HomeMy Public PortalAbout2023_tcwsmin0612Council Work Session June 12, 2023
Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Kelly Burk
presiding.
Council Members Present: Ara Bagdasarian, Todd Cimino -Johnson, Zach Cummings, Kari
Nacy, Vice Mayor Neil Steinberg, Patrick Wilt, and Mayor Kelly Burk.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Christopher Spera, Deputy Town
Manager Keith Markel, Public Works and Capital Projects Director Renee LaFollette, Airport
Director Scott Coffman, Economic Development Director Russell Seymour, Zoning
Administrator Mike Watkins, Zoning Administration Planner Shelby Miller, and Clerk of
Council Eileen Boeing.
Minutes prepared by Deputy Clerk of Council Corina Alvarez.
AGENDA ITEMS
a. Item for Discussion
a. Congregate Housing
Ms. Miller and Mr. Watkins provided information on the permitted housing uses
per the Town's Zoning Ordinance. Staff also presented an overview on congregate
housing and information regarding LAWS Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Services' inquiry regarding opportunities for congregate housing options in the Town.
Council and staff discussed the item.
1t was the consensus of Council to move this item to the Consent Agenda for the June 13
Council meeting.
b. Air Traffic Control Update and Control Tower Project Addition to the Capital
Improvements Program
Messrs. Coffman and Markel gave Council an update on the air traffic control
tower and informed Council of an air traffic services agreement between the Town and
the Federal Aviation Administration.
Council and staff discussed the item.
It was the consensus of Council to move this item to the Consent Agenda for the June 13
Council meeting.
c. Airport Noise Complaints from Evergreen Meadows Subdivision
Mr. Coffman gave an overview of the complaint received from the Evergreen
Meadows Subdivision Home Owners Association's and other nearby residents, regarding
airport noise. He also provided some recommendations on how to mitigate airport noise.
Airport Commission Chair Hugh Forsythe also answered questions.
Council thanked Mr. Coffman for the report and encouraged continued efforts to respond to
concerns from residents of Evergreen Meadows neighborhood.
1(Page
Council Work Session June 12, 2023
d. 2023 Legislative Program
Mr. Markel presented staff's draft legislative proposal for Council's consideration.
0 was the consensus of Council to move this item to the Consent Agenda for the June 13
Council meeting.
b. Additions to Future Council Meetings
a. None.
c. Closed Session
a. Annexation with respect to the Joint Land Management Area (JLMA)
MOTION 2023-111
On a motion by Mayor Burk, seconded by Vice Mayor Steinberg, the following was proposed:
I move pursuant to Va. Code Section § 2.2-3711(A)(8) and § 2. 2-3711(A)(3) of the Code of
Virginia that the Leesburg Town Council convene in a dosed meeting for the purpose of
consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members regarding specific legal matters
related to the annexation in the JLMA where such consultation in open session would
adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the Town.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Bagdasarian, Cimino -Johnson, Cummings, Nacy, Vice Mayor Steinberg, Wilt and
Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
Council convened in a closed session at 8:32 p.m.
Council convened in an open session at 9:52 p.m.
MOTION2023-112
On a motion by Mayor Burk, the following was proposed:
In accordance with Section § 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move that Council certify to
the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements under Virginia Freedom of Information Act and such public
business matters for the purpose identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was
convened were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting by Council. (ROLL CALL
VOTE)
Bagdasarian — aye, Cimino -Johnson — aye, Cummings — aye, Vice Mayor Steinberg — aye,
Nacy — aye, Wilt — aye, Mayor Burk — aye. Vote 7-0
d. Adjournment
On a motion by Vice Mayor Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Nacy, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Clerk of Council
2023. tcwsm'no6l2
21Page
June 12, 2023 — Leesburg Town Council Work Session
(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 tonight's Town Hall meeting, Work Session meeting of June 12, 2023.
Seven o'clock we begun. We have our first thing is the Congregate Housing. Mr. Watkins?
Shelby Miller: Shelby Miller, I'm actually assisting Mike on this potential text amendment so --
Mayor Burk: Would you mind just pulling down your microphones a little?
Shelby Miller: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Thank you.
Shelby Miller: For my being short. Tonight, were going to discuss the potential of text amendment for
congregate housing. This would be an initiation by the Council members to direct staff on whether or
not we want to move forward. congregate Housing currently is not a permitted use by our zoning
ordinance. The interest we got was from LAWS, their domestic violence and sexual assault services.
They're looking to adopt the congregate housing options so that they can provide a facility here within
the Town limits.
They, at the February 13th Work Session Council, did request a discussion on this topic. To give a
little bit of background on what is permitted in the zoning ordinance today, that is similar to congregate
housing. Group homes and assisted livings are the two most similar uses that we do provide within
Town limits. Group home is limited to the mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally -
disabled persons and it's limited to no more than eight persons.
This is a State regulatory that we did add to the ordinance and then assisted living is age restricted.
Again, congregate housing doesn't fall under these two, as well as both of these do have to be State
licensed. Staff did conduct a limited survey of other municipalities within Virginia that do have
congregate housing uses or something similar to congregate housing.
We did review Loudoun County, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Blacksburg. We reviewed their
zoning ordinances and a few of the findings were that they exclude single-family dwellings, requires
more than four unrelated persons. They always include support services and then each municipality
varied in their approval process. Some were by -right. Some were by special exception and some just
had special conditions.
Staffs recommendation tonight is to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to create a new use
called congregate housing and allow the use in certain zoning districts by special exception. We do
welcome any direction from the Council on the appropriate zoning districts, dwelling units types,
specific use standards and the approval process. Again, these are just discussion topics that we
would like some direction on. If this moves forward, some suggested motions would be for approval,
denial, and alternative motion.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much. That was very concise and precise. Appreciate that. Does
anybody have any questions on this? Yes. Mr. Steinberg, That's Mr. Steinberg. You're Mr. Cummings.
I apologize.
Council Member Zach Cummings: I just have one quick question. While I fully support LAWS and
what they're trying to do, I do have concern with some activity happening outside of the Town limits in
the County, where we have private equity buying up homes to create rehabilitation centers in
Page 1IJune 12, 2023
neighborhoods and so I'm not opposed to rehabilitation centers and certainly not opposed to LAWS
and what they need us to do for this.
My concern is in something I want to make sure that we're clear when were setting these standards
in place is I don't know, if there was legislation in Richmond that would require a 500 -foot barrier
between one of these congregate homes and another to try to prevent this private equity purchasing
of property and kind of creating campuses, in residential neighborhoods. For me, if we could try to
think creatively with the Town Attorney's Office and with Zoning on how we can ensure that we can
prevent entities from coming into the Town and purchasing multiple properties, kind of inline or near
one another to create these campuses.
That's the only-- I mean, I have no other questions. That's my only kind of question, comment. If you
think there's something that you've— if you've already thought of this, and have a solution, great. If
not, you know as were having these conversations, that's the one thing I just want to raise to you alt
Mayor Burk: Council Member Nacy?
Council Member Kari Nacy: Thank you. I sort of had a question and then a comment on -- so the
question for congregate housing, could we put stipulations on what type of congregate housing use
specifically in the zoning or would it just be a general congregate housing and here's what it falls
under, and it has to be special exception or whatever we make it?
Shelby Miller: We would be identifying the definition of congregate housing and from there, that's
where we want Council on direction on whether or not where it falls in each zoning district and as well
as what the approval process would be.
Council Member Nacy: Okay.
Shelby Miller: That's kind of where we go with the text amendments.
Council Member Nacy: I think, a good failsafe to kind of help what Councilman Cummings was
bringing up would potentially be for it to be a special exception in just wherever they're trying to put it.
That would be my recommendation. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Wilt? Council Member Wilt?
Council Member Patrick Wilt: Just a specific question on the existing uses we have which were the
group homes and assisted living. Are those have particular zoning districts specified for them for
those uses?
Shelby Miller: Yes, we do have specific zoning districts that they are permitted in. Groups homes are
permitted in all the residential and then B1, so the Downtown District and then assisted living is by
special exception in a majority of our districts.
Council Member Wilt: Okay, in the residential areas, one of your findings was that of these other
areas excluded single-family dwellings for this purpose.
Shelby Miller: Repeat that please.
Council Member Wilt: One of your findings in one of the other areas excludes in residential the use
of single-family dwellings for this purpose, is that right?
Shelby Miller: Yes, one of the jurisdictions did exclude it in the single-family but again, I believe it
was under a special exception.
Council Member Wilt: Okay, and that's the kind of thing where Member Cummings was referencing,
working around by assembling several dwelling units to-- Okay, you'll be looking at those kinds of
workarounds.
