup • Business Operations Sub Committee Mr. Duenkel indicated the purpose of building a subcommittee was to obtain more voices from the businesses on the airport, and devise a way to give an equal voice to everybody. Mr. Duenkel provided background information and referenced who would be on a commission, and how long to meet requirements, Mr. Boykin referenced airspace, and that in 2005 airspace restrictions badly hurt flight schools. He added that a lot of work was done at the commission level, and spent a lot of time with the FAA. Mr. Boykin discussed airspace restrictions around surrounding airports, and added that there are presently four flight schools. Mr. Stasi mentioned the fact that Leesburg is not outside of flight restrictions 166 Item d. - 4 - Vice Mayor Martinez wished to note the three things the airport needs to address: • Restaurant in terminal • GPS navigation impacts • Unmanned aircraft impacts Member Comments Ms. Youkers appreciates the background. She inquired as to how feedback was previously collected before the subcommittee was established? Mr. Boykin indicated that businesses would attend and subjects were presented and recognized, with some not being heard thus the reason for placing it on the agenda. Councilman Steinberg mentioned that a subcommittee does not exist, and is a recommendation not a reality. Mr. Boykin noted that a subcommittee is in the bylaws today, subcommittee is running and is out meeting with all the folks. Director Seymour mentioned the 11 businesses at the airport having an opportunity to weigh in. He added that, from an economic development standpoint, he believes a number of other businesses would be interested in knowing more about what airport is doing, the proximity and use of airport, and may be interested in a decision-making part of team. Mr. Poulos mentioned that the growth of the airport is fantastic. He added that of interest is a food service at the terminal, and mentioned the hardship for those who run a business at the airport to leave the property to obtain food. Mr. Poulos indicated interest in better access for businesses to get on the west side for those who work with simulators that are in place and cannot be moved. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested to include businesses as part of whoever is interested in participating in the airport committee. Mr. Boykin indicated that Julie O’Brien is present at the meeting, but the sound is not operational. Mr. Boykin read aloud Ms. O’Brien’s emailed comments: • Every commissioner should review the minimum standards and know them; make an impact on every business on the field. o Vice Mayor Martinez suggested to include businesses as part of whoever is interested in participating in the airport committee should also be reviewing that. • Every commissioner should review all contracts and what that means to the Town. o Mr. Boykin made reference to a binder of contracts at the airport which includes many intersecting contracts and site project contracts. • Every commissioner should recuse himself if there is a conflict of interest in a business seat. o Vice Mayor Martinez stated that the Town Attorney has determined there is no conflict of interest if several Leesburg pilots are on the commission. Mr. Boykin referenced Virginia Law Code 2.2-3112. Prohibited conduct concerning personal interest in a transaction; exceptions. 167 Item d. - 5 - • Ms. O’Brien appreciates term limits that hold commissioners accountable to focus and goals that can be achieved during their term and also give other enthusiastic business owners have an opportunity to have a voting voice at the table. o Mr. Boykin believes it is good to rotate some voices in there but some businesses have been on the field have held 30-40 year contracts; some knowledge on airport is a good idea. • The following is a Julie O’Brien statement; not ProJet: I think there should be an application process where folks submit their reasons for wanting to be on the commission, what is their connection, what is their aviation experience, and what do they bring to the table? Mr. Boykin mentioned that the Manassas Airport Commission staggers the its member terms, that it would be a large step to take that off, and the benefit to that is it would change the nature of the commission to make it more like an authority. Mr. Bobbish asked whether a commission member who is an employee of the FBO would present a conflict of interest. Mr. Boykin indicated that it is fine if an employee recuses himself from a discussion which impacts a particular business. Mr. Boykin added that an employee of the flight school cannot discuss anything that comes up with Aviation Adventures, but may discuss anything that pertains to minimum standards. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated the Town, in collaboration with the Chairman of the Airport Commission, will ensure there is no conflict of interest. Mr. Saxon mentioned his research of airport commission makeup of 14 in-state airports, and determined that smaller airports have an airport authority. Mr. Saxon added he did not see any business owners from airports holding a position on an airport commission. On the issue of term limits, Mr. Saxon is of the opinion that people are in this job for two or four years and it is obvious that when Mr. Boykin gave his speech on the airport he had corporate knowledge of 16 years, which would not be possible with term limits. Mr. .Saxon added if a term is limited for two or three years, they will have less power to make things happen. Mr. Boykin referenced Mr. Saxon’s question regarding FBOs. He pointed out that the Town Attorney reviewed airports in the state and found none of them had FBOs on the airport commission, and that most of airport commissions were primarily made up of pilots for smaller airports, and for larger airports (authorities) you will see fewer pilots. Ms. O’Brien inquired as to whether Mr. Duenkel would have to recuse himself because his aircraft is managed by Kuhn Aviation. Vice Mayor Martinez will obtain the determination of Town Attorney on this issue. Input Session Vice Mayor initiated discussions regarding a business association which includes all airport businesses on the Leesburg Executive Airport field. He added there may be interest in other business participation, with all the new businesses opening up on the west side of the field. 