HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021_tcwsmin0621Council Work Session June 21, 2021
Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Kelly Burk presiding.
Council Members Present: Ara Bagdasarian, Zach Cummings, Suzanne Fox, Vice
Mayor Martinez, Kari Nacy, Neil Steinberg and Mayor Kelly Burk.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Christopher Spera, Deputy
Town Manager Keith Markel, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill
(electronic participation), Director of Economic Development Russell Seymour, Senior
Planning Project Manager Chris Murphy, Preservation Planner Lauren Murphy and
Executive Associate Corina Alvarez.
Minutes prepared by Executive Associate Corina Alvarez.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Electronic Participation for Council Member Nacy
Council Member Nacy requested to participate in the Council Work Session
electronically. Mayor Burk, Council Member Bagdasarian, Council Member Cummings,
Council Member Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Council Member Steinberg were
physically present at the meeting.
MOTION 2021-119
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
To allow Council Member Nacy to electronically participate in the June 21, 2021, Town
Council Work Session.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Bagdasarian, Cummings, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Nacy abstain)
2. Items for Discussion
a. Board of Architectural Review Customer Service Survey
Ms. Lauren Murphy presented Council with recommendations for a
customer service survey for certificate of appropriateness applicants.
Council and staff discussed the item.
It was the consensus of the Council to allow staff to prepare an online survey for
customer feedback going back one year and that the survey be included in all future
certificate of appropriateness applications.
b. Certificate of Appropriateness Administrative Review
Ms. Lauren Murphy provided Council with suggested ordinance
amendments regarding administrative approvals of certificates of appropriateness.
Council and staff discussed the item.
1'Page
Council Work Session June 21, 2021
It was the consensus of the Council to allow staff to initiate and refer zoning
ordinance amendments to the Board of Architectural Review for its assessment of the
expansion of administrative approvals of certificates of appropriateness by the Town's
Preservation Planner.
c. Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C -PACE) Program
Promotion
Mr. Russell Seymour gave an overview of the current status of the C -
PACE Program and offered some marketing recommendations for Council's
consideration.
Council and staff discussed the item.
It was the consensus of the Council to allow staff to promote this program through
different mediums and to organize a meeting with financial institutions to discuss funding
opportunities.
d. Open Space Requirements for Multi -Family Development and Attached
Single Family Development in the B-1 District
On a proposal from Council Member Steinberg, Council agreed to have
staff present this item and the Density and Intensity Standards for Multi -family in
the B-1 District back to back and have discussions after the second item.
Mr. Chris Murphy gave an overview of the existing regulations, their
impact and suggested alternatives.
e. Density and Intensity Standards for Multi -family in the B-1 District
Mr. Chris Murphy gave an overview of the existing regulations, their
impact and suggested alternatives.
Council and staff discussed both items.
It was the consensus of the Council to wait for the open space recommendations that
come out of the Legacy Leesburg Town Plan revisions before initiating any zoning
ordinance amendments.
There was no Council consensus regarding Density and Intensity Standards for
Multi family in the B-1 District.
3. Additions to Future Council Meetings
None.
4. Adjournment
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Clerk of Council
2021 tcwsmin0621
2 Page
June 21, 2021 — Town Council Work Session
Please note that, due to technical sound difficulties, this transcript may contain inaccuracies beyond the
transcriber's control.
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It
may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the
meeting that is on the Town's Web site — www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Council
meeting minutes. Council meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting
per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
Mayor Kelly Burk: Let me call to order our Town Council Work Session of June 21st, 2021.
Council Member Neil Steinberg: Mayor Burk?
Mayor Burk: Oh, yes.
Council Member Steinberg: I'd like to offer a suggestion.
Mayor Burk: Just one moment, please. May I have a motion to allow Kari Nacy to electronically
participate in the June 21st, 2021 Town Council work session?
Vice Mayor Fernando "Marty" Martinez: So moved.
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Moved by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by whom? Council Member Steinberg. All in
favor indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed. That's 6-0-1. Ms. Nacy, you are now part of the meeting. All right, Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: I'd like to suggest in the items for discussion, items D and E involve very
similar topics. They're both being delivered this evening by Chris Murphy. I'm suggesting that we take
those two items and combine the discussion as one item and that'll keep our Q&A, I think, more concise
since many of the questions and answers will be the same.
Mayor Burk: Does anybody have any objection if we discuss that together? All right. Our first point of
discussion tonight is the Board of Architectural Review Customer Service Survey. Lauren Murphy,
you're --
Lauren Murphy: Thank you. Good evening, although it looks like afternoon out there. It's so nice and
bright outside still, which I love. I'm Lauren Murphy. I'm the Preservation Planner for the Town. Susan
Berry Hill is joining us on the WebEx tonight. Your first item for discussion tonight is a brief discussion
of a BAR survey. It was brought up at the May 24th Town Council meeting, where the Council asked
staff to return to a future work session with information about a possible survey for COA applicants. The
BAR has been briefed on this item very briefly at the end of our June 9th work session, but we have not
yet reviewed any potential draft questions with them.
There are several options. We've had a brief consultation with the Public Information Officer for the
Town. Three different possibilities for how to administer such a survey, either written; a mail and return,
by phone, which could be managed by the Public Information Office, or an online survey. Preservation
staff and PIO staff are thinking that online survey is probably the most likely since it's relatively easy to
use and people are familiar with it and also lets them participate anonymously. Of those delivery
methods, we would recommend the online survey, but we're open to talking about the others with the
Council, of course.
Page 11 June 21, 2021
We do envision it being a simple, user-friendly survey, to ensure completion. Not anything too long and
detailed that'll have people giving up midway through. Approximately 10 or so questions, and most of
them with a rating system so that we can gather data.
In general, we're thinking that the survey would focus on three primary areas. The first being the overall
user experience with the application process, including our new on all electronic submission process,
which was just started during the COVID pandemic. The user experience with the BAR, including the
BAR meetings, and then also whether or not the guidelines were usable and helpful for their project.
We don't envision it focusing on the more existential questions like, "Should there be a Historic
District?", because those are a little bit harder for us to quantify and to actually make improvements and
process changes as a result.
In your packets, there was a listing of sample questions. Those have not had enough time to be fully
reviewed, but we did want to provide something so that you would see the types of things we're
envisioning being able to ask people. Again, the ease of completing the application, the overall effect
of the guidelines on their project, whether or not they use the guidelines at all, which as the preservation
planner, that's helpful information for me to have. Then, again, ways that their process could have been
improved.
Tonight we're seeking some additional guidance from you. The first being that, did you have thoughts
or edits to the sample questions that were provided in your packet or did you wish to see the actual final
survey before it's distributed? Do you have a preferred method? Again, we're recommending
SurveyMonkey. The Town has a SurveyMonkey account and the public information officer is very
familiar with it. I've used it successfully in other jurisdictions as well. Then how often would you like to
see the feedback from the survey? I think we already do an annual report, so it seems logical that it
would be incorporated into that, but we could also do it more frequently. That's all I have on this item.
Mayor Burk: May I ask? You're doing a survey to the people who have already gone before the BAR?
Lauren Murphy: I guess that the methodology of the survey, I haven't quite had time to really work out
fully with Betsy. I don't know and I certainly would be interested in hearing the Council's feedback if you
want to start it going forward or if you want to go back in time and ask applicants who have already
completed their process. I wouldn't go back too far just because then people don't really remember,
they've put it behind them, they've moved on. They may not even actually have ever done the project.
Certainly, we would do it going forward, but we could also go back in time for people who are already
finished.
Mayor Burk: I just want to make sure that it wasn't just open to anybody. That it's- [crosstalk]
Lauren Murphy: Correct. It would just be people who have gone through the BAR process.
Mayor Burk: -process. Why would you not just send the questions to them? Why would you use the
SurveyMonkey? What would be the advantage, one way or the other?
Lauren Murphy: Well, at least for what I've done in the past, to me, SurveyMonkey offers a lot of
options, where you can tabulate and cross tabulate, so for example --
Mayor Burk: So it does all that for you, so you don't have- [crosstalk]
Lauren Murphy: Right. It does it all for you, so we don't have to keep an Excel spreadsheet. In fact,
you can export them, you can create graphs, you can do a lot of nice things that make my job easier.
That's why I would recommend it.
Mayor Burk: All right. As far as I'm concerned, I think you start now, you don't go back with this. We
don't need to reinvent things. Anyone else have any questions? Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: I'm just wondering, was there something in particular or specific that
precipitated this action or the idea of the survey?
Page 2I June 21, 2021
Lauren Murphy: That precipitate-- I'm sorry?
Council Member Steinberg: How did we get to this idea of the survey?
Lauren Murphy: Of doing a survey?
Council Member Steinberg: Was there something specific that precipitated this?
Lauren Murphy: No, we were asked to come back and provide a possibility for a survey. I'll put that to
the Council.
Mayor Burk: It came from Mr. Cummings. This was a motion from Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings?
Council Member Zach Cummings: Thank you. Thank you, Lauren, for your work on this. I asked for
this because I believe when looking at boards and commissions and other entities that deal directly with
the public, the BAR sees a number of, obviously, property owners and other residents in front of them
quite often.
One of the ways we can borrow from the business world is, their folks are always surveying and trying
to make their processes better, and BAR is-- when you're dealing with the guidelines and dealing with
folks who have some know that they're in the Historic District, some don't know, and there's a lot of
outreach talk happening on the BAR and there is some work when they ever get some time between
these certificates of appropriateness, they want to do some more outreach.
I just felt like this was a good way to help gather some information on how folks are coming in front of
the BAR, what their knowledge base is, where they're finding their information. The sample survey
questions, Lauren, I thought were really good. The only thing I thought maybe to add or would suggest
to add is try to find where folks are pulling their information from. When they purchased their home or
when they decided to take on the project, did they know that they were in the District? If they didn't
know, how did they find out? That will give us, maybe, some information to help with that outreach
process to know where to go.
I agree that it's moving forward. I don't think we want to go back and ask folks who have come in front.
It's just too tricky. I fully support using the survey. I've used SurveyMonkey in my personal business. I
think it's a good entity to use to help gather the information and to be able to look at it in a cross section.