Page 2IJune 12, 2023
Shelby Miller: Yes, we'll be looking at more in depth into each of these municipalities and what their
practices have been.
Council Member Wilt: Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Ara Bagdasarian: Yes, thank you very much. What are the concerns and
considerations for this type of use? I mean are there any downsides that you've identified to the
surrounding neighborhoods, I mean?
Michael Watkins: LAWS was one entity that approached staff and I think from the LAWS
perspective, they have -- their clients, not to say the special needs, but they do have needs. A lot of
their short-term residents may not have personal transportation. That's a key element. Being located
close to facilities such as medical care or retail opportunities, again, absent their own personal
vehicle.
So, in terms of compatibility with neighborhoods, again, looking at the campus approach, those would
all be considerations that we would take in, in identifying potential zoning districts for facilities such as
this. The other question regarding the single-family homes, and I think that was warranted as a
character, didn't want the facility and these tend to be facilities to have a significant impact to the
character the neighborhood.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Great, thank you. Yes, I know it's amazing program and much -
needed services. Currently, we do not have any sort of zoning for this use. Okay, that's good. Thank
you.
Mayor Burk: Dr. Cimino -Johnson?
Council Member Todd Cimino -Johnson: Thank you. My question is, what would the timeline be if
we were to approve this? What are we looking forward to?
Michael Watkins: Generally speaking, a text amendment process can take as long as three months.
Knowing that there's a strong desire to potentially move this forward, our Director of Planning and
Zoning would work with the Town Manager's Office and rank the text amendments in areas of
concern. Moving this forward again, generally speaking, the process takes as long as three months. I
don't anticipate it being shorter than that just based on the nature and doing due diligence, but that
timeframe could be sped up.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Do you come back to us with the final language or?
Michael Watkins: Our next stop in the process would be draft language that's vetted with the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then would offer a recommendation to Council so
back up. Tomorrow evening, you would vote to initiate the text amendment. The next stop is Planning
Commission, recommendation Planning Commission, and then Council has the last decision -making
authority.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Burk: One of my notes down here was no neighborhoods. As someone who lives across the
street from a group home of only four, the residents are not an issue but the amount of services they
require have made a very dramatic difference in parking and traffic on the street, on this very quiet
street. It's not so quiet anymore. To have more than four or I mean, I know that LAWS is talking about
10 to 12, I believe. To have more than four would definitely have an impact on a neighborhood. I hope
that we would keep that in consideration. Why did you look at Loudoun, City of Roanoke, and the
Town of Blacksburg? Why did you choose those locations?
Page 3lJune 12, 2023
Shelby Miller: To be honest, they were random. I did look at Loudoun County because it was
something that they recently did adopt. We did want -- and LAWS had brought up the fact that they
fall under the congregate housing in Loudoun County. We did want to look at that and then the other
two, I'm new to the area so I did ask for recommendations from other staff members.
Michael Watkins: Those localities do have historic districts, and as far as land area is concerned,
they're close. Not quite, but they're close.
Mayor Burk: The question just went out of my head. The appropriate zoning districts, I would
encourage I think most of us have said, neighborhoods are not a really good place for dwelling unit
types. I assume you're asking that we-- Oh, Mr. Steinberg, you had some comments, you didn't get a
chance. 111 go back to this when you ask your questions. I'm sorry I didn't see you.
Vice Mayor Neil Steinberg: No, it's not a problem. One of the things I think that precipitated this
conversation was LAWS and their interest in relocating into Town. These congregate housing
situations often have very specific uses and LAWS, of course, not of course, but they have
determined that they're better located not in a residential area, it may be close by but really, they're
more adjacent to commercial and they find that should work better for them because in this day and
age, there are security issues as we know, and especially as it relates to a model of their nature.
It works better for them. Can an ordinance be fashioned, where certain types of uses might be better
situated in certain zoning areas and others and others. We can define that or not?
Michael Watkins: I think the notion of the special exception is appropriate because I don't think in this
category of use is a one -size -fits -all. That precipitates the recommendation from staff is that there
should be a special exception use. We can then look into the character of the neighborhood, parking,
the layout of the property in terms of adjacency to other existing structures, redevelopment projects,
things of that nature. The door is open for us to be a little bit more flexible in the review of each case
as it's presented instead of a carte blanche. This is the standard that may or may not apply to this use
in every circumstance.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: So, appropriate zoning district. You want direction from us, so I need to get four people
to agree that it wouldn't be in neighborhoods. Is that what you're looking for from us?
Michael Watkins: That's certainly great direction.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Are there four people that agree that the zoning district requirement these type of
congregate housing wouldn't be located in neighborhoods? Are there four people that would support
that? Okay. I think that was everybody. The dwelling unit types, what do you mean there? That are
you asking far there?
Shelby Miller: So, were looking at whether or not it be single family, multi -family, or any other. I think
that's the only two.
Michael Watkins: Yes. In the case of Council Member Wilt's question regarding single families, if
that's not a unit type that you want this use in, that would be important to communicate as were
preparing the text.
Mayor Burk: Okay. I think we answered that question with our first question, but I'll ask. Are there
four people that would not like to see this in single-family housing?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: I have a question first. Where or what types of units are possibilities then for
situations like this?
Michael Watkins: Based on the State Code definition for the group home, which is eight or more
that's where were seeing this as being a facility. That's not to say that it could be less. The door's not
Page 4IJune 12, 2023
closed based on the current State Code. I don't know of anything that would box us into a particular
number just based on the State Code and by no means was I suggesting dual, any particular type. It's
just in the context of looking at impacts and neighborhoods, sometimes the dwelling unit type is
important.
Sometimes the amount of available parking is important. The proximity to other services may be
important. Those could be in established neighborhoods because that proximity criteria's been met. I
think generally what were hearing from Council is that we don't want significant impacts to existing
neighborhoods, and we can fashion the text so that those are decision points and analysis that can be
included either as justification for a location or reasons to deny a location during the special
exception.
Mayor Burk: Do you have enough direction on the dwelling units?
Michael Watkins: I believe so, yes.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Specific use standards.
Shelby Miller: Again, that's going to be your parking --
Mayor Burk: I would —
Shelby Miller: -- as well as any buffer yards. What else do I have as examples?
Mayor Burk: The other issue is lighting.
Shelby Miller: Huh?
Mayor Burk: The other issue is lighting.
Shelby Miller: Yes, lighting. Yes.
Mayor Burk: That's a big issue.
Shelby Miller: For security, yes.
Mayor Burk: I would think that we would want to have specific use standards in regard to that,
especially if we're going to do the special exception. So, are there four people that would be
interested in doing this specific use standards? Yes, sir?
Council Member Bagdasarian: A question. Would we define the use standards, or would that be
done through the Planning Commission and staff?
Michael Watkins: I think it was just an instance if there was a particular thing that you just found
offensive, that would just be important to note. Again, the location of these, you don't have a specific
application before you, so it's a little bit difficult. As I mentioned before, I think what were wanting to
do is make sure that the decision points are more in the character and compatibility than it is
prescribing something that again it's not a one size fits all.
Mayor Burk: Well, I would definitely say parking's a consideration you need to look at. I don't know if
you can look at traffic impacts —
Michael Watkins: Absolutely.
Mayor Burk: -- because it does make a difference. Lighting. I'm speaking from experience, so sorry.
Those are the main ones that I can think of. Are there four people that are interested in at least
pursuing those four standards? Okay. All right Then the approval process Council, Member Nacy
Page 5IJune 12, 2023
made the point that special exception would be a better process because each one could be reviewed
individually. Are there four people that would like to see the approval process be a special exception
than by -right? Okay. There's four on that. All right.
Council Member Cummings: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Burk: Yes, you can.
Council Member Cummings: The Mayor mentioned, and I don't mean to bring up your
neighborhood. She has a group house across the street from her. Let's ask generally, if there was a
group house, let's say four or less folks living together, is that a legal use? Are they operating legally
in the Town?
Shelby Miller: Yes. Group home is a permitted use by -right as long as it is State -licensed.
Council Member Cummings: What we're looking at -
Shelby Miller: And then -- say that again? Sorry.
Michael Watkins: Explain the definition of family.
Shelby Miller: Oh, yes. Excludes the definition of family.
Council Member Cummings: This is going to be a-- we're talking about greater numbers here. I just
wanted to make sure there were wasn't --
Mayor Burk: Group homes can be eight.
Council Member Cummings: Eight.
Mayor Burk: Again, I want to reiterate, there's nothing wrong with the group home being next door.
They do a fabulous job. The residents are lovely individuals. It's just the ramifications of things that
you don't think about. All right.
Kaj Dentler: Madam Mayor?
Mayor Burk: Yes.