168 Item d. - 6 - Vice Mayor Martinez opened the floor for discussion of an Airport Business Association, and requested input for the March 10, 2021 meeting: • Provide a view about airport makeup • Should it be changed? • How you would want it to be changed? • What should be done to get the airport commission up to speed with all on the airport itself? Vice Mayor Martinez recommended input be considered on how businesses may be included in the decision making, and added that next week a formal recommendation be voted upon to be submitted to Town Council in a resolution. Mr. Garity mentioned that he has been a small flight school owner at the airport for 20 years, and he is very satisfied with way airport commission has taken care of things during that time. He added it has worked out well, and never had any issues. Mr. Saxon indicated his first inclination is it broken and do we need to fix it? Mr. Saxon has attended eight to ten meetings and all were very well run. Mr. Saxon feels strongly that the 11 businesses need to be represented and have a voice. Mr. Saxon stated that whatever the commission is called (business op subcommittee/roundtable), the businesses need a voice but is unsure whether it needs to be a voting voice. Mr. Saxon researched 14 airports similar to Leesburg, and he is available to anyone who wants to discuss his findings. Mr. Bobbish echoed Mr. Saxon’s remarks, and he is extremely pleased with the airport commission. Mr. Bobbish pointed out the importance that businesses have a voice, but has not decided whether businesses should have a voting voice. Mr. Bobbish is of the opinion that an FBO having a voting voice on the airport is a conflict of interest. Mr. Bobbish is in favor of a business association, but is undecided whether it should be a voting voice. Mr. Poulos indicated he has been very happy with the airport commission over the years; and as business owner on the airport is interested in having a voice in the commission in some capacity. He is still listening to what various ideas are, and has not yet made a decision. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated one of the suggestions was to institute FBOs, as all the businesses need to have a voice, but to have an ex officio airport commission, and is seeking ideas on that as well. Mr. Zerbe expressed his thanks to those on the present commission, and that despite mistakes we have made over the years what has been done has been very impressive; we are all here in support of the greater good. Mr. Zerbe cautions changing a lot initially, and seeks to learn from airports like Santa Monica not experiencing a great time/facing closure in net few years. Mr. Zerbe is grateful for the opportunity to sit at board meetings, and would like to be included in the future as well. 169 Item d. - 7 - Mr. Odenwaldt spoke about conflict of interest. Mr. Odenwaldt believes the successes have been tremendous, and the airport commission has dealt with adversity with the development fabulously, and believes anybody can be heard as meetings are public. Mr. Odenwaldt is in favor of establishing a more organized subcommittee/roundtable – a more formal organization for the businesses. Mr. Odenwaldt expressed his kudos to how this has been managed to this point. Mr. Kuhn indicated he was in agreement that the existing commission has done a great job growing the airport to what it is today. Mr. Kuhn expressed his concern with what the airport will like 10 years from now and what the best team to get us there efficiently. Mr. Kuhn added that all businesses at the airport have the ability to contact Council and commission members, and fails to see how having a non-voting role on the commission would change anything we have the ability to do presently. Mr. Kuhn focused on future growth and giving limited members of the community, whether voting or non-voting roles as it is now, it seems lot easier to exclude the businesses on the field and start an association and add this as a comment section at the end of each business meeting. Ms. Youkers is in favor of having a business association which allows businesses at the airport and a radius around as well. Ms. Youkers indicated it is important to have a dedicated forum to collect input and feedback, and added she is in favor of an Economic Development Commission liaison. Mr. Duenkel is in agreement with an Economic Development liaison, particularly as we look at the west side development and businesses in the Leesburg area that may utilize the airport more; to grow the airport and grow local businesses well. Mr. Duenkel added focus should be placed on Economic Development to work closely with the airport commission. Mr. Duenkel is in favor of a business subcommittee/authority as a voting member if businesses feel they want voting rights. Mr. Duenkel inquired as to if we decide to keep a subcommittee today, and not do authority, what is to say we can’t change this in six months? Vice Mayor Martinez emphasized that all depends on what the commission wishes to do, and to get a consensus from the commission on how it should be structured. Mr. Boykin is in agreement with an EDC liaison, and would like to return to an annual briefing from the commission to Town Council regarding priorities. Regarding economic development Mr. Boykin suggested using input from the Loudoun Chamber of Commerce, and will follow up on this with Director Seymour. Regarding membership on the commission, Mr. Boykin mentioned the Frederick, Maryland airport has a business representation, that businesses are rotated annually, and that every third year someone gets to sit on the commission. Mr. Boykin suggested there be no changes made to Section 223 regarding airport commission responsibilities, and added that the airport commission is an advisory body; and the Town approves FBO business licenses. He added that an airport must meet minimum standards approved by the commission, and it is better that the commission reviews an 170 Item d. - 8 - application by an airport director. Mr. Boykin is uncomfortable having citizen authority approving applications, as it is the responsibility of the airport director to brief it. Councilman Steinberg reserved comments until the next meeting. Councilmember Fox indicated she wanted to listen in and learn more about the points of view. Mr. Bradshaw mentioned that he has been flying out of the Leesburg Executive Airport since 1989, and that he wishes the airport continued success. Vice Mayor Martinez thanked the meeting attendees, and expressed his appreciation of their commitment and comments. He indicated that all will be voting on options to present to Council and how and whether to restructure. 