I think this is a very, very important piece of customer service.
Even though we're government, we still serve the public as customers, especially folks at the BAR who
are spending a lot of time working with staff and working with the boards and commissions to get their
projects through. It's just something I thought would be good to allow us to track and measure how
we're performing and how one of our most active boards get them some feedback on what's happening
in front of them.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: I have a few different views. I figured the number of people you'd have to contact
would not be a big deal. I would like to go back at least two years, or at least this current Council, to call
back and offer the option to have staff call them versus online. Since this would probably be a smaller
sample size, I don't think that would be a big deal.
I also know that anybody who's gone forward the board and has had to go to two or three meetings will
not forget their experience, and would want to either offer suggestions or vent a little bit on what they
think needed to be done or not done. I prefer the opportunity to talk to people. There are some things
you can't get out of an online survey that you can only get versus talking, so that's what I would like to
do. I'd like to go back at least two years and from now on and offering these surveys.
A couple of questions I had is-- Zach and I talked a lot about this, and I'm primarily concerned about
the people that have no idea what they're getting into when they buy a home in the Historic District. I
was wondering what staff did to look at those people. Do they know when somebody sells the historic
Page 31 June 21, 2021
property, and do they have a process which to contact that homeowner and let them know what the
restrictions or requirements are to make changes to their home in the Historic District? If we don't have
a process, I think we need to have one so when they come forward to the BAR, they have an idea of
what they need to do.
Then the other question I have is, when residents come forward and want to put forward an application
for the COA, are there any standard templates that they can use to fill out? Now, I know you have
application forms and stuff, but a template that guides them on what they need to do to get that COA?
Lauren Murphy: Answer to both of your questions is, no, we do not have that. There was a very brief
time when Historic District zoning was required to be disclosed to purchasers by the seller. It lasted, I
think, one session of the General Assembly and then it was removed. Now Historic District zoning is
entirely on the purchaser along with any other zoning on the property, sort of a buyer beware for them
to ask for a zoning certification letter.
We do not have a process currently for notifying or getting a list of people who recently have purchased.
I honestly don't know the answer to whether or not there's a possibility to get a list for people who have
recently purchased in the district. I could certainly look into that.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Well, I've heard some residents be very angry because they did not know that
what they were buying, what they would need to do, just to paint their outside, what they had to go
through just to get that done. I think we need to do something for especially residents.
It's a different process for commercial because they already know what they're getting into. Most of
them have already gone through this process, but a resident that just buys a home and doesn't know
that it's in Historic Districts and what restrictions they have in doing any repairs on their home, they
should know about that before they even buy it. Even if they do buy it, we should at least as a Town, as
a courtesy, give them what they just bought into. Anyway, those are my comments. I know there's more
coming, so I look forward to your next presentation. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Ara Bagdasarian: Thanks, Lauren. Just a couple of thoughts. Number one, I think
that the survey should be baked into part of the process moving forward. At the very end of the BAR
process, getting feedback and letting folks know that the time expectation, "It takes three minutes, 10
questions," just so they know upfront. Often people don't tend to take surveys because they don't want
to go down this long journey to answer a hundred questions. So, letting them know upfront.
To the Vice Mayor's point about going backwards. If we do retroactively look at applicants to the BAR,
the only people that will respond to a survey will be the ones that are just unhappy and they have
complaints. However, if there are verbal interviews with folks, then you can extract true feedback, if we
decide to go retroactively. Typically, with any surveys, it's just usually the people that have issues will
be more apt to complete that.
Just to reiterate, I just think this should be-- part of the process, the last step is, "Please share your
feedback so we can improve." As Council Member Cummings mentioned, yes, it's all about customer
service. In every department, every commission, how can we improve things? This is one way that we
can do that with BAR. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Nacy?
Council Member Kari Nacy: Thank you. Just one quick comment. I think I agree with Vice Mayor
Martinez about going back retroactively, even if it's just the year. I think it would just help set a baseline
for the BAR to say, "Okay, here are some immediate changes we may be able to make or not make,"
or "Here's what the feedback we've gotten so far," and then moving forward include it as part of their
end process. I just think sometimes the process takes so long that it might be a while before we got
feedback from a survey if we wait to start it now, just because some of the projects and the process
may take long. That's just my thought.
Page 41 June 21, 2021
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Ms. Fox?
Council Member Suzanne Fox: Thanks. Just two quick thoughts. I know that the BAR is-- at least the
chairperson thinks the survey is good and they're looking forward to that feedback. The one thing that
I would put on here, I think Vice Mayor Martinez alluded to it, was a question about whether or not they
knew they were actually in the H-1. I think that's a really pertinent question. I have a real quick question
about what happens with staff. How do staff take care of the question from an applicant when they
come forward to you and say, "Oh, my gosh, I didn't know this"? What do you what kind of advice do
you give them?
Lauren Murphy: Sure. We do get those kinds of calls. I'll be honest, most people do know when they
purchased a home in the Historic District because they've actually actively sought that out. Most people
who are moving into the Historic District are moving in because they like it, they like the charm, they
like the ambiance, they like having a historic building.
I would say the majority of people, and that's just anecdotal, I don't know the percentage, but I would
say the majority of people probably already do know. They might not know what the review processes
are or what the permitting requirements are, so typically when I'm talking to new residents in the Historic
District, it's because they're calling me to say, "Hey, I just bought the house at 102 Cornwall Street and
I'm super excited. These are the ideas for a project that I have. Can I do them? Yes or no. If I want to
do them, what's the process?" Then we just talk from there. I would say the majority of my interactions
with new residents is that sort of process.
Council Member Suzanne Fox: Do they appear overwhelmed?
Lauren Murphy: No, I don't think so.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox, I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the question.
Council Member Fox: I was just wondering if they were overwhelmed by what they were learning.
Lauren Murphy: I don't think so. They've certainly never expressed that to me if they do, but I think,
occasionally, we do get a situation where someone purchased a home in the Historic District and either
didn't know that they were in the Historic District or knew and they didn't care about what the required
process was. We have that happen sometimes.
Council Member Fox: I know that.
Lauren Murphy: Those conversations are certainly less comfortable because a lot of times they might
have already done a project. Sometimes it's simple and might just be-- I had one over on Andover Court,
for example, where you probably wouldn't know that Andover Court was in the Historic District if you
had not looked at the Historic District map. It's all new homes. It looks like a standard neighborhood,
they're all relatively recently built, and they were like, "Oh my God, we already painted it." I was like,
"It's going to be okay. Send me your paint color, fill out this application form. The next item we'll talk
about is an administrative approval. Send me a picture of what it looks like. I'm sure it's got to be fine.
Is it fluorescent orange?" "No, it's blue," "We're going to be fine."
I think that sometimes it's, that other times, it's a little more intense, when people have done things like
removed historic windows or taken off historic portions of their building or maybe even non -historic
portions of their building. There's usually other permits other than just mine that are required, like from
the Town or from the County for the building permit. Those can be a little less comfortable, but people
are usually willing to correct the mistake.
Council Member Fox: What percentage of the COA applicants are -
Lauren Murphy: Retroactive?
Council Member Fox: Not just retroactive, but they have come to you and said, "Mea culpa. I'm sorry,
I did this," that kind of thing.
Page 51 June 21, 2021
Lauren Murphy: Honestly, not very many. Since I've been with the Town, which has been like two and
a half years maybe, I think I've done maybe five or six retroactive applications.
Council Member Fox: Thanks.
Lauren Murphy: It's certainly not the majority of them. Most people, again, make that phone call before
they want to start a project. It helps that the majority of projects also require other permits, so then they
might not know that they need to get a Historic District permit, but they stop at the County to try and pull
a building permit and the County says, "You're in the Town, you got to go talk to the Town." That helps
sometimes to catch people.
Council Member Fox: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Lauren, can you describe what the resistance was to the idea of informed
consent, if you will, in buying into a Historic District that caused the General Assembly to reverse
course?
Lauren Murphy: I don't know how to say this. When I worked for the County and I was one of the
preservation people that worked with the County's equivalent of BAR, the chairman of the BAR was a
realtor and she was instrumental in getting it put into the requirement for disclosure. I think, because
she was, and Zach, I don't know, maybe you can tell me, but I think she was either the chairwoman or
the president of the Dulles Area Association of Realtors, I don't know what the terminology is, but she
was involved with Dulles Area Association of Realtors and that was a pitch that they made.
Then when she was no longer in that leadership position, somebody else came in and, I think, they
thought it was not a good idea. Then they were lobbied by other people to have it removed, is my
understanding.
Council Member Steinberg: At the State level?
Lauren Murphy: At the State level, yes. It would be at a code requirement to make it a required
disclosure. It was in, and then very shortly after, somebody else lobbied.
Council Member Steinberg: You wouldn't necessarily be aware of in other parts of the State where
resistance may have come?
Lauren Murphy: There may have been, I don't know. My understanding from her was that it was mostly
Northern Virginia that was doing the lobbying both times, but I don't know for sure.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Cummings?
Council Member Cummings: Thank you. Two points I wanted to bring up from questions and
comments. In conversations with the City of Alexandria, they actually do a yearly letter to the homes in
their Historic District, and they have two districts. Obviously, financials are different for the City of
Alexandria and the Town of Leesburg but might be something that we as a Council, during the budget
session, look at adding some funds to help that. If I just moved in a year ago and I don't know I'm in the
Historic District and I actually open the letter and look at it, that could help.
The other thing is, to the Vice Mayor's point and others folks who talked about going back, my only
concern is staff time and of Lauren and Debbie and the folks who work with BAR. Their time is just as
valuable as everybody else's, and they're here for the meetings late. I think phone calls and going back
a distance would be great if we had unlimited resources and unlimited staff, but for the purposes of
what I think we need to just start gathering information, I don't see any issue with doing an online survey
moving forward. I think it gets us the information that ultimately we need to glean from the process.
Thank you.
Page 61 June 21, 2021
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: We can always do the online for sending an email to people who've done it over
the last year or two years. We can always do an online survey with them and see how they respond,
but I do think it's important that we do have the personal touch of calling them and getting their point of
view because you will get more from a discussion than you will for an online survey.