Kaj Dentler: Before we break, is it acceptable to the Council to place this item on consent for
tomorrow night with the guidelines -
Mayor Burk: Anybody have an issue with it--
Kaj Dentler: -you've given them?
Mayor Burk: Is there any issue with it being on consent?
Kaj Dentler: Okay. All right. We'll move to consent. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you very much and welcome.
Shelby Miller: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Air Traffic Control Power Update, and CIE additions. It says additions so I assume
there's only one.
Page 61June 12, 2023
Scott Coffman: Well, if you want, we can do some more. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor,
Members of Council. My name is -- I'm not that short. My name is Scott Coffman, Airport Director,
Keith Markel is going to help me out too with this presentation. We're here to give Council an update
on the Air Traffic Control Tower. I think we have some good news to share. Back on May 2-- this is
echoing-- the Town staff met with the senior leadership including the Deputy Director of the FAA
Bradley Mims and we had a great meeting with them.
The outcome of that meeting was that we'll work on a memorandum of agreement. Our legal and the
FAA's legal are working out an MOA to continue air traffic services at the airport. If you recall the
remote tower program was ending in mid -June, extended to September 30th but no plan after that.
The FAA has come back and agreed to provide air traffic controllers. They will fund them while we
construct an air traffic control tower. Should that be the direction of adding —
Mayor Burk: It is7
Scott Coffman: -- a project to the CIP. One of the responsibilities of the Town will be to lease and
provide that mobile tower. They're providing the labor, which is the large expensive chunk of operating
a control tower. We will have to lease a mobile tower for the time being. One of the things the FAA will
also do out of that meeting is reset our five-year clock. There's a time limit of five years to build a
control tower once were accepted into the Federal contract tower program, which is the long-term
funding program for controllers. They've agreed to reset that clock, so that'll give us till 2028.
I saw actually today that the draft reauthorization bill for the FAA may extend that to seven years.
We're here tonight to talk about adding a control tower to the CIP. In the meantime, this is a picture of
the mobile air traffic control tower that rolled up on our ramp last week. She's a beauty. Sorry.
Mayor Burk: I have some decorations you can put on it.
Scott Coffman: She's not. Nickname is Tugboat. It is an interim solution. It does have actually pretty
good visibility to the airfield. We have run a conduit and communications wiring out to it. The FAA is
funding it through the end of September. As I mentioned, we will have to lease the mobile tower after
that while we work on construction of a permanent tower. Just to give you some background, the
remote tower program was funded under the FAA's Next -Gen Department. That will now be
transferring to the Federal Contract Tower Program.
We're getting a bit of a special case to be allowed into the FCT program early without having built in a
traditional control tower yet. The FAA is working to put radar in. That was one of the concerns of the
pilots and the air traffic controllers. It may take six to eight months to bring that equipment out to that
mobile tower. We also had 180 pilots on a webinar the other night through the FAA safety team to
update the pilots on the changes to the air traffic control and what they need to do. It was also an
event to talk -- it was a good event to talk about noise, which I'll talk about on our next agenda item.
Again, the FCT Program, Federal Contract Tower Program will fund controllers, that's the ultimate
endgame for Leesburg. We do need to amend the CIP that's what I'm asking for you to consider on
your agenda for tomorrow night. The timeline for building a control tower. It's nothing simple. The first
steps are phase one of sighting. We have to identify a location of the control tower. We do that by
hiring a third -party consultant that follows an FAA alternate process, which is faster than waiting for
the FAA who's apparently building 26 other control towers and wed be at the back of that line.
We can hire a consultant that does the 3D modeling and prepares a report to the FAA and we do
have to do a reimbursable agreement with the FAA to pay them to evaluate our report that we send
them. So those costs come up to an estimate of $250K. That's what we're asking for you to amend
the CIP to get those first steps underway. The good news is that work is eligible for Federal and State
grants. Our local share is typically 2% on those projects, $5K.
The second phase of preliminary work for this tower is going to be environmental. We have to do
environmental on almost all projects at the airport. It's very much going to depend on the location.
What the outcome of the siting is going to depend on is going to drive the costs for the entire project. I
Page 7IJune 12, 2023
think I've told you before, is I like the idea of building a tower at the terminal where we use the existing
parking lots and infrastructure and utilities and communications. A much simpler and faster project
than going somewhere else in a greenfield on the airport where a lengthy environmental study would
be required.
That's why we have such wide price estimates on this project so far. Phase three, pretty standard into
the design and architectural work. I don't think they can just take my 3D drawing and build upon it.
Mayor Burk: Oh, but it's so nice.
Scott Coffman: $500K to 600K is the estimate to do that work. Then the final phase would be
construction. We know similar towers are over $10M if they're built in a standalone field so pretty
pricey project. Let me clarify that all of these costs are eligible for grant funding from both the State
and the FAA. Let me skip back. I probably should have put it in different order. Funding opportunities,
again, are FAA's grants usually pay 90% State chips in 8% leaving a 2% for the Airport and the Town.
There's a number of opportunities out right now. I assume most people have heard about the building
infrastructure law. There's several grant programs under that, that this tower would be eligible for. I'm
interested in getting a start on this so that we don't miss out on some of those programs that have
pretty much a five-year time span and they've already been out for a couple years.
Some of those are the Airport Terminal Program, the Federal Contract Tower Program. They're
competitive grants. Then we also have entitlement funding that we would prefer to use on some of our
other projects rather than devoting it to the tower, wed rather go out and get the FAA to fund us under
some of the other programs. Next steps were trading MOUs back and forth between the legal
departments and I think that will finalize the air traffic services going forward.
Begin the siding and the reimbursable agreement so we can get to work on planning for the tower.
Then we can seek funding for construction in the next phases. That's going to continue to work with
the FAA's leadership on how they can get us to the front of the line when they can and help us with
those competitive grant applications. I think that's it. 1'1 1 answer any questions you have. This is the
proposed motion for tomorrow night's agenda.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you.
Scott Coffman: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: I'm sure there's questions on this. 111 start on this side this time. Anybody over here?
Council Member Cummings?
Council Member Cummings: Thank you. What are we bumping in the CIP, or moving to bring in the
270 that were adding? I know it's from the other side of that.
Renee LaFollette: At this point in time, nothing is getting bumped for this 270. The sighting study will
be done by a third party and most of the review will be handled by the FAA, the project manager will
just be pushing to make sure that they stay on schedule.
Council Member Cummings: Thank you. Then just some general questions, Scott, on the tower
itself, I just am curious why the five -years of studying before we even start building? Is that just FAA?
Scott Coffman: Yes, some of the timelines were given by the FAA. We hope that by hiring a private
consultant, that were going to shave a number of months off of that. An environmental could be -- if
its at the terminal, it could be a tech list that I've done myself. It could be a 12 -month environmental
short form environmental assessment.
Council Member Cummings: Then I was just curious. do we know yet what the cost of the lease for
the mobile tower will be?
Page 8 June 12, 2023
Scott Coffman: The estimated cost. and we haven't negotiated this, is $10K a month or $120K a
year
Council Member Cummings: Again, my last question, I promise. We're looking about $16M total for
this whole project as of today, 15_
Scott Coffman: I want to be very transparent that that's a very ballpark number, depending on the
location. I hope that once we conduct the sighting work, we'll be able to come back to Council with a
much more accurate CIP page.
Council Member Cummings: I was just curious where we thought-- I know a major portion of that
should hopefully, knock on wood, will be reimbursed by either the State or the Feds. We are obviously
going to have to pull money to put it forward and then wait to get reimbursed. Do we know yet where
were going to pull the $15 to $16M?
Kaj Dentler: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this project won't go forward if there's no Federal funding.
The way the process works is were working very closely with the FAA and the State, and we know
that they're going to approve it, then we can move forward. It's not like we have to front $16M, if that's
the number, and then we get reimbursed down the road. It doesn't work that way. We can't move
forward if they're not on board with the funding commitment.
Scott Coffman: It's these preliminary work that we need to do ahead of time, but well apply for a
design grant and won't proceed with the design until we have that grant in hand. Same with
construction.
Council Member Cummings: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: 111 start with you. Mr. Vice Mayor, since I forgot you last time.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Oh, I feel so much better. I'm just trying to get an idea of these timelines. On
the one hand, we have a slide that says the goal is to provide a suitable tower in five years, but then
the next slide it says five dates. This five-year is based on certain potential factors, I assume, sighting
and all of that. if we get lucky.
Scott Coffman: I'm a bit of an optimist and I'd love to see it done within FAA's five-year plan or five-
year window. We could hit a roadblock where the FAA is saying, "Hey, were evaluating all these other
airports, so it's going to be 8 months, 12 months until we get to look at yours" I don't want to say that
there's a firm timeline that's written in stone.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: As we sit, and I'm not committing you to anything, is there a site near the
terminal that immediately suggests itself to you as I'm looking at this three-year timeline for sighting
and environmental? The sighting seems to be pretty straightforward; I would think.