5. Petitioners/Public Comment None. 6. Next Meeting Date Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:00p.m. Vice Mayor Martinez noted several action items that shall be taken: 7. Adjournment Motion by Vice Mayor Martinez to adjourn the meeting at 7:00p.m.; seconded by Mr. Boykin. Motion carried. 171 Item d. - 1 - MINUTES Ad Hoc Committee for Airport Commission Restructuring Virtual Meeting March 10, 2021 5:00p.m. Committee Members Present: Vice Mayor Fernando Martinez Kari Nacy, Leesburg Councilmember Neil Steinberg, Leesburg Councilmember Scott Coffman, Airport Director Russell Seymour, Economic Development Director Julie O’Brien, ProJet Aviation Scott Kuhn, SK Aviation Tim Fisher, Aero Elite Jim Odenwaldt, Papillon Air Maintenance Services Stasi Poulos, Mindstar Aviation Charlie Bobbish, Airport Pilot Tom Saxon, Airport Pilot Brittany Youkers, Leesburg EDC Michael Klein, OpenAir Flight Training Bob Garity, NOVA Pilots Dennis Boykin, Leesburg Airport Commission Dan Duenkel, Leesburg Airport Commission Others Present: Bruce Gilbert Noah Holt 1. Call to Order: The Meeting was called to order at 5:04p.m. The ad hoc committee agreed to remote participation due to COVID-19 requirements. 172 Item d. - 2 - 2. Roll Call and Committee Introductions Vice Mayor Martinez called the roll and stated a quorum was present. 3. New Business a. Introduction Dennis Boykin – Presentation: Future Focus GPS Navigation Airport Restaurant Unmanned Aerial Systems Electric Aircraft Vice Mayor Martinez discussed GPS controversies and whether or not air traffic control will continue and believes it is best to have present the human element. Regarding Unmanned Aerial Systems, Vice Mayor Martinez has held discussions with local pilots and believes drones are going to be integrated into flight levels; big benefit are cargo drones. He added ten years from now the FAA will most likely control drone placement, installation, and compliance. Councilmember Steinberg believes some topics are better suited for the commission. Councilmember Steinberg had a conversation with Keith Markel, Deputy Town Manager, and Dominion Energy is offering rebates for a variety of electric charging station installations. He added that staff is looking into these and the airport is being considered a primary goal for that kind of infrastructure. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated that the airport will be attracting different types of businesses and will be items the airport commission will address. b. Development of Recommendation to Council - Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Commission Restructuring Current Town Code: Section 2.223. Leesburg Executive Airport Commission GOAL #1: Improve Airport Business Operator input and communication with the Airport Commission: 1. Add one ex-officio, non-voting member(s) for each FBO on the airport. (failed) 2. Add one ex-officio, non-voting member(s) for each FBO and one non-voting member representing all other airport businesses. failed 3. Include airport businesses as voting members of the Commission: a. Include a voting member from each FBO. failed b. Including a voting member from each FBO and a voting member representative of all other airport businesses. failed 4. Create an Airport Business Association (ABA). The ABA would be separate entity, possibly organized as a non-profit, that could meet privately. ABA does not preclude airport businesses from coming to the Commission individually. passed 173 Item d. - 3 - a. One voting member as representative of the ABA. ABA member is in addition to the 7 members appointed by Council. Term to be drawn up by the ABA bylaws. passed b. One non-voting member as representative of the ABA. failed 5. Business Operators Sub-Committee of the Airport Commission: Business Operators Sub-Committee includes one voting member of the Commission and representatives from each airport business. The voting member of the Commission will meet with businesses (public meeting, duly advertised), and will submit a report to the Commission at each meeting. Not voted on. Item 1. Kari Nacy: Nay Neil Steinberg: Nay Dennis Boykin: Nay Dan Duenkel: Nay Brittany Youkers: Nay Julie O’Brien: Nay Scott Kuhn: Nay Bob Garity: Nay Stasi Poulos: Nay Jim Odenwaldt: Nay Item 2. Kari Nacy: Nay Neil Steinberg: Nay Dennis Boykin: Nay Dan Duenkel: Nay Brittany Youkers: Yay Julie O’Brien: Nay Scott Kuhn: Maybe Tom Saxon: Nay Charlie Bobbish: Nay Stasi Poulos: Nay Item 3. Tom Saxon: Nay Charlie Bobbish: Nay Stasi Poulos – Nay Jim Odenwaldt: Nay Tim Fisher: Nay Julie O’Brien: Yay for Item b. Scott Kuhn: Nay Item 4. Kari Nacy: Yay for a. Neil Steinberg: Yay for a. Dennis Boykin: Yay for a. 174 Item d. - 4 - Dan Duenkel: Yay for b. Brittany Youkers: Yay for a. Julie O’Brien: Yay for a. Scott Kuhn: (pending discussion) Tim Fisher: Yay for a. Jim Odenwaldt: Yay for a. Stasi Poulos: Maybe for a. (pending discussion) Charlie Bobbish: Yay for a. Tom Saxon: Yay for a. Item 5. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated that since all voted for Item 4. taking a vote on Item 5 may be redundant, therefore there will be no discussion on Item 5 unless specifically requested. GOAL #2: Improve Citizen Involvement in the Airport Commission 1. One voting member of the Commission shall be a resident, with no business connection with the airport, from the surrounding Town neighborhoods. (failed) 2. Economic Development Commission liaison – a member of the EDC is a non-voting liaison to the Airport Commission. (passed) Items 1 and 2: Tom Saxon: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Charlie Bobbish: Nay to 1; Nay to 2 Stasi Poulos: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Jim Odenwaldt: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Tim Fisher: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Scott Kuhn: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Julie O’Brien: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Brittany Youkers: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Dan Duenkel: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 Dennis Boykin: Nay to 1; Yay to 2 GOAL #3: Ensure the Airport Commission is operating in a purely advisory role to the Town Council and Airport Director Vice Mayor Martinez indicated requires discussion among Council/Town Attorney/Mr. Coffman and the commission itself, and is not within the scope of the ad hoc committee. GOAL #4: Ensure a membership with a diverse expertise in relevant airport business and operations 1. A membership including: a. Four licensed pilots with based aircraft who have no business or personal affiliation with the flight schools or FBO’s. failed 175 Item d. - 5 - b. Two persons with commercial business experience unaffiliated with the airport and not required to have aviation business experience. failed c. One resident with no business connection to the airport and residing in the surrounding neighborhoods that may be impacted by the airport. No vote taken – reviewed under Goal 2, #1. 2. Term Limits: membership on the commission would be limited to two years or four years. failed 3. A staggered membership term – every two years reevaluate members on the commission and each term is 4 years. Resume-based evaluation by Council committee. Two members every year. failed 4. No change – Council members appoint commission members. Council as whole approves. passed Vice Mayor Martinez requested participants to state whether they are in agreement with all or in part; and added that most stated “c” was a no-go. Item 1. Kari Nacy: Nay to both Neil Steinberg: Indifferent to a; Yay to b Dennis Boykin: Nay to both Dan Duenkel: Nay to both Brittany Youkers: Nay to both Julie O’Brien: Yay (with language changes) Scott Kuhn: Nay to both Tim Fisher: Nay to both Jim Odenwaldt: Nay to both Stasi Poulos: Nay to both Charlie Bobbish: Nay to both Tom Saxon: Nay to both (prefer to see a. with at least two licensed pilots Item 2. Term Limits Tom Saxon: Nay Charlie Bobbish: Nay Stasi Poulos: Nay Jim Odenwaldt: Undecided Tim Fisher: Yay (with further discussion) Scott Coffman: Nay Julie O’Brien: Yay Brittany Youkers: Yay (with additional discussion) Dan Duenkel: Nay Dennis Boykin: Nay Neil Steinberg: Nay Kari Nacy: Nay Item 3. Staggered membership term and a Council selection committee 176 Item d. - 6 - Vice Mayor Martinez indicated a staggered membership term means every two years members on the airport commission are reevaluated, and each term would be four years except for the Mayor. Discussions ensued regarding Town Council evaluation for members of the airport commission every two years. Kari Nacy: Nay Neil Steinberg: Nay Dennis Boykin: Nay Dan Duenkel: Nay Brittany Youkers: Nay Julie O’Brien: Yay Scott Coffman: Nay Tim Fisher: Nay Jim Odenwaldt: Nay Stasi Polos: Nay Charlie Bobbish: Nay Tom Saxon: Nay 4. Committee Comment Chairman Comments Vice Mayor Martinez indicated he will submit to Council recommendations made at this meeting, and added that all members are invited to participate in the Council meeting, and opened the floor for discussion. Committee Comments Mr. Saxon mentioned the importance of having representation on a board or commission; and that as a hangar resident/airplane owner that person should not be Chairman or Vice President (hangar resident at large). Mr. Poulos expressed his concern as a business owner on the airport with all that involves a subcommittee with one voice that presents to the airport commission. He added that by placing an entity between the two would not allow for direct communication with the airport commission. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated that if somebody owns a hangar and is on the airport commission as chair there is no conflict. Mr. Poulos mentioned that, in past years, as a business owner he was able to successfully interact with the airport commission multiple times. He expressed concern if an entity is placed between the two then direct communication with the airport commission would not be available. Business owner may still talk to the commission individually. Councilman Steinberg indicated that the Town IT and Technical Departments are working to ensure all commission meetings are available live stream/archived, and that a WebEx option is going to grow for all commissions. 177 Item d. - 7 - Closing Comments Ms. Nacy emphasized that no matter what transpires the commission wishes to hear from business owners or anyone who has an interest in the airport in general; and that she is always available for a conversation. She added the importance of continuing to attend commission meetings, as well as Council meetings, and being able to speak your piece. Mr. Coffman will put together a recommendation and send out to the group by email. Mr. Boykin asked if Mr. Coffman would elaborate in his email the Airport Business Association (ABA) language and the Commission would remove the subcommittee from the by-laws, specifically that an ABA does not preclude an airport business from going to the commission individually. Vice Mayor Martinez expressed his concern to create an ABA, and the next goal is to ensure the ABA gets fixed. He added that Director Seymour and Mr. Coffman will participate in meetings with the airport businesses and how this gets its start. Vice Mayor Martinez expressed his thanks to all in attendance at this meeting, and added that Council will take to heart all comments and continue to provide assistance. Vice Mayor Martinez emphasized that just because there is a commission does not mean an individual’s voice will not be heard. 5. Petitioners/Public Comment None. 6. Adjournment Motion by Councilman Steinberg to adjourn the meeting at 6:26p.m.; seconded by Mr. Boykin. Motion carried. 