The other question I have is-- Oh, the other comment I wanted to quickly make was, yes, everybody
loves buying into a Historic District, but they don't know what it means and what the State of Virginia
requirements are in a Historic District and what the local BAR requirements are in a district. They may
know that they have to do some approvals and stuff, but do not know the extent of what they have to
do. I would love to buy in a Historic District, but I will tell you now that I do not relish having to go in front
of the BAR, just because they don't like the color of my paint.
Lauren Murphy: You will just talk to me about the color of your paint, but I get what you're saying.
Vice Mayor Martinez: You know what I'm saying. Right. That's probably why I 'll never buy in a Historic
District ever because I want my freedom to be able to do what I want with it. Chris, is there anything we
can do locally to make that change or do we have to go through State?
Chris Spera: [unintelligible]
Vice Mayor Martinez: If we wanted to change that, we'd have to lobby for it?
Chris Spera: Yes, sort of.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. That might be something on our legislative agenda maybe. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: We are being asked to decide two things tonight or to move forward. Are there four votes
that would like to have a survey done in regard to the BAR customer service? Are there four people
that-- Okay, Ms. Fox, Mr. Steinberg, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Burk, Mr. Bagdasarian, and I'm
going to assume Kari too. Then the second part of it is, do we want it-- I'll do it in a positive so we have
a yes or no answer. We will start it at this time forward. Are there four people that would prefer to have
the survey start at this time forward and not go backwards? Are there four people that are interested in
starting forward than backwards? Mr. Cummings?
Council Member Cummings: I just would offer if we look-- Maybe the next question is about the
method of gathering the survey. If we look to do an online survey, then I'm comfortable with sending it
to folks from a year back, I think.
Mayor Burk: You just voted on an online survey.
Council Member Cummings: Right. Then if we're going to do it online, I think we're- [crosstalk]
Mayor Burk: Then don't vote for this.
Council Member Cummings: I'm not voting for this.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Those in favor of gathering information at this point forward, indicate by saying aye.
That's-- You want to go back?
Council Member Bagdasarian: I think [unintelligible]
Mayor Burk: There's three in favor. Kari, how are you voting on this?
Council Member Nacy: I'm going to be a no, I'd like to go back.
Page 7I June 21, 2021
Mayor Burk: That fails-- It doesn't fail, but it won't go forward. The next question is, how far do you all
want to go back? 10 years, 5 years?
Council Member Bagdasarian: One year is [unintelligible]
Vice Mayor Martinez: [unintelligible]
Mayor Burk: Excuse me. Mr. Bagdasarian was speaking. Just one second, I'll get back to you.
Council Member Bagdasarian: I think one year is fair. It's still fresh enough. It does serve as a
baseline. We need to accept it for what it is because we're not sure how many people are going to
respond from the sample.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Martinez: [unintelligible].
Mayor Burk: All right. Then we have four people that would be interested in going back one year. That
would be Mr. Cummings, Mr. Steinberg, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Bagdasarian. Then you got your
marching orders on this one. Did we answer all your questions?
Lauren Murphy: I think the only remaining question is, did you want to see the final survey before it's
distributed or do you want to have us just work with a PIO to get that written up?
Mayor Burk: Are there four people that want to see the questions before it goes out to the public? I
think they think they can trust you.
Lauren Murphy: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Lauren Murphy: I'll just stay here.
Mayor Burk: The next item for discussion is the Certificate of Appropriateness Administrative Review.
Lauren Murphy: This was also an item from the May 24th Council work session, where you asked us
to return with information about possible future ordinance amendment regarding administrative
approvals of certificates of appropriateness. We did do some initial research that included looking at
our consent agenda approvals over the last year and a half or so, and also looking at other nearby
jurisdictions to see what they are doing for administrative approvals.
The existing ordinance does allow certain things to already be approved administratively; paint color
changes, signs, some changes to existing buildings, and some site improvements. These are
accomplished in the office, working with either myself or with Debi Parry. There's no public hearing for
them and they do not have a fee. I want this to be clear that it's only for items that are clearly consistent
with the guidelines.
If someone wants to put fluorescent orange paint on their house, I'm probably going to say no to that
administratively. They have the option of coming to the BAR to ask the BAR to approve that fluorescent
orange paint. They're probably also going to say no, so I usually counsel people against that, but they
do technically have the option.
For our consent agenda items, Debi Parry in our office put together a really helpful spreadsheet, which
I think you can find in the attachment, which is what was sent to the BAR. There were seven window
replacements, six patios, four gutter replacements, some signs, which is a caveat to the administrative
approvals that are already allowed, which I can talk about in a few minutes, and some landscape
features, which would be things like pergolas and low retaining walls and things of that nature that have
been approved recently by the board without discussion on the consent agenda.
Page 81 June 21, 2021
For the other jurisdictions, interestingly, I looked at the towns of Middleburg and Purcellville, which are
other Loudoun County jurisdictions, which have architectural review control districts for Historic
Districts. Purcellville does not have any administrative approvals, and Middleburg technically doesn't
have any, but they have a different process, which is an exemption, or someone can make their case
to the preservation planner for why something shouldn't need an approval. It's effectively the same
thing, but that category, what's allowed is very limited.
Really, only Alexandria and Loudoun County provided any productive information for that initial
research. They have a lot of the same things that we already allow, but they do have more. That more
is what helped us to develop this list of possible areas of expansion.
The first two on this list, and I believe I went in the order of the memo that's in your packet, I hope I did.
The first two are more general category than what we have now. We already allow some things which
might fall under these categories, but our lists are currently very narrow. I would recommend that we
look at some way to maybe expand those to allow for a little bit more interpretation.
Same with gutters. Our ordinance currently only allows the preservation planner to replace gutters on
non -historic structures administratively, but most people actually redo their gutters when they redo their
roof. It's really silly to have to tell someone I can approve their roof administratively, but I can't approve
their gutters and so they have to go to the BAR to get their gutters approved. I feel pretty silly when I
have to tell people that. I think that that seems like a no-brainer, so to speak.
Awnings, that's something that we've recently approved on the consent agenda. We have pretty clear
guidelines about those and there could be some design criteria that's incorporated into the ordinance.
Walkways. Again, this is another silly one. The ordinance allows me to approve administratively
residential walkways, but not commercial. When I have a business downtown who wants to add a small
little walkway to their front door, for example, they technically have to come to the BAR, but their
neighbor right next door who's residential could do it administratively. It doesn't make any sense.
Then landscape features. Again, those are things that are already being approved on the consent
agenda, but patios, low retaining walls, pergolas, and potentially even accessory structures of limited
size, we see that in both Loudoun County and Alexandria.
In -kind replacements. Having worked for Loudoun County, I can actually tell you that Loudoun County
does not require a certificate of appropriateness, which is just the fancy word for Historic District permit,
they do not require in -kind replacements to get a permit. They already allow that. That's not listed in
their ordinance because they don't require a permit for it. Alexandria does allow for historically
appropriate in -kind replacements to be done by their preservation staff. Roof in -kind replacements are
already permitted to be reviewed administratively, so why not other things?
Then small cells. This is an item where our guidelines actually do not address small cells. Believe it or
not, in 2009 when we wrote them, we weren't thinking about small cells and 5G and all that stuff. Our
Historic District guidelines are actually silent, but this is something where the Director of Planning and
I thought that maybe we could explore a potential administrative item for this because there's a franchise
agreement underway that could include basic design guidance, even though our design guidelines don't
technically have anything.
For signs, it was interesting to find out how many signs had recently been approved on the consent
agenda. It was one of the higher categories. They are already allowed to be administratively approved.
Of course, it's caveated with if they are consistent with the guidelines. Unfortunately, the guidelines,
which are also from 2009, I think, have very specific size limits, and in some cases, very specific location
limits, which have been prompted me to send people to the BAR to get their sign, even though the sign
was clearly approvable.
Really, the only way to fix that is to update the guidelines, which I think is probably a worthy endeavor,
but it would have a bigger budgetary discussion because we would be looking at probably updating that
not only the sign guidelines but the actual H-1 guidelines as well. They are consistently approved on
the consent agenda.
Page 91 June 21, 2021
When it's a question of size, most people-- For example, the guidelines say six square feet, someone
comes in and their sign is six and a half square feet and I say, "You could get that administratively if
you made your sign six square feet, or you can go to BAR and ask for six and a half." Most people say,
"I'll make it six square feet." Some people feel really strongly about that extra half square foot and they
come to the BAR and they probably get their sign approved on the consent agenda. It tends to be to
the business owner in that case, but most people are willing to make the small little changes that need
to be made.
Then also with the Gateway District, that was just approved July of 2020. I think if we make these
changes in the H-1, we should probably make sure that we are not excluding them from happening in
the Gateway and also just make sure that the Gateway District is functioning for us the way we thought.
It's intended to be a more flexible district with more things being approved administratively. We're finding
that the language that's actually as written might not be as flexible as we had initially hoped. There
might be some possible changes that would happen to the Gateway District as well.
My recommendation is that the Council would initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to expand the
administrative approval section for both the H-1 and the Gateway. The BAR was briefed on this item,
as I think I said at the beginning, at their meeting on June 9th. They were generally supportive of the
concept of expanding administrative approvals, but would, of course, want to have input on what that
list looks like and be able to review the actual text.
Mayor Burk: Okay, thank you. Mr. Martinez, do you have any questions?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No. One of the reasons I am supportive of expanding the administrative review
was, at the BAR, there's a tendency to take somethings off consent agenda that should have been
easily approved ends up taking an hour or so of time going through the weeds. I just wanted to be able
to afford the commission itself and the applicants an easier time of going through this review process.
As Lauren has stated that sometimes she could do it if we expanded the ability to do that. I want to
expand administrative review as much as I can or see it done.
The other question that I had as far as the BAR in right of ways, is that anything worth discussion? If
there's a right of way and we're allowing somebody to build or sell on a right of way that might be in the
Historic District, does that end up being a big issue coming forward to the BAR?