Scott Coffman: Yes. There's a number of factors that they look at sighting, but yes, it's rather
straightforward.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: What is the sighting modeling? What does that do? Are they looking at traffic
patterns at some point?
Scott Coffman: They're looking at visibility. Some of the old, we call them the condo hangers, the
ones that were built 40 years ago, they're actually very close to the runway and the taxi way, and
aircraft are hard to see when they go behind them now at the remote tower. The new tower has to be
in a position where it has adequate visibility to see those aircraft an the whole taxiway, the whole
runway.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Unfortunately, there's not some technology that would allow us to see -
Mayor Burk: Yes, like a camera.
Page 9IJune 12, 2023
Vice Mayor Steinberg: -360 degrees. Yes.
Scott Coffman: There's factors like the metal roof of the terminal can give sun glare. If you're looking
at a metal shiny roof and trying to see traffic that way, that could be a red flag. It is important ultimate
conduct
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Okay. How long does it take to be reimbursed for the sighting and
environmental funds? Just out of curiosity.
Scott Coffman: They would be reimbursed during the design grant.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Okay.
Scott Coffman: After the, yes, sighting, and environmental and then reimbursed during design.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: The plan that would be, that we would pull those from the Unassigned Fund
Balance. The Unassigned Fund Balance that's how we --
Scott Coffman: Yes, sir.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Now, we have already, or are receiving on an annual basis. Are those the
funds that-- hold on a second. Let me get the right term here-- The BIL funds. Is that the part of a
commitment we already have for five years from the FAA?
Scott Coffman: Yes. We've spent the first year and a half on the North Hangars project. Sorry, Keith.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: What you're saying is you would rather not commit those funds to this if we
could avoid it?
Scott Coffman: Well, we have the attitude that we didn't create this problem. We embraced this
remote tower. We leased a facility from the County. We worked with the FAA for nearly 10 years on
this project If they want us to build a traditional tower now, maybe we shouldn't take away projects
like building on the west side and expanding the airport --
Vice Mayor Steinberg: I agree with that.
Scott Coffman: -- with our entitlement money. It's great for those kind of expansion projects. I think
that's the approach.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: If only somebody there would get the memo. That's all. Okay. All right.
Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Council member, Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Yes, and this has touched on upon before, but I just like to reiterate
and verify. The funding for the actual $10 to $15M to construct this. This will come from the FAA
funding long term. Because typically you have to outlay the money and then get reimbursed. This is a
process that we will receive the funding before we even break ground at all.
Scott Coffman: Correct. Yes, we're not-- yes.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Okay. I just want to verify.
Scott Coffman: A construction grant will be in hand before we're allowed to proceed.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Okay. That's it. Thank you.
Page 10IJune 12, 2023
Mayor Burk: Council member Wilt?
Council Member Wilt: Thank you. Yes. Just a couple of other cost questions.
Scott Coffman: Yes, sir.
Council Member Wilt: Of the quarter million to add to the CIP budget, we don't have to bump
anything off the CIP to make this happen. Where does the quarter million come from?
Scott Coffman: I know Cole's not here tonight, but really the local cost to the Town is the 2% of that
quarter million, so $5K. It's really more of a cash flow from finance being able to float that money until
reimbursed in a future FAA grant.
Council Member Wilt: Okay. Do we know that we get that money?
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Council Member Wilt: Or are we hoping to get that money?
Scott Coffman: Anything we do with the FAA where we anticipate getting that work, they approve all
the scopes of work and commit ahead of time.
Council Member Wilt: Okay.
Scott Coffman: Well, they're involved in the process. I won't say they commit through a grant
agreement, but they're involved in the process, approve the scope of work for reimbursement later.
Council Member Wilt: We're textually saying we're adding a quarter a million to the CIP but in actual
cost, we're adding $5K to the CIP, is that what were saying?
Scott Coffman: Local cost to the Town plus project management. Do you want to talk about
projects?
Kaj Dentler: Yes. I mean, you're breaking it down correctly. When you see -- if you approve the CIP
sheet tomorrow night, it'll show Federal, State, and local share dollars. That's the way the projects are
— again, the projects only go forward if we actually get the funding.
Council Member Wilt: Got it. All right. Just wanted to clarify. The Feds are on the hook for a certain
dollar amount. Town residents are on the hook for $5K. Okay. The operating budget. We're going to
increase; were going to do something with a mobile lease for $10K a month. What does that do to our
operating budget?
Scott Coffman: Well, that item is not up for tonight or tomorrow night. That will item will come up
when legal comes up with a finalized memorandum of agreement for Council to consider.
Council Member Wilt: Okay, so the anticipating in addition to the annual operative expense budget.
Kaj Dentler: Possibly. We were hoping to negotiate better news than that, but were still working on
that.
Council Member Wilt: Okay, and great, a couple of my questions were actually asked earlier, so the
only other one I have is, what is the impact of not having radar for eight months?
Scott Coffman: Its much worse not to have a control tower at all. The FAA installed radar probably
January, just over a year ago. The controllers do use it and it gives them situational awareness. They
do not use it to actually direct traffic. Its more of a situational awareness for the controller. They will
miss it as a tool in their job, but they operated since 2018 up until last year January without radar.
Page 11jJune 12, 2023
Council Member Wilt: We don't expect safety impacts?
Scott Coffman: No.
Council Member Wilt: Okay. Do we expect any traffic aircraft types or such coming into the airport
that won't due to the radar being not here?
Scott Coffman: No.
Council Member Wilt: No operational impacts? No end safety impacts? When we have radar --
Scott Coffman: Its probably, I would say, an efficiency impact in how they communicate and their
awareness of traffic. Some of the radar -- I'm not a controller but they coordinate traffic with Potomac
TRACON, which controls all the traffic in the whole DC area. They coordinate that in and out through
theft radar system. There are some lost efficiencies where they have to maybe pick up a phone call
versus doing it electronically.
Council Member Wilt: The FAA is working to put the radar in. It'll take eight months and that's at the
FAA's cost?
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Council Member Wilt: All right. Thanks, Scott.
Christopher Spera: Madam Mayor, if I may, on the radar point That was a contentious point of the
negotiations and our ability to retain that radar was I think significant, for lack of a better term, win for
the Town. The radar is a secure feed and so it's not simply just moving a piece of apparatus from one
place to another. There is a hardening of the infrastructure that services the radar that has to happen
so it can't be tapped into because it is a radar feed. I guess it comes from Dulles. Is that right?
Wherever it comes. It's not like it's local radar. It's a feed from someplace else and so there's a
hardening and a security aspect to what the FAA has to do to relocate the radar to the temporary
tower.
Mayor Burk: All right, thank you. The lovely tugboat, we had one of those previously.
Scott Coffman: That was a horse trailer. This one is a tugboat.
Mayor Burk: Is that right?
Scott Coffman: Those are their nicknames.
Mayor Burk: The horse trailer, do we pay for that? Did we pay?
Scott Coffman: No, we did not.
Mayor Burk: What's the change that we have to pay for it now?
Scott Coffman: That was funded under the FAA's Next -Gen Program related to certification of the
remote tower and since the FAA's terminating that program. Just as it is behooved of us to build and
provide a control tower and they'll provide the controllers; they're coming at it with the same approach
where we have to provide a mobile tower and they'll provide the controllers.
Mayor Burk: Yes, but were paying only partially for the control tower. On this, we're paying for the
whole thing, the whole rent. Is that a point of negotiation that you guys are going to be working on to
try to make it so that we don't have to be paying for a tugboat for five or six years?
Scott Coffman: I started a bad trend with the tugboat.
Page 12IJune 12, 2023
Mayor Burk: It does look like a tugboat.
Scott Coffman: It does.
Mayor Burk: Is that a point of negotiation that we're working on?
Keith Markel: It is. This was something that we talked about in detail with them during the multiple
conversations we had with the FAA. The great news is that they're covering the much larger expense
of the air traffic controller staffing. They made it very clear from our first meeting that the Town is
going to need to put some financial resources into this project, that it won't be a free dde, so to speak.
That was the one concession if we had to make one.
Absorbing the cost of the trailer rental after the end of their current fiscal year is certainly not
something that we were hoping for, but it's much better than the alternative where we're going into
those discussions where we were going to be footing the bill for both the controllers and the
equipment. This is the much better of those outcomes. There are other possible avenues. We talked
with Delegate Reid just last week, looking at other ways that the State could supply some additional
funding to help. If not cover the full cost of that trailer rental, maybe to fray some of that cost so it'll be
some local money, maybe some State money involved in here because we know this is a regional
initiative and so the more players the better.