178 Item d. Date of Council Meeting: April 12, 2021 TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Subject: American Recovery Funds & Community Project Funding Request Staff Contact: Clark Case, Director of Finance & Administrative Services Renée LaFollette, Director of Public Works & Capital Projects Council Action Requested: Adopt a resolution identifying a priority list of projects for submission to federal agencies as part of the Community Funding Requests Program. Staff Recommendation: See attached a list of recommended community projects. Commission Recommendation: Not applicable. Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of utilizing funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) or other potential federal funding will vary based on the amount awarded to the Town, and based on the restrictions established by the Department of Treasury. Work Plan Impact: Depending on the funding amount and the reporting requirements, supplemental administrative and/or engineering resources may be required to manage any additional projects. Executive Summary: There are two federal initiatives affecting the Town as follows: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) The Town is expected to receive federal funds from the recent American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that was signed into law on March 11, 2021. The exact amount is currently unknown since the Department of Treasury have not yet released official numbers. Estimates from other sources have projected a wide range from $7 million to $48 million. The estimates vary due to different calculations for categorizing Leesburg (i.e. town, city, sub-recipient from County, etc.). Similarly to the CARES Act legislation, the Department of Treasury will issue official guidance related to how a locality can access their allocation, how the money can be spent, and the reporting requirements for the funding. Localities are expected to receive the first tranche of funds (50% of the allocation) by May 11, 2021 (60 days from enactment), and a second tranche no earlier than 12 months after disbursement of the first tranche. The Town will be required to repay any funds that are used in violation of the law or subsequent guidance. All funds must be spent by December 31, 2024. Community Project Funding Request In addition to American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), there are potential federal funding dollars in the future from The Moving Forward Act or The Build Back Better Plan currently being considered. This funding would likely focus on infrastructure, transportation, and other projects with large REVISED 179 Item e. American Recovery Funds & Community Project Funding Request April 12, 2021 Page 2 stakeholder support that are not applicable to ARPA. The recommendation to the Town by Congresswoman Wexton’s staff and by professional organizations is to submit capital projects to the appropriate federal agencies. The guidance received to date is to identify a list of ten community projects and to prioritize the top three. The projects and/or programs that will be approved may focus on a wide range of areas including environmental, infrastructure, transportation, public safety, utilities, airport, and other areas. The deadline for submitting is April 15. However, there will be a process of follow-ups from agencies to finalize the submissions. Background: The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (H.R. 1319) was signed into law by President Biden on March 11, 2021. The bill provides $1.9 trillion nationally to address the continued impact of COVID-19 on the economy, public health, state and local governments, individuals, and businesses. The local fund portion of the bill divides $130.2 billion evenly between non-county municipalities and counties. Towns will be provided a separate allocation from the County. The U.S. Department of Treasury is responsible for determining the correct allocations to all entities, and is allowed under the legislation to make pro-rata adjustments. Localities are waiting on more detailed guidance from the Department of Treasury, but the legislation outlines “big picture” allowable uses of the funds for states and localities with the following specific guardrails:  Respond to or mitigate the public health emergency with respect to the COVID-19 emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality.  Provide government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency. There is some question as to whether this provision is just for the state governments or if it extends to both state and local governments. Treasury guidance will ultimately determine this.  Make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.  Allow premium pay for eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency, or by providing grants to eligible employers that have eligible workers who perform essential work. An eligible worker is defined as those workers needed to maintain continuity of operations of essential critical infrastructure sectors and additional sectors as such chief executive officer of a county may designate as critical to protect the health and well-being of the residents in their county. Premium pay means an additional amount up to $13 per hour that is paid to an eligible worker for work during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law imposes a cap of $25,000 for any single eligible worker.  State and local governments can transfer the funds to a private nonprofit organization, a public benefit corporation involved in the transportation of passengers or cargo or a special- purpose unit of State or local government. The recipient would need to use funds consistent with the law and U.S. Treasury guidance. 