Lauren Murphy: Right now they do have to get approval to put a small cell up, even when they are
within the right of way. We have processed several. I don't know the exact number, it's probably
bordering on a lot, and maybe not so much several anymore because we've had quite a few. Usually,
when they come, they come in batches of four or five. We do see them in the H-2 now Gateway District
probably more than we see them in the H-1, but we have done them in the H-1. There are someone on
Market Street- [crosstalk]
Mayor Martinez: Well, my only concern about having those small cells down in Historic District is that
they're disguised so that we don't know they're small cells.
Lauren Murphy: We usually do know they're small cells. Even when they're disguised, it's not very
good, at least in my opinion. A 44 -foot tall light pole- [crosstalk]
Vice Mayor Martinez: Well, okay, when you're talking about that, then yes, but I'm talking about right
of ways that could be on top of a government building or something like that.
Lauren Murphy: The only ones we've done so far have been freestanding. We have not had any that
have been on a building. I believe there was the possibility for one at the Sonabank which now has a
different name, which I'm ashamed to say I can't remember.
Mayor Burk: Primis.
Lauren Murphy: There was the possibility for one there, but they never actually submitted or went
through with it. So, so far, the only ones we've been asked to review have been attached to light poles
or telephone poles already in the right of way.
Page 101 June 21, 2021
Vice Mayor Martinez: Well, I just want to say thank you because I haven't been on the BAR as a liaison
for a while.
Lauren Murphy: You're missing it.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I handed it over to Zach so I didn't have to go through the long late hours, but
seriously, I really appreciate what staff has done and working with the commission itself. I just want to
thank you and Debi.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: Thanks. I do have a couple of thoughts. My first thought was in concept, I think,
absolutely I like to streamline things. However, more staff time would be needed for administrative
approval. Of course, you probably have a lot of things going on. How do you feel about taking on more
administrative approval?
Lauren Murphy: Always makes me nervous. Again, this is anecdotal. I haven't done an actual
comparison, but I think it would probably come out in the wash because it takes so much more time to
prepare a staff report, a PowerPoint presentation, advertise a public hearing, and then actually have
the meeting for a BAR application.
Council Member Fox: Makes sense.
Lauren Murphy: We might see an increase in administrative items, but I would guess they would
probably take up about the same amount of time.
Council Member Fox: That makes total sense to me. The only caveat with more administrative
approval would be, at what point are we taking things away from transparent open meetings? That
would be my only concern for this. However, you mentioned that the BAR was briefed, but they haven't
had a dedicated work session on this yet. I would request or at least put it out there that before we do
any sort of initiation, we let them have their work session, give their feedback, because the devil
sometimes is in the details, and I think that might be the proper way to handle things, but I'd like to see
it go forward as well. Thanks.
Oh, I do have one quick question. I'm sorry. Has to do with certificates of appropriateness and decisions.
When the BAR denies a certificate of appropriateness and, say, an applicant will appeal that to the
Council and the Council overturns the BAR decision, is the certificate of appropriateness automatically
issued for that since the decision was overturned by appeal?
Lauren Murphy: When The Council overturns a BAR decision?
Council Member Fox: Yes.
Lauren Murphy: Yes. When someone gets a decision from the BAR, they're given a letter from me
saying that the BAR approved it on this date with these conditions or the BAR denied it on this date for
these reasons, and then the appeal language is in there that tells them how to file an appeal if they
would like to do so. Once the Council would overturn a decision of the BAR on appeal, then they get a
new letter with a new date from the date of the Council's decision. That starts their two years from when
they would be able to construct the project. Yes, they would get an updated COA letter.
Council Member Fox: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Thank you. True or false. A project that is 100% consistent with the
guidelines that can be approved administratively. Is that true or false?
Lauren Murphy: False.
Page 111 June 21, 2021
Council Member Bagdasarian: Okay, the question is why not? If it is 100% consistent with guidelines?
Lauren Murphy: I think it's a good question. It can be confusing. There are things where I might find
that that means the intent of the guidelines that the seven -member body that you have appointed to
make those interpretations might disagree. Personally, I would not recommend that anything that's
consistent with the guidelines would be approvable administratively because then what you're going to
have are architects and applicants who are catering to one person's personal taste, mine, or whoever
my predecessor is. When it goes in front of a board, they do have an open public process where they
can argue their case.
I've said it many times, "Look, I don't think that this is consistent with the guidelines, but that is why the
BAR is there." There are seven different people and they can read the same guidelines that I can read,
and they might have a different interpretation of them. They also have the benefit of making findings for
why it's acceptable in a particular instance. The people around Andover Court who painted their house,
they got their house color paint approved through me. Let's say, they want to do an addition, our
guidelines are going to be geared mainly towards additions to historic structures.
They're not a historic structure. Coming in front of the board gives them the opportunity to argue why it
would be okay for them to do something a little more contemporary or a little bit different than what we
would want to see as an addition to 427 South King Street, for example. I wonder these people are
listening and hearing me like throw out their address. I've talked to all of these people recently so it's
all right here in my brain.
Council Member Bagdasarian: They're getting a survey too, right?
Lauren Murphy: Yes, [unintelligible]. I think that, to me, there's a difference. There's things that are
clearly administratively approvable, like signs, like gutter replacements, things that aren't really going
to have a lot of room for interpretation, and then there are other things where people would actually
probably want the ability to come to the BAR and argue for what they are hoping to do.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Okay. I'm just thinking that if a project is consistent, the projects that
do go to BAR are exceptions to the guidelines or appeals to your conclusion of whether it's appropriate
or not. I'm probably going in a little bit further than that. Then the last thing that you did mention is that
maybe it is time to update the guidelines, especially with the new Town Plan. It's good for all the
departments and commissions to review guidelines and objectives and everything else. It's what you
said, 2009 was the last--?
Lauren Murphy: 2009, our Gateway District guidelines were just done, but honestly, that district was
just done, so it's not really fair to compare the two. Yes, I would love a budget to redo the guidelines
when you're talking about those things because I think that we have found over the years that there are
things that we just did not anticipate in 2009 and we're seeing, even decks, which of course, were
popular in 2009, so why our guidelines don't address decks I do not know --
Council Member Bagdasarian: Right.
Lauren Murphy: --but it would be helpful to update some of those things that we found, where
applicants call us and they say, "I'm trying to figure out what to do," and we're like, "Well, that's because
your project's not in there," so it would be helpful.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Thanks, Lauren, for the presentation. Did I understand when you said
that most jurisdictions do not provide for administrative review?
Lauren Murphy: I only had time to look at a few. I looked at Purcellville and Middleburg, where they
did not have anything. Then, Alexandria has quite a large list, but it's honestly pretty complicated. They
have this whole complex chart about what is and what isn't and if it is, that it's only in these
Page 121 June 21, 2021
circumstances, so I would not recommend following the Alexandria model because even for somebody
who does this, I was like, "What am I reading? I don't even know." Not exactly the most user-friendly
zoning ordinance in Alexandria, but I think that-- Well, I wrote the Loudoun County ordinance, so I
actually think it's pretty good, but that's just my opinion.
I think that Loudoun County is pretty comparable. We have a lot of the same things already on our
shared list and then those first two that were the catch-all categories, that language that Loudoun
County uses, I think could potentially be fit into our ordinance. I haven't talked to Mike Watkins about
those, so he may feel like they're too flexible, I don't know. We haven't really had the chance to review
it, but I've generally spoke to him about the types of things that I think would be helpful and he seems -
[crosstalk]
Council Member Steinberg: You're saying Middleburg allows none, so what is their rationale?
Lauren Murphy: Everything goes through their, they call it a Historic District Review Committee, but
everything goes through their HDRC unless they can convince the town planner that it doesn't need
anything at all.
Council Member Steinberg: Why do you suppose they have chosen that path versus an administrative
review? Not sure?
Lauren Murphy: I don't know.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay, or other jurisdictions for that matter?
Lauren Murphy: Right. I don't know. For Purcellville, I used to work there and I did not write their
ordinance, but a lot of their commercial tends to be in their Historic District, and architectural review
process applies town -wide for non-residential properties. They see a lot of chain restaurants and chain
businesses that they really wanted to make sure were adapted to fit their town character. My guess
would be that's probably why they don't allow for much to be done administratively, just because they're
frequently dealing with not necessarily historic buildings, but with new buildings coming in, but I don't
know for sure.
Council Member Steinberg: I'm glad the Councilwoman Fox brought up the BAR and giving them the
opportunity to weigh in on these things. I think absolutely we should hear from them, and in respect to
the work they do, allow them a fair amount of input here. For the most part then, is it the preservation
planner, in this case you, who is responsible for administrative review?
Lauren Murphy: Yes.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. All right. You mentioned several situations that you found odd. You
can approve sidewalks in residential but not commercial, you can approve roofs but not gutters. Why
was it set up that way?
Lauren Murphy: I honestly don't know.
Mayor Burk: She wasn't here for these dates. She doesn't know.
Lauren Murphy: [unintelligible] here, I didn't write your ordinance.
Council Member Steinberg: Is that unique to Leesburg?
Lauren Murphy: I think, honestly, it was probably just an accidental omission. It could have been that
it was an interpretation of the zoning administrator at the time, that if roofs can be done, gutters can be
done. That's not the current interpretation that's from the zoning administrator. I honestly don't know
why it was written that way, but it's definitely is strange and embarrassing to tell people on the phone
when they call and ask about it.
Page 131 June 21, 2021
Council Member Steinberg: We discuss small cell and it's not necessarily a minor point, but in the
end, how much control do we actually have? My understanding of the Federal regulations these days
over small cell -
Lauren Murphy: It's pretty limited.
Council Member Steinberg: - it is pretty limited.
Lauren Murphy: The BAR on the ones that they've looked at thus far mostly looked at color and asking
them to match the color of the equipment to the pole as closely as possible.
Council Member Steinberg: Yes, and some of those cabinets are actually quite large. All right. Finally,
the Gateway, which is a district, as you mentioned, recently created. What point in a project in the
Gateway would administrative review come into play? The reason I ask is because it's a brand new
district, we've seen nothing there. We have an idea of things that may come to us, but since it's new
territory when we're considering administrative review in that context, I repeat my question, at what
point in that process would administrative review come in?
Lauren Murphy: I have had two examples of the Gateway District, and both of them were another one
of those embarrassing situations, where I was like, "This is really dumb, but you can't get an
administrative approval for this, you're going to have to go to the BAR."