Mayor Burk: The reason it rubs me is because we didn't pay for it before. We look on the remote
tower at their request. Now we're going to have to go back to it at their insistence that we can't use
the remote tower and now we're going to have to pay $120K. I don't think we should simply accept
that I think that needs to be a negotiating point that this is their doing, basically.
Kaj Dentler: I can assure you that staff has not just accepted that. What Mr. Markel is telling you is
quite possibly the reality, but we've not concluded. Mr. Spera is still negotiating, and we're trying to
get that, as well as we'll be seeking other funding, whether through the State or through the Feds, to
cover. The FAA may not provide it directly, but there may be other ways to get it. That point is not lost
on us.
Mayor Burk: Great, Mr. Spera did you --
Christopher Spare: I was just going to say its really an FAA problem, I suppose. If they don't have a
bucket that they can charge that to they don't have, once they terminated the remote tower program,
there is no authorized funding source to pay for the temporary tower. Our legislative delegation, our
congressional delegation has been exceptional in supporting us here and one of the things that we
hope to accomplish is to get Federal funding outside of one of the FAA buckets to help defer, if not
completely fund that cost. in addition to the other resources that we've talked about.
Essentially, what the FAA told us was, this was the best they could do, given the available funds they
had, and what was authorized to be funded from each of those funding sources.
Mayor Burk: Well then, they should have kept the remote program there. The air traffic controllers,
will they be the same people that are now in the remote tower?
Scott Coffman: Yes, there is a possibility that they could switch companies in the future. The FAA
hasn't decided on that yet. The Federal contract tower program they divide the US up into, I think its
three different companies and subcontractors for the FAA. We are in the Midwest aviation zone, and
our controllers work for a company called Robinson Aviation. There is a possibility the FAA could
switch their contractor. More than likely the same controllers would want to stay but I can't comment
on what they'd like to do.
Mayor Burk: Then when would we know that they were going to be moving contracts?
Scott Coffman: Preferably by the end of September. I personally -- I don't think they'll change at this
point because they have-- But that's their contracting-- this falls under their contracting rules.
Page 13]June 12, 2023
Christopher Spera: It will certainly remain the same through September 30, time when they're
funding everything, and then nothing in well-- they certainly have the right to change contractors.
There's nothing in the drafts of the MOU that I've seen that suggests there are looking to do that, but
ultimately, since they're paying for it, it's their decision.
Mayor Burk: This information you're giving us today, have you also given it to the FBO, ProJet, and
Kuhns Aviation?
Scott Coffman: No, we've been keeping -- The FAA agreements aren't finalized, and I've shared with
the Airport Commission, which is a public meeting, that we had good meetings with the FAA, and that
our MOUs were still under development, but the FAA was likely going to continue funding the
controllers after September 30th.
Mayor Burk: When does this actually start the tugboat, when does it begin?
Scott Coffman: They are targeting June 15th.
Mayor Burk: June 15? Do the FBOs know that?
Scott Coffman: Yes, I've talked to the FBOs.
Mayor Burk: I'm sure the pilots ask them, so I just want to make sure --
Scott Coffman: I've given an update to Julie O'Brien --
Mayor Burk: and Scott, I assume.
Scott Coffman: -- and Scott, yes.
Mayor Burk: And Scott I assume. The wires, you said that there had to be wires to connect to the
tugboat for a better word. Are they underground or are they on the ground?
Scott Coffman: I made a decision to move the temporary tower from where it was under the previous
program to an area where it doesn't block traffic as much, and to do that we ran some pipe under the
asphalt to that new location, ifll keep the efficiency of the airport --
Mayor Burk: I can see someone stumbling over [crosstalk] all of a sudden, they can't [ineligible]
Scott Coffman: Since this is going to be here for a few years.
Mayor Burk: Yes, I'm afraid so, and then the last question I have is what have we asked of our
congressional representatives, and do we need to be working and talking to the State representatives
also?
Scott Coffman: We had a great support from everybody. Not just the State and Federal's delegation,
but a lot of the business groups and Washington Airport's Task Force and the aircraft owners and
Pilots Association. Huge outcry, I think, helped every meeting with the FAA get better and better news
for Leesburg.
Mayor Burk: We're asking them for more help with funding and to try to find funds in different places.
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Mayor Burk: At the State level too. do we need to make sure that that's part of our legislative agenda
coming up?
Page 14IJune 12, 2023
Keith Markel: What a beautiful segue. Yes, it is. Its actually included in the draft proposal for you this
evening.
Mayor Burk: Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you for the update. Appreciate the information.
I look forward to-- are we doing a ribbon cutting for the tugboat? Only kidding.
Kaj Dentler: Madam Mayor, this is on your agenda for tomorrow night for vote. Are you comfortable
moving it to consent for amending the CEP and the appropriation, or do you want to leave it where it is
on the docket now?
Mayor Burk: Does anybody have any issues with it going on consent, Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: No, I was going to say, COPA did the Paint the Plow project, maybe
we got to paint this thing.
Mayor Burk: I know. We can do that
Council Member Bagdasarian: Yes, That's what I'm saying.
Mayor Burk: Each school could do one side. I don't see anybody have any objections, so on consent
is fine. All right. It's you again. So, Mr. Coffman.
Scott Coffman: Meanwhile —
Mayor Burk: This topic is now the Airport Noise Complaints from Evergreen Meadows Subdivision.
Scott Coffman: -- all the good things we've been doing at the airport, unfortunately, or fortunately has
increased traffic. I don't know if Council had a chance to read the letter from the Evergreen Meadows
Homeowners Association. The increase in traffic, especially this year, has caused them much pain
and anguish over the noise of repetitive flight training aircraft over their homes. Leesburg is a busy
flight training airport. There's five flight schools that have located at the airport. It tends to serve a
broad area for flight training.
If you think about flight training in Fairfax County, probably not doing that with the proximity of the
White House and all that secure airspace down there. A lot of flight schools go to Manassas, Stafford
to the south, Leesburg, Frederick and even Winchester does quite a bit of flight training. This spring,
we have seen an increase in flight traffic and mainly it is repetitive touch and go. If you don't know
what a touch and go is, it's practice landings where a plane lands, they add power, they go around the
circle. Unfortunately, that circle is over Evergreen Meadows and other neighborhoods as well. They're
quite upset over the increase and the effects that it has had on their home and their quality of life.
They've also complained occasionally of repetitive flights occurring after 10:00 PM at night. There
have been instances of that. They also cite air pollution from the aviation fuel that the small flight
training planes burn is a concern as well. I went to this map, hopefully you can see it. This map I
developed as part of our noise abatement guidelines to help educate pilots on noise -sensitive areas,
neighborhoods. Evergreen Meadows is, I don't know if everybody knows where Evergreen Meadows
is and this probably doesn't work. Do you have to use this? Is it a circle? Sorry. Evergreen Meadows
just to the north of the airport's runway. It is about a half mile from the end of the runway and is pretty
much straight in line with the extended center line that airplanes fly.
They fly these patterns. You see these, if you're departing to the north towards Downtown Leesburg,
you fly what's called left traffic and you make left-hand turns and you fly this rectangular box pattern
and you come back around and land. Unfortunately, that left turn when they're departing to the north
in this area here occurs right over Balch Springs Circle is one of the streets with the most affected --
How do you clear it up? Do you remember? Sorry. Okay, then the green?
Balch Springs Circle is right here. As aircraft depart, they make a left-hand turn, often over Balch
Springs Circle and that's at a high -power setting, the aircrafts are at full power or thereabouts
Page 15IJune 12, 2023
because they've just taken off, and they're making their turn to come back around. That creates the
highest noise when they're at high power.
I'm very much taking an approach that we want to help. There are people that say, "Oh, the airport
was there first and homes shouldn't be near the airport," but they are. We have to try to figure out how
to help our residents. I am sensitive to their complaints. I have spent time sitting and listening to the
flights over their homes and it is a real problem. It's a difficult problem to solve because of the location
of all the residential, not just Evergreen Meadows, but all the residential in that crescent around the
north end of the airport.
One of the ideas that we've come up with to help mitigate this. and this has been in concert with the
Airport Commission and Bugs is here this evening to comment as well if you have any questions. We
published Noise Abatement Guidelines to our flight schools and to our pilots. I mentioned earlier that
we had 180 people on the FAA safety team, did a presentation online webinar and presented some of
the paths that we can take to help mitigate and lower the impact on the residents.