180 Item e. American Recovery Funds & Community Project Funding Request April 12, 2021 Page 3  States are not allowed to use the fund to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue that results from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax. If a state violates this provision, it would be required to repay the amount of the applicable reduction to net tax revenue. This provision is not listed for the local recovery fund. No funds shall be deposited into any pension fund. This would include any funds associated with additional premium pay. This applies to both the state and local recovery funds. Community Project Funding Request To meet the needs of communities across the United States, the House Appropriations Committee is accepting programmatic, language-based and Community Project Funding requests from Members of Congress. Agencies accepting community funding requests:  Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies  Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies  Defense  Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies  Financial Services and General Government  Homeland Security  Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies  Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies  Legislative Branch  Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies  State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs  Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies More information regarding guidance can be found on the House Committee on Appropriations website: https://appropriations.house.gov/appropriations-requests Proposed Legislation: RESOLUTION Submitting a Prioritized List of Community Project Funding Requests to Federal Agencies Draft Motions: 1. I move to approve the proposed Resolution Submitting a Prioritized List of Community Project Funding Requests to Federal Agencies. 181 Item e. American Recovery Funds & Community Project Funding Request April 12, 2021 Page 4 2. I move to deny the proposed Resolution Submitting a Prioritized List of Community Project Funding Requests to Federal Agencies. OR 3. I move an alternate motion. Attachments: (1) Recommended Submissions for Community Project Funding Requests (2) Approved Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2022-2027 182 Item e. PRESENTED: April 13, 2021 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- ADOPTED: _____________ A RESOLUTION : SUBMITTING A PRIORITIZED LIST OF COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING REQUESTS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES WHEREAS, there is a potential for federal funding for community projects through either the Moving Forward Act or Build Back Better Plan; and WHEREAS, the staff of Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton along with professional organizations have recommended submitting a prioritized list of community projects to federal agencies; and WHEREAS, Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton will also submit ten projects across the congressional district; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended projects likely to be approved will have large stakeholder support such as infrastructure and transportation related project; and WHEREAS, other projects already approved in a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) will also be considered. THEREFORE, RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: 1. Approval of a prioritized list of community project funding request submissions to federal agencies as follows: 1. Route 15 Bypass/Edwards Ferry Road/Fort Evans Road Interchange 2. MC3 - Mobile Command and Communications Center 3. Lawson Road Pedestrian Crossing 4. Town Branch at Mosby Drive REVISED 183 Item e. A RESOLUTION: SUBMITTING A PRIORITIZED LIST OF COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING REQUESTS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES -2- 5. Veterans Park 6. Evergreen Mill Road Widening 7. North Hangar Area (Site) Development 8. Western Pressure Zone Pump Station Generator 9. Police Station Expansion (Construction Phase) 10. Land Acquisition - North of Ida Lee Park PASSED this 13th day of April, 2021. ______________________________ Kelly Burk, Mayor Town of Leesburg ATTEST: ______________________________ Clerk of Council 184 Item e. Recommended Submissions for Community Project Funding RequestsTown DepartmentProject NameApplicable Community Funding CategoryTent. Fed. Funding Req.RemarksRanked PriorityDPW/CIPRte. 15 Bypass/Edwards Ferry Rd. /FortEvans Rd. InterchangeTransportation, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, and Related Agencies $163,973,000 This project has a significant funding shortfall (~$173M) and as a result, an undefined delivery date. Project under review for possible scope/cost reduction. $6,000,000 will fund design. 1PoliceMC3 ‐ Mobile Command and Communications CenterCommerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies $ 800,000 Vehicle purchase.2DPW/CIPLawson Rd. Ped. CrossingInterior, Environment, and Related Agencies $ 935,000 DES=$175,000; LAND=$15,000; UTIL=$15,000, CON=$730,000.3DPW/CIPTown Branch at Mosby Dr.Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies$ 1,400,000 DES=$200,000, LAND = $200,000, CON=$2,000,000. $1,000,000 SLAFGrant Pending.4Parks & RecVeterans ParkInterior, Environment, and Related Agencies$ 1,000,000 Additional funding for waterway access and improvements toPotomac River for Loudoun County and Town residents.5DPW/CIPEvergreen Mill Rd WideningTransportation, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, and Related Agencies $ 3,000,000 Currently in CIP but delayed 2 years due to lack of funding.6AirportNorth Hangar Area (Site) DevelopmentTransportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies $ 450,000 The project mitigates safety issues by increasing hanger separation from runway. Grant request is predicated on the amount of FAA grant programmed for this project in comparison with the actual construction cost.7Emergency Management / UtilitiesWestern Pressure Zone pump station generatorHomeland Security / FEMA $ 600,000 Currently in the Utilities CIP for FY 2027 .8PolicePolice Station Expansion (Construction Phase)Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies $ 18,750,000 Construction phase funding.9Parks & RecLand AcquisitionInterior, Environment, and Related Agencies$ 5,000,000 Acquisition of 40 Acres, north of Ida Lee Park. Property will remain inpassive land use. 10_________$ 1,200,000REVISED185Item e. COUNCIL ACTIONS CALENDAR Tentative/Subject to Change 4/7/20214:38 PM MeetingDate MeetingType Name SubmittedBy 04/12/2021 Town Council Work Session DISCUSSION: Affordable Housing BerryHill, Susan DISCUSSION: Airport Ad Hoc Committee Report Belote, Tara DISCUSSION: American Recovery Funds & Community Project Funding Request Fazenbaker, Cole DISCUSSION: Sycolin