Council Member Steinberg: Can you offer an example?
Lauren Murphy: Yes, of course. Just today, we got one from Target, which is part of the new Edwards
Ferry Road Gateway, and they want to add one single door. The guidelines or the zoning ordinance for
the Gateway District would in theory let someone build a whole new structure administratively, but for
whatever reason, the administrative list of changes that are allowed to existing structures is really
narrow. I think, because it relied probably a little too heavily on what's allowed in the H-1, and so that
door is going to have to come to the BAR. That is one of the things that I would like to see changed.
I think that in the Gateway District, the changes that can be made to existing buildings should be more
robust. Obviously, we don't want people in the Historic District making huge, drastic changes that are
inappropriate. There probably aren't a lot of huge, drastic, inappropriate changes that would be made
to existing buildings in the Gateway that would be against our Gateway guidelines.
Council Member Steinberg: What about the administrative review for-- I'm thinking more in the context
of the Eastern Gateway, which is much larger and, of course, there's nothing built there yet. That would
be my greater concern for projects we can't even imagine so far. In a situation like that, then when
would we start to see administrative review?
Lauren Murphy: For new buildings, and I am really sorry I don't remember the square footage off the
top of my head, there's a maximum size and height. I want to say it's two stories, and it might be 4K
square feet that could potentially get approved administratively. Again, if it was consistent with the
guidelines. Anything above that, either taller than two stories or larger than whatever that square footage
limit is, I think it's four, but I could be wrong, those would automatically go to the BAR.
There was a list in the Gateway ordinance of things which would automatically necessitate BAR review,
and then a more flexible category for administrative review for new projects, that's not as flexible as I
think we probably would have intended for existing buildings.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. You're satisfied that for now we're at least on firm ground as far as
the Eastern Gateway goes?
Lauren Murphy: I think so, yes.
Council Member Steinberg: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Cummings?
Page 141 June 21, 2021
Council Member Cummings: Thank you. Just real quick. I really liked the actions that the staff has
outlined for us to begin this process of streamlining some of the BAR approval process with admin
approval. I agree wholeheartedly that this needs to go back to the BAR and have their review and have
their hands on it to make sure we're not missing anything.
My one point that I will make is, if and when we do allow more administrative review, I want to make
sure we tie that administrative review to the preservation planner or a preservation architect, whomever
is the staff member working with the Historic District, because it's a unique skill set. I know there has
been times in the past where we did not have a preservation planner or preservation architect on staff,
so I want to make sure that anything we're looking at has the appropriate admin approving. I just would
be very supportive of moving forward to get feedback from the BAR and helping streamline the process
and making the process a little bit easier for our residents.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Nacy?
Council Member Nacy: I don't have any questions. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Okay. There's just a couple of things that I'd like to reiterate. The very first point is that
the Historic District is extremely important. It's part of what gives us-- We talk about character and
culture, it's part of what makes Leesburg's character and culture. We do need to be careful to protect
it. The things that I see you looking at during administratively are not dramatic changes that would make
a big difference. I'm trusting that these things that are going to come back to us will be minor enough
that it will not make a big change to the Historic District. I did have a question about, you said, you can
require sidewalks in commercial areas but not residential. Did I misunderstand it?
Lauren Murphy: I can administratively approve residential sidewalks. If you want to put in a little lead
walk leading up to your front porch, for example, in your residential property, I can do that for you
administratively and you could start working on it tomorrow. If you are a commercial property and you
want to do that, you have to go to the BAR and it has to be a public hearing with a full advertisement
and wait until the next available BAR meeting.
Mayor Burk: Yes. That would concern me in that commercial building is going to be generally a larger
site. I would be concerned that if we're doing that administratively, we might miss something because
you're making changes in regard to the dynamic of that particular neighborhood. Basically, the Historic
District is really very similar to other areas of the Town that have homeowners associations, would you
say? Because there's guidelines, and what color you can paint and that sort of thing. It's a little more
stringent than the HOAs.
Lauren Murphy: As that applies I would say, yes, that that's a good comparison. Although for context,
I feel like what the Historic District tries to do is let everybody be themselves and make sure that they're
standing out for all the right reasons. Whereas a lot of times what an HOA tries to do is make sure
everybody has the same.
Mayor Burk: Right. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Now, you need us to approve-- I'm looking at the
wrong one. You want us to approve initiating a zoning ordinance amendment to expand the
administrative approvals?
Lauren Murphy: I do not have an ordinance prepared for that.
Kaj Dentler: [inaudible] initiate with one, with a specific direction [unintelligible] has BAR input before
it comes to your final vote or, which I think is where Ms. Fox was going, is you want it to go back to the
BAR, get input first, return to the Council to consider initiation. As I see it, you have two pass. I'm not
sure which one you prefer.
Mayor Burk: That will be ironic if we're trying to streamline the process and then we make it longer by
doing that. Okay, let me ask it this way then, are there four people that would like to initiate tomorrow,
just to initiate the zoning ordinance amendment to expand the administrative approvals, but the BAR
would be required to weigh in on that before that goes forward?
Page 151 June 21, 2021
Kaj Dentler: It comes back for a final Council vote, right?
Mayor Burk: Four people want to do that.
Vice Mayor Martinez: [Unintelligible] is that the BAR not only will look at it and give us our feedback,
but they also can add to any other changes they want.
Mayor Burk: Sure. Absolutely. Are there-- Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Is it possible we can get the feedback from the BAR well in advance of
any meeting we're going to have to actually vote on an ordinance then?
Mayor Burk: We're not voting on an ordinance at all anytime soon.
Council Member Steinberg: I know. We're voting to initiate the process. All I'm asking is that we get
the feedback from the BAR well in advance of making any final decisions.
Mayor Burk: Well, I would assume, of course, we would, but good for you to ask. Mr. Martinez, did you
have another question?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Mayor Burk: All right. Does this Council want to initiate a zoning ordinance amendments to expand the
administrative approvals after the BAR has weighed in on the questions in regard to what would be
administratively approved? Mr. Steinberg, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Bagdasarian, myself. The
second one-- Is there a second one? No.
Kaj Dentler: No, there doesn't have to be.
Mayor Burk: Tomorrow.
Kaj Dentler: So I have a vote to put it on the docket for tomorrow night to initiate.
Mayor Burk: Right. Also, make sure that Mr. Cummings-- Does everybody agree that Mr. Cummings
requests that the preservation planer would be the administrator, that would be part of what will go
forward with? Is that all right? Okay. All right. Thank you, Ms. Murphy.
Lauren Murphy: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: You're free. Okay. Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy Program. This has been
a long time coming.
Russell Seymour: You're setting anticipation very high, I can see. Good evening, Madam Mayor,
Members of Council. Following up on the Council's direction from your April 24th retreat, staff is here
this evening to talk a little bit about the C -PACE program and specifically talking on how that program
has been promoted up to this point and then talking a little bit more about some ideas that we have to
expand that promotion. What is the C -PACE program? The program involves three different areas. It
involves a borrower that's looking to put some type of probe or some type of energy -efficient apparatus
to affect, it involves the County, and it involves a private lending institution. Those are the three areas
that we're focused on for this. At present, it allows you to have the funding upfront for any of these
projects, and then that money, the grant or I guess the loan, if you will, is actually tied to, can be tied to
the utility bill, so it is paid back over a period of time.
One thing that does stand out is that this particular program is tied to the project. If you are a building
owner and you bring in, let's say, solar panels, or you bring in an energy -efficient, whatever the
apparatus is, that payment is then tied to that property. As the benefit was transferred from owner to
owner so would the actual payment of that or the cost of that would go from owner to owner as well. As
we talk a little bit about that, I want to mention that in 2009 is when the Virginia State started this
program. There are now more than 36 states at the last count.
Page 161 June 21, 2021
In 2019, Loudoun County approved it and they are now one of seven jurisdictions that are active right
now in this particular program. These are the programs that are active. This actually was pulled off the
website. I will tell you, they've had an update since then. I think it's interesting. If you look down at the
last paragraph there at the bottom, it talks about action that was taken in the 2020 General Assembly.
It talks specifically about right now each of these requires a locality to administer the program.
The State now is looking at a statewide program and they are currently preparing for an RFP to search
for a program administrator. This would allow [crosstalk] at the State level as opposed to a local level.
There's a little bit more flexibility in that one. Interesting enough, Arlington County was the first
jurisdiction in Virginia to create a program. Loudoun County was number two.
Now, as far as the current program that we have, the current program started in, as I mentioned, in
February, 2019. It was last amended in March of 2021. That was a very minor amendment, but it was
an update to keep it current with the updates that have gone with the State plan. Our program here at
Loudoun County as well with some of the other areas that we have-- our program is administered by
the Virginia PACE Authority. Arlington County's is not, the majority are the ones that are through the
PACE Authority. That entity is a nonprofit entity and they're actually located in the City of Williamsburg.
They're down there. I had a good conversation with them. They are very active. They mentioned now
that they have seven that they're working on and soon they'll have an eighth one that they're adding to
it. When we talked, it was Fredericksburg, Petersburg, Roanoke, Norfolk, Dumfries, Fairfax, and then,
of course, Loudoun County as well.
Samples of the types of properties. Now we know that these projects the program covers are all
fundamentally environmental -friendly, they're specifically energy conservation. Samples of eligible
properties include office industrial warehouse space, retail, hotels and conference facilities, private
educational institutions. When I mentioned the update that was done at both the State and Loudoun
County, it's that last one with the multi -residential of five units. Originally, it was not for residential at all.
Obviously, in the name of commercial. That has been the one change, the most recent change, I should
say. In talking with the State or actually the Virginia PACE Authority, they do not anticipate any additional
changes coming up anytime soon in the program.
Let's talk a little bit about promotion. Right now there are two areas locally [unintelligible] is promoted.
Both on the Town of Leesburg's website, and at Loudoun County's website. These are the only two
areas locally that Loudoun County and/or the Town of Leesburg promote this. The other factor is when
you go to these websites, the main focus is to direct you to the Virginia PACE Authority. Everything
that's on there from the application, all of that's accessible online.