Educating the pilots where those noise -sensitive areas are, extending their takeoff. Rather than
making that left-hand turn just past Simpson Middle School over Evergreen Meadows, extend and
stay over the Greenway toll road farther and climb higher, and then get to the bypass intersection
before making that left turn. By then, they're almost up at their pattern altitude, they're slowing down
their power a little bit That's one way that could mitigate the noise directly over Evergreen Meadows.
I mentioned we've done the pilot outreach. We've also requested in those rules not to conduct
nighttime touch and goes. I have had some pushback because in the summertime, it doesn't get dark
till 9:00 PM and pilots do have to fly at night every so often to keep current so that they're allowed to
land at night. That's typically only a problem when it's staying light really late. The previous guidelines,
that's the easy solution. It's probably the most effective. Some of the harder things that we can look
into in the future and that the residents have asked for do require some FAA concurrence and even
concurrence from our own control tower who I know tends to be a little split on do they fly the most
efficiently or do they fly direct airplanes in a way that reduces noise.
That first one, runway 17 calm -wind— so to explain runways, we have one runway and you're either
landing to the north or to the south. Back to the map. If you're landing towards the south, you're
departing over basically fields and non-residential areas. That shifts the noise from Evergreen
Meadows and those neighborhoods to the south. Airplanes always land in the wind. When there's
calm winds, if we can send more airplanes to the south than the north and calm has some parameters
to it. Its probably calm today. I'm watching the flags just barely lofting. If it's less than five knots of
wind, it'd be great if the tower would direct airplanes to the south, and that would reduce the number
of flights over the neighborhoods.
We're working with our tower on that. One of the downsides that the tower doesn't like about it is
departing to the south because it's right into Dulles's airspace and it makes for much harder work on
their end not for them personally, but they have to coordinate with Dulles Tower so some of the flights
departing out of Leesburg have wait for the United or American Airlines to depart out of Dulles
because they're both taking off into that same block of airspace. There's some more coordination,
that's why tower would rather send planes to the north, over the neighborhoods. We as a Town, would
like them to send them to the south and away from the neighborhoods.
Right -traffic for runway 35, I'm not crazy about this one. Our Airport Commission has talked about it a
little bit. It would fly airplanes over Beauregard Estates and Tavistock as they come back around to
land. That tends to be shifting the problem not necessarily solving the problem, but it would solve the
problem for Evergreen Meadows because those planes are turning right rather than left. Its also a
non-standard procedure for the FAA. Its not that it can't be done, it's just not standard and
standardization and aviation is important.
Then some of the residents asked for restrictions on use. that would be like a curfew, no flying after
10 PM, restricting touch and goes which would impact our flight schools. Those actually require FAA
approval. The FAA, as we talked about earlier this evening, invest a lot of money into the airport so
Page 16IJune 12, 2023
they have a lot of say over how we operate the airport and we can't just say, "You know what? No, we
don't want these planes flying or this kind of use." That would require FAA concurrence which may
trigger doing a broader noise study under the FAA's regulations. I'm personally not convinced that a
noise study would have much sympathy. I don't want to say sympathy, but much to say about light
aircraft. Their noise studies are mainly focused on those jet traffic that has such a large noise field.
FAA doesn't really give the Cessna 172s that the flight schools use, much recognition for noise.
Those are same of the things that we're working on and timed that pretty welt
Mayor Burk: Good job there. Does anybody have any questions on this? Mr. Bagdasarian,
Council Member Bagdasarian: I do, thank you. I used to live in Balch Springs, actually, so I've
experienced that firsthand. What would be the issue with extending the takeoff? That seems to be just
a no-brainer right off the bat.
Scott Coffman: Yes. We've already done that by showing this up towards the top where it turns left,
where it says, follow the highway, that's already been recommended and put out in the pilot briefing
the other night.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Is that being applied today?
Scott Coffman: Yes, and these are guidelines that ultimately, they're guidelines, they're not noise
abatement procedures that the FAA has sanctioned and mandated. These are our attempt as an
airport to say, "This is how you can fly to reduce your impact on the community for noise" The flight
schools have embraced that too, by the way. This has been embraced by the flight schools. They
don't want to cause pushback that could restrict their use in the future.
Council Member Bagdasarian: What was the option to circle around Kincaid, what was that called?
Scott Coffman: That's called right traffic, think of it as right-hand turns.
Council Member Bagdasarian: All right. What if you went left and further out because there's a lot of
green space without neighborhoods to the west?
Scott Coffman: Oh, as far as extending way out to the West?
Council Member Bagdasarian: I mean not way —
Scott Coffman: The tower is not going to want aircraft too far away where they cannot see and
control them, and traditionally. patterns are flown pretty tight to the airport. Bugs do you-- I don't know
if you want Bugs to comment, but I don't [crosstalk]. He's the pilot in here.
Council Member Bagdasarian: [crosstalk] I don't mean super far out like West Virginia.
Mayor Burk: Most certainly. Well ask Mr. Forsythe if he would like to say a few things when you're
finished.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Okay. It'd be good just to see if there's been any market or
noticeable difference with the neighborhood based on that extended take -off guidance.
Scott Coffman: We haven't had the best weather with the smoke from last week. A little bit of rain
today. It's been pretty quiet. Leesburg gets very busy on the nice, beautiful, calm days and we had a
lot of those in May and we had a record number of flights.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Wilt?
Page 17lJune 12, 2023
Council Member Wilt: Oh, thanks. Yes, Scott, so I am looking at that map too. I understand what
you're saying is this is now not the existing left -turn pattern that's causing a problem. This is the
proposed --
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Council Member Wilt: -- noise mitigation proposal.
Scott Coffman: Yes, and really the only difference is we've extended that northern track up to the
bypass.
Council Member Wilt: Okay. That's eliminating their turn when they're on takeoff at full power
climbing out They're not making a near turn. They're going to altitude farther out at the bypass --
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Council Member Wilt: --which should mitigate the noise even on the next left turn coming back over
the neighborhood, they're at altitude.
Scott Coffman: Yes, over the left-hand side where it says noise sensitive, that's Meadowbrook
Farms country.
Council Member Wilt: The anticipation there, like Member Bagdasarian was saying, go farther west.
The anticipation is they're at altitude at that point coming over that neighborhood, so we don't
anticipate a problem in that case?
Scott Coffman: No. There's traffic in and out over Meadowbrook Farms today, but it's typically at the
traffic pattern altitude.
Council Member Wilt: They're not at full throttle. They're at cruise throttle at that altitude on that leg.
Okay. Specifically, as I'm taking it, this isn't about takeoffs and landings for traffic. This is specifically a
flight school issue, right?
Mayor Burk: Not exclusively.
Scott Coffman: Not exclusively. The flight schools, they're the ones that will do 5, 6, 10 touch and
goes, and that repetitiveness is what is, I think, really harming the neighbors.
Council Member Wilt: Right. Even if you have a private pilot in a 172 climbing out, they're not
making that low altitude turn. They're just flying out, so is there a problem?
Scott Coffman: No, it just preferred if they would extend, and stay over the highways to reduce noise
over Meadowbrook.
Council Member Wilt: You said these are guidelines, they're not mandates, flight schools are
receptive to these because they don't want to be restricted in some way? Who does license or restrict
the flight schools?
Scott Coffman: The FAA has sole purview and regulatory authority over all airspace. I don't have the
authority to say, fly this route, fly this route. I do have the flight schools that all come together on
safety issues. They may be competitive otherwise, but they come together on safety and flight
operations, and all of them have agreed to help push this out to their instructors and their students to
help reduce the noise effects on the neighborhoods.
Council Member Wilt: Could use some background on the flight schools for me. We've got five of
them. They're licensed by the FAA, but who decides they operate at Leesburg at all is? It's not us, it's
the FAA.
Page 181dune 12, 2023
Scott Coffman: They're private businesses, so they can choose to operate if they can find space at
the airport from which to operate.
Council Member Wilt: I just needed to clear that. The Town doesn't issue business licenses to these
operators, so we don't control them.
Scott Coffman: We do, but our role is to make sure that they meet the airport's minimum standards
so that they have enough airplanes, enough qualified flight instructors, and a large enough office
space to do that Unfortunately, we don't get to judge, "You know what? Five's enough and we got to
stop" Being a Federally funded airport, we can't economically discriminate between companies.
Council Member Wilt: In the case that one flight school communicates well to its flight instructors
and they adopt these proposals and flight school two doesn't, there's no way to choose between good
behavior and bad behavior?
Scott Coffman: Yes. At the end of the day, they are guidelines. A lot of airports use these guidelines.
We don't have enforcement to say, "Hey, your plane flew, took early left-hand turn over the
neighborhood" We don't have enforcement for that, but we can certainly apply peer pressure, if you
will, to say, "Hey, your students aren't flying the way the rest of the others are at the airport."