Cemetery - MOU with Loudoun Freedom Center Smith, Carmen DISCUSSION: Town of Round Hill Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Cicalese, Karen INFORMATION MEMO: Visit Loudoun Monthly Report Seymour, Russell 04/13/2021 Town Council Meeting CONSENT: Award Contract to FJ Industrial for Water Pollution Control Boiler Replacement Wyks, Amy CONSENT: Motion to Approve Pay Increase for Town Manager Boeing, Eileen CONSENT: Extending Airport Remote Control Tower operating hours Coffman, Scott CONSENT: Ida Lee Tennis Court Air Structure Construction Contract Award Steyer, Cindy CONSENT: Motion to Illuminate the Town Parking Garage for Sexual Assault Awareness Month Belote, Tara MOTION: National Drinking Water Week (Sponsor: Mayor Burk)Wyks, Amy PRESENTATION: Planning Commission Annual Report Cicalese, Karen PROCLAMATION: Arbor Day Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Day of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Sexual Assault Awareness Month Belote, Tara PUBLIC HEARING: Town's Capital Asset Replacement Program General Obligation Bond Cournoyer, Jason RESOLUTION: Amending Resolution 2021-013 Councilmanic Appointments to Change VML Appointments Boeing, Eileen RESOLUTION: Community Project Funding Request Boeing, Eileen RESOLUTION: Loudoun Museum Lease Amendment Belote, Tara RESOLUTION: Public Art Exhibit at Town Hall Kosin, Leah 04/26/2021 Town Council Work Session DISCUSSION: Collective Bargaining Belote, Tara DISCUSSION: Crime Statistics (LPD)Belote, Tara DISCUSSION: Disclosure Requirement of Developer/Seller to Potential Buyers Related to Surrounding Neighborhoods and ActiviCicalese, Karen DISCUSSION: Legislative Agenda Belote, Tara DISCUSSION: Zoning Odinance Amendment and Initiation regarding donation boxes Cicalese, Karen INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - March Boeing, Eileen 04/27/2021 Town Council Meeting CONSENT: Approve Encroachment Agreement of Sanitary Sewer Easement for Goose Creek Club Wyks, Amy CONSENT: Award Task to FJ Industrial for Belt Filter Press Replacement at WPCF Wyks, Amy CONSENT: Richmond Dam Sanitary Sewer Encroachment Agreement Wyks, Amy CONSENT: Village of Landbay C Sanitary Sewer Agreement Wyks, Amy 186 Item a. COUNCIL ACTIONS CALENDAR Tentative/Subject to Change 4/7/20214:38 PM MeetingDate MeetingType Name SubmittedBy 04/27/2021 Town Council Meeting CONSENT: Battlefield Pkwy/Rte 15 Bypass Interchange – VDOT Review Agreement Steyer, Cindy CONSENT: Contract Award for LMIS Software Belote, Tara CONSENT: Loudoun County Animal Shelter Encroachment Agreement of Waterline Easement Wyks, Amy MOTION: National Public Works Week (Sponsor Mayor Burk)Southerland, Danielle PROCLAMATION: National Drinking Water Week Wyks, Amy PROCLAMATION: National Day or Prayer Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: World Ovarian Cancer Day Belote, Tara RESOLUTION: Cattail Run Extension of Utilities Request Wyks, Amy RESOLUTION: Collective Bargaining Belote, Tara RESOLUTION: Electric Vehicle Charging Grant Belote, Tara RESOLUTION: Equine Center Utility Extension Request Wyks, Amy RESOLUTION: Harrison Street Art Mural Kosin, Leah RESOLUTION: Tuscarora Crossing Extension of Utilities Request Wyks, Amy 05/10/2021 Town Council Work Session DISCUSSION: Public Private Partnership/Liberty Lot Redevelopment Smith, Carmen DISCUSSION: Storm water management - Tuscarora Creek and Town Branch Southerland, Danielle 05/11/2021 Town Council Meeting POTENTIAL CLOSED SESSION: Boundary Line Adjustment and Revenue Sharing Agreement Smith, Carmen PROCLAMATION: Kids to Park Day Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Mental Health Awareness Month Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: National Military Appreciation Month Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: National Police Week Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: National Public Works Week Southerland, Danielle PUBLIC HEARING: Sycolin Cemetery Lot Dedication to Loudoun Freedom Center (Tentative)Smith, Carmen PUBLIC HEARING; TLSE-2020-0003, Playful Pack Doggie Daycare Parker, Scott 05/24/2021 Town Council Work Session DISCUSSION: Arts and Cultural District - Wayfinding Signs and Banners on Private Buildings Eagle, Tabitha DISCUSSION: Continuing Disclosure Requirements Related To Town Debt Case, Clark DISCUSSION: Murals on Private Buildings Cicalese, Karen DISCUSSION: Strategic Property Acquisitions Belote, Tara INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - April Boeing, Eileen INFORMATION MEMO: Quarterly Budget and CIP Update Fazenbaker, Cole 05/25/2021 Town Council Meeting PROCLAMATION: National Gun Violence Awareness Day Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Wayne's Crossing Day Belote, Tara 187 Item a. COUNCIL ACTIONS CALENDAR Tentative/Subject to Change 4/7/20214:38 PM MeetingDate MeetingType Name SubmittedBy 05/25/2021 Town Council Meeting RESOLUTION: Reconciliation of Snow Storm Costs Cournoyer, Jason 06/07/2021 Town Council Work Session DISCUSSION: MEC Lease and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)Seymour, Russell 06/08/2021 Town Council Meeting PROCLAMATION: Juneteenth Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: LGBTQ Pride Month Belote, Tara PUBLIC HEARING: At Home BLA at Compass Creek and Walmart BLA(Tentative)Smith, Carmen PUBLIC HEARING: Monthly Meals Tax Filing Code Fazenbaker, Cole RESOLUTION: Ethics Policy Smith, Carmen RESOLUTION: Ida Lee Roof Replacement - Construction Contract Award Steyer, Cindy 06/21/2021 Town Council Work Session INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - May Boeing, Eileen 06/22/2021 Town Council Meeting ORDINANCE: Continuity of Government Ordinance Renewal (PLACEHOLDER)Smith, Carmen 07/13/2021 Town Council Meeting CONSENT: Award Contract for Industrial Coatings Application for Utilities Wyks, Amy RESOLUTION: Geotechnical Services Continuing Services Contract Award Steyer, Cindy RESOLUTION: Renewal and Extension of Consolidating Billing MOA with County of Loudoun Fazenbaker, Cole 07/26/2021 Town Council Work Session INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - June Boeing, Eileen INFORMATION MEMO: Quarterly Budget and CIP Update Fazenbaker, Cole 07/27/2021 Town Council Meeting RESOLUTION: Airport North Hangars - Construction Contract Award Steyer, Cindy 08/09/2021 Town Council Work Session INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - July Boeing, Eileen 08/10/2021 Town Council Meeting PROCLAMATION: National Payroll Week Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: World Suicide Prevention Day Belote, Tara 09/13/2021 Town Council Work Session DISCUSSION: Town Plan/Legacy Leesburg Cicalese, Karen 09/14/2021 Town Council Meeting PROCLAMATION: Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Constitution Week Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Hispanic Heritage Month Belote, Tara PUBLIC HEARING; Town Plan/Legacy Leesburg Cicalese, Karen 09/27/2021 Town Council Work Session INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - August Boeing, Eileen 10/12/2021 Town Council Meeting: Regular + Work Session PROCLAMATION: Bullying Prevention Month Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Domestic Violence Awareness Month Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Dysautonomia Awareness Month Belote, Tara 10/25/2021 Town Council Work Session INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - September Boeing, Eileen 11/09/2021 Town Council Meeting PROCLAMATION: Diabetes Awareness Month Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: National American Indian Heritage Month Belote, Tara 188 Item a. COUNCIL ACTIONS CALENDAR Tentative/Subject to Change 4/7/20214:38 PM MeetingDate MeetingType Name SubmittedBy 11/09/2021 Town Council Meeting PROCLAMATION: Small Business Saturday Belote, Tara PROCLAMATION: Veterans Day Belote, Tara 11/22/2021 Town Council Work Session INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - October Boeing, Eileen 12/13/2021 Town Council Work Session INFORMATION MEMO: Board and Commission Report - November Boeing, Eileen 12/14/2021 Town Council Meeting PROCLAMATION: Recognition of Public Service of Town Employees Retiring Belote, Tara 189 Item a. Date of Council Meeting: April 12, 2021 TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION INFORMATION MEMORANDUM Subject: Visit Loudoun Monthly Report Staff Contact: Russell Seymour, Director of Economic Development Council Action Requested: Information memo only. No action is required by Council at this time. Staff Recommendation: Information memo only. No staff recommendation at this time. Commission Recommendation: None. Fiscal Impact: None. Work Plan Impact: None. The partnership and associated coordination with Visit Loudoun is part of the Department of Economic Development’s current work plan. Executive Summary: Visit Loudoun’s Travel Pulse Monthly Report for the month of February 2021. Background: As part of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Town, Visit Loudoun provides monthly reports on information pertaining to hotel occupancy that includes both Town and County hotels along with relevant Visitor Center data. Attachment/s: 1. Monthly Report for February 2021 190 Item a. Visit Loudoun's Travel Pulse Travel Pulse Good afternoon, Please find monthly indicators below for Loudoun County in February 2021. Overall, performance was down from January when there was a boost from business around Inauguration. Visit Loudoun has purchased a custom forecast report from STR, Inc. that features projected occupancy, ADR and RevPar for 18 months out. Monthly projections have been included in each metric below, as the dotted lines on the graphs. This forecast was last updated in February 2021. Webinar: The State of Loudoun's Lodging Industry & 2021 forecast Register Here Visit Loudoun will be hosting a webinar next Thursday, March 25th at 1pm during which Diana Kelterborn, CRM & research analyst at Visit Loudoun, will share the latest findings from our 2021 Lodging Study including historical trends and 2021 hotel forecasts. In addition, she'll present key insights about Loudoun's short-term residential rental market. This information will help Loudoun’s accommodation sector plan for further recovery. All registrants will receive a webinar recording and a copy of the 2021 Lodging Study, so register even if you're not able to join us live. Loudoun County Hotel Occupancy Occupancy in February 2021 was 38.9%, a 31.2% decrease from February 2020. This performance is slightly ahead of Northern Virginia as a whole whose February occupancy was 191 Item a. 35.0%. The greater Washington DC region had 36.6% occupancy. Source: STR Inc. Loudoun County Average Daily Room Rate (ADR) ADR for February 2021 in Loudoun County was $94.99, a 18.9% decrease from February 2020. Source: STR Inc. Loudoun County Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR) 192 Item a. RevPAR for Loudoun County in February 2021 was $36.93, a 44.2% decrease from February 2020. Source: STR Inc. Dulles Airport Passenger Traffic 702,183 passengers passed through the gates of Dulles in December 2020, a 66% decrease from December 2019. In 2020, Dulles saw just one-third of its 2019 passenger volume. A total of 8.2 million passengers in 2020 compared to 24.7 million in 2019. Additional insights from MWAA can be found in the link below. January & February statistics have not been released yet. Source: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 193 Item a. 194 Item a. Leesburg Figures for February 2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 50.0%56.8%63.6%74.4%85.6%84.3%75.9%72.5%73.7%80.8%65.6%49.3% 2020 49.7%51.7%37.2%27.8%23.5%31.3%41.1%46.2%47.3%52.3%36.8%30.6% 2021 35.9%35.7% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Leesburg Occupancy: 35.7% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 $95.8 $96.8 $100.$107.$116.$116.$112.$115.$116.$119.$112.$99.4 2020 $95.5 $101.$100.$86.0 $84.0 $90.0 $92.7 $95.2 $98.0 $104.$97.9 $90.7 2021 $93.8 $89.6 $80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 Leesburg Average Daily Rate (ADR): $89.64 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 $47.88 $55.07 $63.62 $80.18 $99.36 $98.33 $85.67 $83.46 $85.75 $96.17 $73.77 $49.05 2020 $47.44 $49.90 $37.36 $23.89 $19.78 $28.18 $38.12 $43.95 $46.41 $54.42 $35.99 $27.75 2021 $33.69 $32.02 $18 $28 $38 $48 $58 $68 $78 $88 $98 $108 Leesburg Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR): $32.02 195 Item a.