They can go through the process, they can contact the PACE Authority directly without ever having to
come off the website in order to be able to do that. When we look at opportunities to increase promotion,
looking at now that we have a much more robust social media platform out there, I think there's
opportunities for us to push that out through there. We are looking at or have talked about program
information through contractors, working with our planning and zoning departments.
As contractors come in, just putting information out there, possibly giving it to them and even as part of
the packet of information that goes out. Letting contractors know that there are opportunities for these
types of initiatives. Similarly, sending out via email to the contractors that we know here in Leesburg or
that work in Leesburg, may be a good opportunity to, again, increase the information. Also providing
information to our local capital and financial providers.
I don't know, and I haven't had a chance to talk to them, but I'm very interested in talking to some of our
local financiers to see if they've worked on this program or at this point, if they're even aware of this
program. I will say and I 'll mention the last one here, I did talk to Amy so she did give me permission to
mention this to you this evening but putting this on the commercial utility bills, something that we can
put in as an insert, possibly as it goes out to our commercial businesses, having that on there.
One of the things that I will mention is that we tried to reach out to the County to find out, I was curious
to see, has anybody taken advantage of this program? Has it been out there? Richard has been working
with me on this, and was not able to get a response back and could not get a similar answer from the
Page 171 June 21, 2021
Virginia PACE program. I honestly cannot stand here today, I don't know of a program that has taken
advantage of this, but I was not able to track that down. I don't know if that's a marketing issue if that is
a program issue. I'm seeing a lot of smiling faces [unintelligible]. Then at this point, I will be glad to
answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Nacy?
Council Member Nacy: No questions, thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Thank you, Russell. In some of the other locations that have C -PACE
operational, who are the funding sources? Are they private institutions?
Russell Seymour: No.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Let's see, do we have a funding source or funding partner, partners in
Leesburg that we can look at?
Russell Seymour: That would be one of the questions that I'd like to get out. They would utilize any of
the private institutions. The County would partner with any of the private financial institutions, preferably
in Loudoun County, that would allow them to be able to coordinate that one.
Council Member Bagdasarian: You may or may not know this. What is the upside to the institution
that is loaning the money for this?
Russell Seymour: The fact that you've got the County that's backing it and it goes through that. It gives
them a level of security. It's also a much longer -term loan. It is something that you could, as a borrower,
I get the money upfront. As a financial institution, you have the County's backing and support of this,
and as the locality's institution, you're hopefully cutting utility bills and that costs then goes from property
owner to property owner.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Years ago we used to do a banker's forum where we would invite the
banking community and we'd have discussions. Perhaps it's an opportunity to have a forum discussing
PACE as an opportunity for financial institutions, developers, et cetera, as an option to receive funding
to upgrade your sustainable development upfront. Certainly, it's an opportunity that most people are not
aware of. As far as promoting that, we might have a decent response and for those that are interested
in learning more about it. The backing of the County is certainly an attractive element to supporting this.
Thank you.
Vice Mayor Martinez: The only question I had was when we decide to be part of this program or we
move forward on this, are we going to be required to set aside funding for the loaning program?
Russell Seymour: No, sir. Actually, Leesburg is part of the program right now. There's no obligation
from the Town. We work with Loudoun County and all of our commercial requests go through them.
The only funds that we'd ever spend on this would be whatever we'd want to do to add to the advertising
side of the marketing.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Cummings?
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Thanks, Russell. When you say we're part of the program, basically, that
just means we're promoting the program, as you say, from a marketing standpoint and trying to make
it attractive to potential clients.
Page 181 June 21, 2021
Russell Seymour: Correct. Loudoun County is the locality that took the, I guess, the initiative to set it
up. Leesburg then joined that program. So Loudoun County Program oversees the towns that are in
the Loudoun County. So, they are the backer, if you will, of the program.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. From a Leesburg standpoint, are you currently in the process of
developing some sort of marketing plan [inaudible].
Russell Seymour: That was what we were talking about on that list of opportunities there. Right now
we know, as I mentioned, it's on both websites and the links are the same. So, ours goes to the Virginia
PACE authorities, similarly as Loudoun County's goes to the same group. What I'm talking about is I
could not find any other marketing examples that are out there in our area.
These suggestions are the ones that I think we could be doing in fairly certain, in fairly short order,
minimal amount of investment and I think it would reach the people that you're looking or hoping to
reach at least get that information out to the right people.
Council Member Steinberg: Just for my own curiosity, who controls or how do the institutions control
the interest rates on loans like this, and could a property owner refinance [inaudible] is it an etched in
stone contract?
Russell Seymour: Those are very good questions. What I can tell you, as far as the rates go, those
are something that are actually negotiated on a case -by -case basis. The three players in this, the
County, the borrower and the financial institution negotiate that. That was the one thing that they laid
out in their applications. I'm assuming a lot of it also would be the type of project, the amount that we're
talking about, those types of factors. As far as can you refinance it, that's a question I do not know, sir.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: Just a couple of questions. I just want to clarify that this is a voluntary program
and not a compulsory program. Is there any point that it could become compulsory down the line?
Russell Seymour: Not that I'm aware of, not that I've seen. I think it would take a much longer process
and a lot more activity or action to be able to put that in place. I guess anything's possible but I have
not heard anything about that, this is strictly voluntary.
Council Member Fox: Okay, there is [inaudible] or a way to keep us apprised [inaudible].
Russell Seymour: Absolutely. If there was anything that we knew many of the Leesburg businesses
have done this. I've been able to pull that, I was not able to find any of those and trying to connect with
Loudoun County. I am talking with the, excuse me, the PACE program. Yes, the Virginia PACE Authority
and working with them to see if they have something. They couldn't give me anything as of last Friday
but I haven't seen a follow-up from them yet but I certainly will.
Council Member Fox: I would expect that if we were doing some sort of marketing that there might be
some takers and I just wanted to be kept apprised of who that might be.
Russell Seymour: Absolutely.
Council Member Fox: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: One question is, you're making suggestions of including information in social media.
That's pretty basic, I don't think that would be a major increase in work. Provide program information to
contractors in the Department of Planning and Zoning, how would you do that? Would you have to have
some sort of flyer?
Russell Seymour: There are a couple of ways to do it. Most everything now is done online so any of
the applications would come in and I would need to sit down and talk with Susan and with Mike about
Page 191 June 21, 2021
this. Off the top of my head, my thought would be, it could actually be part of a notified highlighted on
the application process. We could also put information up on the counters so those people come in,
they'd be able to pull that information.
Mayor Burk: Who would create that information?
Russell Seymour: I would look myself working with Economic Development and our PIO office, put
something together that isn't that part of a public announcement.
Mayor Burk: This program, the gentleman that started this program did it before he left for the Board
of Supervisors, so back in 2006, 2007 and it took all this time to get to this point. Then once that
happened, all these localities jumped on board and they were anxious to see it at work but it most
certainly is a voluntary program and it's something that goes with the property. As you said, if you benefit
from it, then you also get involved in the long-term paying for it if you do that.
It is a way to be able to afford these kinds of projects and it had the opportunity to take advantage of
them. I do know the County was processing some that were commercial businesses but I don't know
the names of who they ended up being. I need to see if people are interested. Are there four people
that would be interested in these different provisions for increasing marketing for this particular item to
go forward? So Mr. Steinberg, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Martinez.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Alright, okay. Sorry, here I go. A couple of things and something to
add onto this.
Mayor Burk: Okay, I have one question. I'm only kidding.
Council Member Bagdasarian: The question is in the [inaudible] the economics [inaudible] over
time the cost savings that are realized by increasing energy efficiency [inaudible] offset the cost of the
actual investment upfront?
Russell Seymour: Yes. I think it's really two parts. That's the main one and then also, I think you look
at when you have something that's put in place to save on utilities, it also has an opportunity to raise
the value of that property. So those are the two areas.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Correct. And I think that's important in the whole positioning. If I could
add to this list here, I've mentioned the forum, holding maybe EDC, EAC or Economic Development,
hosting a forum inviting bankers, if you will, and the development community, because I think it's really
an education process. I love the idea of putting a note on utility bills. It doesn't even have to be a page,
just even a little note at the bottom to learn more about the program?
Russell Seymour: Yes.
Mayor Burk: [inaudible] If you need anything else from us, you obviously have the support of the
Council at this point.
Russell Seymour: No, ma'am. Thank you very much.
Mayor Burk: All right, thank you. Mr. Murphy, another Murphy.
Chris Murphy: [inaudible].
Mayor Burk: You are talking about the Open Space Requirements for Multi -Family Development and
Attached Single Family Development in the B-1 District.
Chris Murphy: Yes, ma'am. That is correct. I'm actually pinch-hitting for Mr. Boucher, who was called
away. His granddaughter is having a baby this evening. I have, and I'm going to apologize ahead of
time, I have about 20 -minute debrief on this matter and just I don't the amount of preparation time you're
used to from Mr. Boucher. So, I apologize ahead of time, I'll do my best.
Page 201 June 21, 2021
This evening's work session is a response to Council's request to discuss potentially initiating revisions
to open space and recreation amenity requirements for multi -family townhouse developments in the B-
1 District, specifically. Zoning section 9315 that requires a minimum 30% of the property provided as
open space for projects that exceed a density of eight or more dwelling units per acre and also requires
active recreation facilities be provided at a rate of 250 square feet per dwelling unit. The standard was
established in the 1970s and was applied Town -wide wherever multi -family or single-family attached
dwelling units were allowed. Regardless of whether they're urban or suburban, it did not matter.
However, these standards were changed for the Crescent Design District and it's more urban
development standards, looking for quality amenities that are appropriate for the development. Because
Downtown generally consists of smaller lots having to provide 30% open space and amenity space on
top of that has curtailed multi -family conversions Downtown. Interestingly, the zoning ordinance
provides a mechanism for modifying, waiving these standards as part of a special exception. In other
words, six or more dwelling units that is not available for the buyer right, five or fewer dwelling unit
applications.
Should Council initiate the amendment, some options on how to might come from lessons from the
Church and Market and the King Street Station parcels where Downtown itself was recognized as being
an open space, recreation, entertainment amenity, or by mirroring the Crescent Design District
amenities standards. They call for quality amenities appropriate to the type of development proposed.