Council Member Wilt: This is a new thing you introduced just today or yesterday. We don't have any
data on yet whether this is being adopted by the instructors and what the reaction from residents is
yet.
Scott Coffman: Correct. We do maintain a log of noise complaints and we'll continue to track that
We review them at the Airport Commission meetings.
Council Member Wilt: Next commission meeting is when?
Scott Coffman: This Wednesday.
Council Member Wilt: Oh, so you won't have enough data yet?
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Council Member Wilt: You essentially review data in another month?
Scott Coffman: Yes.
Council Member Wilt: All right. Thanks, Scott
Mayor Burk: You know I'm going to ask this question because I told you. We had a ribbon cutting at
the airport for the new hangers, and a gentleman from the Pilots Association— What is the--?
Scott Coffman: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
Mayor Burk: He said that they have a group that really helps neighborhoods understand the
importance of airports and can come and talk about airports and have done so in many places. Have
you reached out to them?
Scott Coffman: I have not reached out to them yet. They're headquartered in Frederick, so a very
easy meet. We've worked with them on other projects, including the tower. They'll be supportive. I'm
curious as to what they have because they're very pro -pilot organization. It's funded by the pilots. I'm
open to whatever suggestions they have. Then we've also reached out to the FAA environmental folks
because this is actually an environmental issue, and -
Mayor Burk: That was my next question, FAA.
Page 19IJune 12, 2023
Scott Coffman: -waiting to hear back some information from them too.
Mayor Burk: Because you are going to have a public meeting at some point in the not -too -distant
future, I'm assuming?
Scott Coffman: Our first step, I don't know if I mentioned this, was a meeting between the Airport
Commission, Mr. Forsythe, Tim Fisher, who is the Airport Business Association Representative and
also a flight school owner. We met with the HOA president and six members of the community. I think
we had a good discussion, and well continue those discussions.
Mayor Burk: I think Mr. Wilt's idea of gathering more data is important, but we need to share not just
with a small group of people. At some point, you're going to have to have a public hearing so people
can come and talk about it, not just a small group. You may find there are some people that are okay
being near the airport. I don't know. Anyway, thank you.
Scott Coffman: Great.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Forsythe, is there anything you wanted to add to this discussion tonight?
Hugh Forsythe: Unless somebody has questions. Do I have any questions? One thing I'd like to
address --
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: I don't necessarily have a question.
Hugh Forsythe: In answer to your question, why don't you just go out west wherever, there's certain
areas when you report downwind, you know where to look. Now that we don't have radar, you're
going to be looking at a certain spot If you think you can fly 5 miles out or 10 miles or 15, and you
think, "That's okay, I'm going to be looking for you" Meanwhile, you're not [unintelligible]. There are
certain standards that you want to maintain on there. What a lot of people were doing is turning right
over as soon as they got even with Simpson Middle School and starting left turn.
That's right where that red circle is right now, and that's right where the lady we met with talking about
noise abatements. She sent me more videos than I'd ever care to see on exactly that. I told her when
they landed -- I live under the traffic pattern too. I like sitting out on my deck and watching airplanes.
She hates it. Somewhere between the two, we need to meet, but I just happened, and I agree with the
Mayor, we need to reach out to people. I think we did a very good job reaching out to her, telling her
why we do some things.
In answer Councilman Wilt, in your question, I don't think there are going to be any flight school that
doesn't pay attention to this. That's their livelihood. That's how they get paid. When you say, "Hey,
were going to do this," or if you get restricted or come down on it, they're going to get in trouble. We
can't control it, can't do anything, but that there is livelihood. If enough people raise enough stake,
they could actually close all the airport. Now what are you going to do? I think they're aware of what
needs to be done.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Mr. Steinberg?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Oh, so two questions regarding using 17. Would it be the jets that would be
the greater issue heading south as opposed to the flight school?
Hugh Forsythe: Flight schools are going to be a problem with 1-7 because they're going to be turning
normal downwind and turning off there so it's not. The jet's traffic fd say 99% of them are going to be
under IFR, instrument flight rules, that are taken off on a jet under visual flight rules is almost-- it is not
going to do it. I mean I've flown all over that. What Scott was trying to say was if you take off IFR,
instrument flight rules, you have to get clearance from the Dulles there because of the departures on
runway 3-0 taking off are a factor.
Page 20IJune 12, 2023
You're not going to get a VFR jet taking off and turn to the right. The jets are going to be IFR
instrument flight rules. Yes, it causes problems. You take off the noise, you can turn pretty much
immediately. The jets aren't the problem with the noise. The noise complaints are coming from all the
airplanes doing the traffic pattern in the small Cessna 172.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: That's what's generating [crosstalk]?
Hugh Forsythe: Yes, that's the noise complaints coming in right now.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: I know when we were talking about the right pattern, you smiled. Actually, the
question might be, it wouldn't make that neighborhood any happier, but would we be spreading the
pain across a number of neighborhoods if we alternated left pattern with right pattern on odd and even
days or something like that? Is that a possibility?
Hugh Forsythe: That is a possibility. You're spreading-- Again, I live right underneath that traffic
pattern. I can tell you exactly. They use my house for a turning point -
Vice Mayor Steinberg: I understand.
Hugh Forsythe: -so I understand that. No, we could change the patterns. Now, again, the flight
schools are reluctant because they say it's one of those little things why are we doing it that way
because we've always done it that way? That's one of our points. I don't agree. That's one of the
things that ticks me off worse than anything else. Yes, we'll have to make some changes and we can
do that and that will help address the problem.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: That's what I'm asking. Is that potentially a workable solution?
Hugh Forsythe: Yes, that is a possible solution. Yes.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Thank you.
Scott Coffman: It requires the tower to coordinate that and agree. The tower has to coordinate and
agree to that too because they're the ones ultimately directing the traffic during the day.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: I'm completely ignorant an all things aviation, so pardon my
ignorance. Obviously, extending the takeoff is part of a solution. We will measure that. See what type
of response that is as far as the noise complaints. As far as extending to the west, two miles out, is
that too far for flight schools to veer away from the actual airport?
Hugh Forsythe: The main problem right now we have is right that area that's circling in the green
area, the Evergreen Meadows. That's the people complaint. Again, if you turn to the right, I live right
underneath that and the HOA have addressed. I was chairman of the HOA for numerous. We never
got any noise complaints at all on the thing. Going on further out west, again, you're limited now with
the tower. It doesn't have any radar at all, so they can't control the traffic. Now, you've got people out
there, you don't know where --
When you fly a certain VFR, visual flight rule, traffic pattern, you're supposed to be in a certain place.
That's nationwide. If we start extending this. say, "Just go wherever you want," now we're going to get
in trouble because people don't know where the airplanes are.
Council Member Bagdasarian: The VFR, that's my ignorance right there. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Cummings?
Page 211June 12, 2023
Council Member Cummings: Thank you. Just two questions. Not about traffic patterns or anything.
The first question. You're putting forward these guidelines. They're a suggestion. We're hoping, like
Chairman Forsythe mentioned, that the flight schools will want to follow them because this is their
livelihood. As Council Member Wit mentioned about gathering the data and see if anything works,
what is our next steps to determine if these guidelines are being effective or if we need to take to the
bully pulpit and make sure people hear them again? Or is the next step having to go to the FAA to talk
about making these not suggested guidelines, but in fact, guidelines?
Hugh Forsythe: One question we asked when we had the thing was, 'Why are they complaining so
much now?" We asked, "How long have you lived here?" Most of the people we talked to, the 7
people, had lived there 18 years or more. So, it's not the first time the noise complaints came up. I
asked the one lady, I said, "Why are we going from no complaints here 3 months ago, now, were
getting 70 to 80?" Now, she goes, "Because we just learned how to complain. We just learned how to
contact them." We're still going to get the complaints. The particular people we talked to are going to
keep complaining. I know Mayor Burk has talked to the one lady. She's going to keep complaining
and she may be listening out. That's her right. That's fine.
We are trying to take action to eliminate-- The airport is going to have airplanes flying around. There
will be some noise, but we are trying to take corrective action and safety. That's the number one thing.
Safety action to keep the pilots-- The one thing you don't want when a brand-new pilot's trying a thing
is worrying about ground track and flying over this house, don't turn to that house. All he can do is, or
she, they, can keep the airplane in the air. That's a safety factor. Been there and done that. We're
trying to keep it as safe and that's back Ara to one of your questions, that's why you have a certain
ground track you fly so you'd know where airplanes are.
Council Member Cummings: Last question. Just curious, in the staff report, it talks about FAA, they
have jurisdictional authority on the operations. What authority do we have as the Town in setting
operations at the airport?