Now recognizing the current open space and recreation standards may be dated or inappropriate for
more urban developments. The Legacy Leesburg Town Plan recognizes the need to reevaluate
amenity spaces as part of the plan. Now Council may want to wait for that to be done and then
subsequent ordinance amendments in order to achieve that goal of the Town Plan to be processed or
Council can leave the standard as is and again wait for the standards to be developed. With that, that
concludes my presentation. I'm happy to address any questions I'm able to on this short notice.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg, you had requested that both presentations be done at once.
Council Member Steinberg: Yes, I was hoping we could just get through both presentations and then
[inaudible].
Mayor Burk: [inaudible].
Chris Murphy: Sure. I can do that. No, no, no, not at all, no problem. Thank you, Corina.
Keith Markel: This is Density and Intensity Standards for Multi -Family Development in the B-1 District.
Chris Murphy: Right. This item also results from a request to discuss the main Density and Intensity
Standards for Multi -family Development in the B-1 specifically zoning ordinance Section 6.3.3 A that
establishes a minimum lot size of 10K square feet and zoning ordinance section 6.3.3 B that establishes
a 100 -foot minimum lot width for multi -family development applications.
Now the zoning ordinance does have regulations that limit purely residential multi -family buildings and
that is shown here in this box, was developed as an effort to preserve the mixed -use central business
district of Downtown. The zoning ordinance established this box within which the first floor of every
building must be used for commercial uses. Multi -family dwelling units are allowed, but only on the
floors above the first.
If the density, intensity standards are amended, all the areas outside this box in the B-1 will be opened
up for multi -family conversions. The multi -family conversions have been slowed Downtown due to the
fact that many lots in the B-1 do not meet the lot area or lot width standards required. Yet commercial
conversions are numerous and that's due to the more relaxed standards for commercial.
Some considerations for Council relating to different multi -family standards include what's the healthy
mix of residential and commercial uses in Downtown with how do you achieve that and maintain that
synergy that they support each other. That there's not too much of one versus the other. The
commitment to ensuring Downtown remains a vibrant place of business, entertainment, shopping and
Page 211 June 21, 2021
dining. As some economic factors-- the economic factors of this change have not been analyzed in-
depth yet. However, one of the considerations might be, can higher residential densities in the B-1
create demand for greater public expenditures?
For example, I'm thinking of parking. If you reduce the minimum standards, a lot of the parking is going
to have to be off -site. Is that going to generate a need for public expenditure in public parking facilities?
That's something that we would study if we go ahead with this. Then, of course, there's some nuisance
factors such as noise. Now Council, you are already dealing with this now. You're looking at requiring
disclosures for people to move in Downtown to note that you live in an area where there's outdoor noise.
Will this introduce more people to that mix, more concerns as a result? Of course, finally, Council can
leave the density intensity standards alone. That concludes this presentation and I'm here to answer
any questions.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Well, thanks for the presentations, Chris, even on short notice.
Chris Murphy: Thank you.
Council Member Steinberg: [inaudible] Honestly, I have concerns with that [unintelligible]. I'm not
sure why we want to facilitate [inaudible] commercial bases in the B-1 to residential. [inaudible] in
probably close proximity to the B-1 we have [inaudible] out like [inaudible] Crescent park, for example,
still within walking distance to the Downtown, we have a lot of [inaudible] why we would want to
[inaudible]. We are looking for an area where I can [inaudible] comments from people who wish that
there were greater variety.
This is indeed in the B-1 [inaudible] for the B-1 and in any case, we really want to go down road making
it easy [inaudible] that left into residential which is exactly what these [inaudible] is investing. You
mentioned [inaudible] and Market but both of those have very robust [inaudible] as is the case with
Virginia Village for that matter so I have concerns with [inaudible] potentially change the way we have
gone.
One thing that occurs to me in the B-1 would be if we could somehow [inaudible] fashion affordable
housing parameters of our satisfaction not necessarily developer satisfaction then that is something
that could [inaudible]. We could do that on case -by -case basis. A quick question for the Town Attorney.
Sir, can we fashion ordinances so that in [inaudible] of the Town we can waive certain fees [inaudible]
application -wise of certain requirements? Talking about rezoning or special exception, what have you.
Is that something that should be in our powers?
Chris Spera: They're your fees, so I think -
Council Member Steinberg: Meaning there are fees for rezoning, for example, or special exception,
what have you, that the government might [inaudible] perhaps pay [inaudible] that the Town could on
a case -by -case basis be waived if you're looking to create a more favorable environment for a certain
kind of project [inaudible].
Chris Spera: My initial reaction is they're your fees, so I think you'd have the ability to waive them. I
have never seen that as an incentivisor for a particular type of development. What I have more
commonly seen is density bonus.
Council Member Steinberg: [inaudible].
Chris Spera: What I have more commonly seen is density bonus not waiver of fees in response to a
particular type of development.
Council Member Steinberg: In this case, they're specifically looking for density bumps, and they're
looking for us to modify it so that it is allowed.
Chris Spera: Right, and what I've seen in other jurisdictions.
Page 221 June 21, 2021
Council Member Steinberg: Go ahead. I'm sorry. Chris?
Chris Murphy: The only thing I would just bring to your attention is, if Council were to amend the
ordinance to allow and basically diminish the minimum lot size to allow multi -family conversions, you're
more than likely going to see more of them come in as by right, five or fewer dwelling units, so you
wouldn't have the opportunity to negotiate fees like this. Certainly, if it's a rezoning or a special
exception, Council could seem as though you could provide incentives through those legislative
processes. However, if you do what's proposed here, it's likely you're going to see more five or fewer
dwelling units come through versus the six or more that are going to require special exceptions.
Council Member Steinberg: Thank you very much for that observation because that's exactly what
my concern would be. Converting valuable commercial space to residential [inaudible] that would find,
we want in the Downtown area. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: We're having-- There seems to be a problem with the mics going in and out. The public
is saying that they can't hear us and what we're saying completely. [Inaudible] has dropped off
[inaudible].
Council Member Steinberg: Mayor, you keep bumping in and out here [inaudible].
Corina Alvarez: Everything is working fine here, as I can see [inaudible].
Keith Markel: Maybe it's just a matter of leaning in close.
Mayor Burk: If the public is having trouble. I don't know if it has to do anything with the storms or
anything.
Kaj Dentler: It's cutting out.
Council Member Steinberg: It is.
Kaj Dentler: Even when you speak directly into it, the sound it cuts out.
Council Member Steinberg: Yes. The Mayor's cutting out, for sure.
Kaj Dentler: [Inaudible] if you speak directly into [inaudible] at least for time being.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay.
Mayor Burk: [inaudible].
Council Member Steinberg: Fine. I've made my comments. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: No questions, just a few comments. [inaudible] since I've been on Council the
open space requirements [inaudible] density proposals that have come before us have been of the
utmost importance and for me, the application that should be denied because density is then increased
for [inaudible]. That seems to be curious to me that we would [inaudible]. It does give me pause to
change any standards for increase of density in it. Like Council Member Steinberg, I don't know if it's a
great idea that [inaudible] commercial should increase in size. I don't see the benefit of this and that's
just where I stand.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Cummings?
Council Member Cummings: Thank you. I had just a couple of quick questions. What I want to just
generally-- When were these guidelines written?
Page 231 June 21, 2021
Chris Murphy: It's not known precisely, but it's estimated that staff determined it's from the 1970s, it
could be earlier but it's from the 1970s.
Council Member Cummings: It caught me by surprise, what are the open space standards in the
Crescent Design District?
Chris Murphy: Those open space standards, unfortunately, I don't have that right in front of me, didn't
have the time to pull that but again, in the Crescent Design District, instead of just the flat 30% and you
will provide X number of square feet for each dwelling unit. It's more of a create amenities based on
the environment. An example, if you look at, I'm trying to think-- The Crescent Design District, was that
used for-- I can't think of anything offhand.
I'm sorry, I have limited experience with the Crescent Design District, but an idea of an amenity space
that's appropriate for the development think of the King Street Station. There's that little outdoor area
or that covered area. You go by there any time there's usually people that are sitting there enjoying it.
That's an amenity that's being used that's on those properties. It's appropriate for that versus trying to
put an indoor gym there or something like that. Folks are within close proximity to trails, the W&OD
trails there. If you want to, you can always walk or ride a bike to Ida Lee if you want to do that sort of
thing. That's the idea and that's what has been implemented in the Crescent Design District for those
developments.
Council Member Cummings: One last question. If I'm a property owner in the business, the B-1
District, is there an avenue for me if I wanted to take my property and convert it into a multi -family
property, currently?
Chris Murphy: If your property meets those specific requirements. In other words, a 10K square foot
lot, and it's 100 feet, you have the lot with then you can do that. You can come in by right for the five
dwelling units or fewer, or you can make it a special exception for six or more dwelling units. If you are
on a lot that's smaller than that, unfortunately, you're not able to do that.
Council Member Cummings: Not even with like a special exception or anything?
Chris Murphy: No. Now, if you're in that box area that's in the zoning ordinance, and it's also in our
report, you can do it so long if your first floor is commercial, then all your floors above that can be multi-
family residential, and there's no lot requirements, as there are for multi -family development outside
that box. You're welcome.
Council Member Cummings: My only concern is the Business District, [inaudible] commercial focus.
However, access to talented workforce is an ongoing factor that drives a business selection for where
they land their business. So, having a place more readily available for folks who live there or work in
[inaudible] the Business District. It's a concern for me and it's a concern for a lot of us [inaudible] so
I will just urge us to continue to think along the lines of how we can create more opportunity for folks
who live and work in the [inaudible].
Mayor Burk: All Right, Mr. Martinez and [unintelligible] the sound is going in and out so if you could
speak into your mic so we can hear you.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Sure. Right now in the B-1 District is there a minimum lot size requirement
[inaudible]?
Chris Murphy: The minimum lot size, it all depends if you're a commercial or non-commercial. There
are minimum lot sizes for all the residential type uses, but not for commercial.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. I'm assuming in the B-1 District [inaudible] most use is office space.
Chris Murphy: Most uses or office space?
Vice Mayor Martinez: In the B-1 District?
Page 24J June 21, 2021
Chris Murphy: I don't know for sure.
Vice Mayor Martinez: It's safe to say that office space though is in [inaudible].
Chris Murphy: Certainly. Oh, yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez: [inaudible].
Chris Murphy: Correct.
Vice Mayor Martinez: [inaudible] some businesses have office space so what ends up happening is
the owners of that office space, or potential office space are now left [inaudible] or no usage or no
potential [inaudible] I guess I can see that. Then also the other question is do we want it to be one
district or do we want [inaudible]. The questions that I've always asked is right now our ratio is between
60:70 residential [inaudible] businesses. Do we want to keep that ratio, do we want to change for
houses or do we want to keep it as is and hope for more commercial? For me that's the real question.
If we're going to allow more density and more homes and we're reducing [unintelligible] requirement,
we're pretty much giving up on office space for other uses [inaudible]. The question for me [inaudible].
I hope this is not coming off [inaudible]. Test, test, test. The fox jumped over the cow.
I think the question is do we want to give up [inaudible] and become more residential? I think in the
past when we had [inaudible] we wanted more residential. We had neighbors that said no more. So
we're at a crossroads here on how we want to be as a Town? We can't just believe the B-1 [inaudible].
We have to have some alternative [inaudible]. Can you still hear me? I'm not sure converting the B-1
District [inaudible]. I don't know of any alternate solution [inaudible] to make better use of the B-1
except to change the zoning [inaudible]. I tell you this, I'm not convinced right now [unintelligible] we
have an alternative solution other than increasing the density [inaudible]. That's all I got. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Just one question. How would this impact dwellings that were originally
residential [inaudible] B-1 that were originally residences that were converted to commercial
[inaudible] zoning impact to that?
Chris Murphy: No, it would not. All this would do would open the door for more multi -family conversions
of those buildings. They were residential, they converted to commercial. Now the property owner would
have the option of turning the whole thing into multi -family residential. Whereas now, because of those
limitations of standards of 10K square foot and the lot width requirement, they're precluded from doing
that. They can still convert it back to residential, but it'd be a single-family home or leave it as commercial
space.
Council Member Bagdasarian: If the zoning was changed and they can convert to multi -family
[inaudible] correct?
Chris Murphy: No, because the lot standards would preclude that.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Thank you.
Chris Murphy: You're welcome.
Mayor Burk: We have two things that we're looking at here. First of all, is the existing regulations about
open-- I should ask Ms. Nacy, are you still with us?
Council Member Nacy: I think you just called on me.
Mayor Burk: I did.
Page 251 June 21, 2021
Council Member Nacy: Did you, Madam Mayor? If there's something weird happening with the sound,
I apologize. My only thought just listening to everything, piecing together what I think people were
thinking, my thought was, should this be something that we address with Planning Commission and get
their input on before we do anything? Just a thought I was having, that's my only comment.
Mayor Burk: This has not gone before the Planning Commission at all.
Chris Murphy: No, this is only, do you want to consider initiating any changes to the ordinance.
Mayor Burk: So it would end up going to the Planning Commission?
Chris Murphy: It would if you initiate changes, yes.
Mayor Burk: We have a minimum requirement of 30% of the property shall be provided in open spaces
[inaudible]. The likelihood of that being able to be accommodated Downtown is very [inaudible]
Chris Murphy: Very.
Mayor Burk: Then the active recreation facilities such as playgrounds.
Keith Markel: Sorry [inaudible]. Can you turn it on from [unintelligible].
Council Member Bagdasarian: Yes, until the speaker is fine. Try to see if you can turn on the speaker
off, Mayor.
Council Member Steinberg: [inaudible].
Mayor Burk: I'll just yell, how's that? The active recreation facilities such as playgrounds, tennis courts,
swimming pool, clubhouse shall be provided at the rate of 250 square feet for the dwelling unit. That's
not really very possible anymore in the Downtown area?
Chris Murphy: It's difficult to achieve, yes.
Mayor Burk: I could see looking at perhaps changing those but the whole idea of losing commercial to
residential [inaudible]. I have expressed this to the [inaudible] and others. I think we're making a
mistake [inaudible] from a commercial from a residential it totally changes the whole neighborhood as
to what it looks like.
[Inaudible] track and flow of people walking down that [inaudible]. Unless there was some commercial
component to it, I will [inaudible] to allow them to change [inaudible]. That's where I am. You are
asking us if we have, let me go back to the open space. Should staff be directed to initiate amendments
revised, [inaudible] the open space and recreation standards of the B-1 district? Are there more people
that would be okay-- would be interested, not okay, to be able to initiate that amendment to open space
and recreation standards?
Council Member Fox: What would be the standard?
Mayor Burk: The standard is a minimum of 30% of the property shall be provided as open space for
projects that exceeded density of eight or more dwelling units per acre and the recreation area is
[inaudible] recreation facilities such as playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools or clubhouses shall
be provided at a rate of at least 250 square feet per development.
Council Member Fox: Basically, that's what's being proposed. I was under the impression that's what
it already was.
Chris Murphy: No, it's what it already is.
Mayor Burk: That is what it is.
Page 261 June 21, 2021
Council Member Fox: Okay. That's what I was wondering what are we proposing?
Mayor Burk: We are doing away with this requirement.
Council Member Fox: Oh, altogether.
Mayor Burk: Initiating [inaudible].
Chris Murphy: Madam Mayor, If I could add. In my presentation, I did note that the Legacy Leesburg
Town Plan acknowledges that we need to re-evaluate our open space and recreation requirements and
so it plans to do that through that plan. You also have the option of waiting for that to be done and then
we can come to you with more direct zoning ordinance amendments to effect those changes in the
Town Plan as amended.
Mayor Burk: Okay, great.
Chris Murphy: There's also that option available too.
Council Member Fox: I would feel comfortable with changing it, as you said, it's [inaudible]. However,
I wouldn't feel comfortable with [inaudible] something else.
Mayor Burk: All right, so Ms. Fox would like us to consider waiting for these changes to be made in the
Legacy Leesburg Town Plan. Are there four people that would be, am I'm I stating that correctly Mr.
[inaudible]?
Chris Murphy: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Are there four people that would be able to [inaudible]. Okay, that's everybody. Ms.
Nacy? I'm not sure that she can hear us [inaudible].
Council Member Fox: She's [inaudible]. She can't hear us.
Mayor Burk: How do we handle that if she can't hear us?
Kaj Dentler: You already have four.
Mayor Burk: That's true. We already have four.
Kaj Dentler: Six of you.
Keith Markel: These microphones are working so I'll just repeat your comments if you want.
Mayor Burk: Okay.
Keith Markel: If you have a question she can hear you.
Mayor Burk: All right and the next one is about the Density and Intensity Standards for Multi -Family
Development and you are asking should we direct staff to initiate amendments to revise multi -family
[inaudible] standards in the B-1 district?
Chris Murphy: Correct.
Mayor Burk: [Inaudible]. Do we have four people that would like to initiate that. It is not being
addressed in the Town Plan at this point [inaudible]?
Chris Murphy: No, it is not.
Page 271 June 21, 2021
Mayor Burk: Do we have four people that want to initiate the amendment to revise the multi -family
[inaudible] standard in the B-1 district. That would allow commercial to go to residential?
Chris Murphy: It would. What it would do is it would eliminate those lot standards in the B-1 that curtail
the conversions of B-1 buildings to multi -family. That goes back to the quality of the Downtown question
to you as Council from a policy standpoint. Do you want to introduce more multi -family? If you do, then
this is the mechanism to do that. If you don't, then you wouldn't initiate this.
Mayor Burk: Okay, [inaudible].
Vice Mayor Martinez: Madam Mayor, may I ask a question?
Mayor Burk: Of course, go ahead.
Vice Mayor Martinez: If we initiate the amendment, it passes the public hearing with Planning
Commission and [inaudible].
Chris Murphy: That's correct.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: I don't have a question. I want to disclose that [inaudible]. For the first one she
was with everybody. The second one, I just [inaudible].
Mayor Burk: Thank you for doing that. All right, are there four people that want to change the existing
regulations? The minimum lot areas, the minimum square feet, the minimum lot [inaudible] and
minimum [inaudible]. Are there four people that are willing to [inaudible]? Mr. Cummings, Vice Mayor
Martinez, Mr. Bagdasarian. Do we know what Ms. Nacy wants at this point?
Council Member Fox: No.
Mayor Burk: Then it doesn't pass. Unfortunately, well not unfortunately, but it doesn't pass. We're
going to continue with the open space [inaudible] recreation with the Town Plan and we are not going
to initiate changing from residential to commercial [inaudible] all right.
Chris Spera: Got it. Thank you all very much.
Mayor Burk: All Right.
Vice Mayor Martinez: [Inaudible] you did a great [inaudible] there.
Chris Murphy: I appreciate that.
Mayor Burk: All right. This leads us to additional items for the agenda and I put in front of everybody's
table an evaluation form. This is to be helpful to look at our Town Attorney's performance. It has actually
been over a year that we've had him now.
Chris Spera: Almost.
Mayor Burk: If he would fill this out to help you in your thinking process of how we want to do it and
how we [unintelligible] talk about when we go into closed session. We will go into closed session at
the next meeting to evaluate with him this evaluation and most certainly will compile it and put it all
together. Mr. Spera, you will be giving us a summary of your activities for the year.
Chris Spera: You'll get the annual report which will essentially serve that function. Yes, ma'am.
Mayor Burk: Do you think that's [unintelligible]?
Page 281 June 21, 2021
Chris Spera: Yes.
Mayor Burk: All right. I'm sorry?
Council Member Fox: It's been a year.
Mayor Burk: Oh, it's been a year.
Chris Spera: Almost. Almost.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian, do you [inaudible]?
Council Member Bagdasarian: No, thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez?
Vice Mayor Martinez: [inaudible].
Mayor Burk: [Unintelligible] means nothing, Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Nothing.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox nothing. And Ms. Nacy? All right, do I have a motion to adjourn?
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there a second?
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
[Unintelligible]
Page 291 June 21, 2021