Scott Coffman: That's why these are guidelines at this very first stage is they are not mandated by
the FAA. Some of the busier airports like Teterboro, have FAA -mandated routes that they've flown
and I think can enforce.
Hugh Forsythe: Yes. You find in Teterboro, you have an exact ground track you will fly on departure
and you will fly on arrival. Then let alone you start flying [unintelligible], an international, you will fly
the exact ground track. Some airports don't allow VFR, visual flight airplanes in there for that exact
reason. It's instrument flight rules only. Okay.
Scott Coffman: I think to answer your question, we're exerting the best power we can as an airport
operator to ask our pilots and schools to fly in a manner that works best with the community, but we
don't have that ultimate authority that the FAA does.
Council Member Cummings: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Well, thank you, gentlemen. We really appreciate hearing the residents' concerns and
trying to work towards finding some solutions for them.
Scott Coffman: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Okay. That takes us to our next item, which is the 2024 Legislative Program.
Keith Markel: Good evening, Mayor and Council.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Markel?
Keith Markel: All right. You all had asked to revisit our Annual Legislative Program a little bit sooner
this year, with the hopes of getting it adopted to be able to share with our legislative delegation earlier
in the year, so they have time to prepare. That's where we are this evening. Coming to you now in
Page 22IJune 12, 2023
June, typically, this is a September item. The recommendation here is for you all to review the draft
proposal we've put together for you, and that was included in your packet. We can review that this
evening, tomorrow set up for action, but certainly, we can take multiple weeks, as long as you will like
to go through this and make any additions or edits as you deem appropriate.
Just as a little background here, we do have until January before the session comes in. This is a long
session year coming in. Once the legislative program is adopted, we will share this with our legislators
that will be representing Leesburg and Richmond, as well as those legislators in Loudoun County who
have been good supporters of Leesburg. As I pointed out to you when we spoke a few weeks ago,
this is going to be unique here because of redistricting that will be taking effect this year.
The district has all shifted around. We've had a number of retirements, a number of folks moving out
of the district. We will have all new legislative representation in both the House of Delegates and the
Senate this year. It really will be a building year for the Town to build those relationships with the
legislators and as well as the legislators to learn our program, and to learn the needs of Leesburg.
There are three new items that were added into the program, just the staffs recommendation for you
all to consider. Actually, all three are ones that we've talked about as a group, or you've heard talked
about with VML. First is the parking authority question. That's something that comes up specifically for
the Liberty Lot discussion we're having with the public -private partnership. Those folks that have
proposed that project have asked the Town to consider creation of a Parking Authority, which would
allow the Town to lease land longer than the 40 -year limit that is currently required by localities. We
can't lease anything more than 40 years as a locality, but if you're an authority, you can lease longer,
which is something that they're very much interested in.
What staff is suggesting, if that is something that you will want to consider, this is something that
would need to be introduced to change in the Acts of Assembly, and that would need to be sponsored
by a delegate or a senator on the Town's behalf. That could create the option for the Town to have the
authority to create a Parking Authority, it wouldn't necessarily create that authority, but at least give
you all the flexibility to do so.
The second item is the airport tower funding we spoke about earlier this evening. This is a budgetary
request that we could make asking the State to participate either fully or in part to cover the rental
cost of the trailer that will be there for the next five years. The third item is marijuana regulations. This
is something that the State has gotten half into. They've decriminalized it, they've allowed folks to
grow it and possess it, but they haven't finalized the plans on sale taxation and land use as to if and
where localities want to choose or not choose to have this to be sold. Those rules and regulations still
need to come into existence. VML has asked repeatedly for the State to organize and really clarify
those, and we've picked that up now and put that into the program as a recommendation for you.
As we talked about here, your considerations, remember, this is going to be only representation so
have that in mind as we think about how aggressive you would want this legislative program to be.
Also, know that we are now just in June. There may be new things that will come up from our different
stakeholder groups. We have utility operators' groups', we've got solid waste management groups all
meet as we get closer to the General Assembly session and will identify priorities on their own. I may
be coming back to you with those as they've been identified and may ask to update this program as
we get closer to the start of the session.
Wth that, I'll open up for discussion. Really, we can add, remove items, discuss them, have
questions, we can come back to you with more information at a later time.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Markel, but I think it's important to state that the legislators that are there
now that may not directly represent us, have asked tor us to meet earlier than we had previously been
meeting. They keep moving their date to when they can put legislation in. They're putting them in now,
as a matter of fact. They were saying we get to them too late, and they can't sponsor any of the
legislation, so that's part of the reason why we're doing this so early.
Page 23[June 12, 2023
I wanted to ask about 1.3, the remote meetings for advisory boards and commissions. That's been on
there for one or two years now. It hasn't gone anywhere. Our representative last time said that it
would go nowhere, that there would be no sponsor that would be willing to do it. Should we keep it on
if it's--? I'm not sure the boards and commissions even want it anymore, but that's so when they can
have public meetings virtually. I don't know if people want to keep that on there.
Then the question I had last year from Senator Baysko about the allowable limits of remote
participation for elected officials, the rationale was reasons for unsafe travel conditions or personal
health risks upon approval of a majority of the members in the physical attendance. She said, "Why
wouldn't you just cancel the meeting?" We didn't get a lot of traction on those two items. Just for
discussion, if anybody wants to think about whether we want to keep them on there or not.
Anyone else have any questions? Do people need more time to look at this and bring it up at the next
work session for specifics? Need to give me some indication of what you want? We can talk about
them all tonight. You can go through them tonight. I'm sure many of you have already read it, but are
there any specifics that you want to talk about, add, or take away? Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: As opposed to specific, I'm happy with the list and the three that you
mentioned this evening. I guess the question becomes, what will our strategy be? I know we've had
several of our legislators say we'd like to see the things earlier rather than later. Of course, as of now,
they're all still in office, but come November, it could certainly be a changed landscape. I guess the
question becomes, do we want to try to get into conversations now with people who are still in office
with the hopes that regardless of what happens in November there are conversations that will take
place and still help to push this agenda forward if possible? There's no way to know, obviously. I think
it would still probably be a good idea to be speaking with those who are currently our delegation. That
would be my preference.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. I'll hold on to that one. Oh, I thought you had yours. Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Yes. Just for clarification. Regarding 1.4 about the allow increasing
the allowable limits to remote participation, were you suggesting that we remove that from there or
keep that?
Mayor Burk: That was the suggestion of the senator at the time, but that doesn't mean we have to.
Council Member Bagdasarian: I'd like to keep it in there. Keep it.
Mayor Burk: What about the advisory boards and commissions? Are there four people that would like
to keep that one in there, that they can meet virtually?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Oh, I would.
Mayor Burk: It was only three. You made it four. All right. Keep it in there. Any other item that
anybody wants removed or any item anybody wants added? Some of these things we've had on there
for years. The one about the Line of Duty Act. The Commonwealth Virginia should assume the
funding responsibilities for line of duty program instead of passing the financial obligations to the
localities. I think that's been on there for as long as I've been in elected office.
Keith Markel: Your position hasn't changed, I don't believe.
Mayor Burk: No, it hasn't.
Keith Markel: They're not a specific legislative request, but as things come up, at least this is where
you've documented your position.
Mayor Burk: Right. Absolutely. No. Like I said, many of these are ones that we have had on for quite
a while. I don't have any that I have an objection to. Anybody else have any--? I'm going to go back to
the question. Do people want to vote on this tomorrow? Would we be voting on it tomorrow, Mr.
Page 24IJune 12, 2023
Dentler? Do we want to talk about it tonight and vote on it tomorrow? Do you want another meeting
time to look at it? How many people would like to vote on it tomorrow? Just about everybody.
Kaj Dentler: Do you want to leave it on the place that it is now, or do you want to move it to consent?
Sounds like there's not a lot of change.
Mayor Burk: There's not a lot of change.
Kaj Dentler: I would assume you were okay with consent, but that's your decision.
Mayor Burk: Are there people that would want to see it an consent?
Kaj Dentler: All right, consent.
Mayor Burk: On consent. Okay, well move forward. Thank you very much. All right. Now the fun part
comes. We're staying in this roam? We're staying in this room. Okay. Let me make the motion. I got to
do that. Future Council meeting additions or agenda topics. Anybody have anything they want to add?
Then I will make the motion. We're going to go into a closed session and the topic is Annexation with
Respect to the Joint Land Management Area.
I move pursuant to Va. Code Section § 2.2-3711(A)(8) and § 2.2-3711(A)(3) of the Code of Virginia
that the Leesburg Town Council convene in a closed meeting for the purpose of consultation with
legal counsel and briefings by staff members regarding specific legal matters related to the
annexation in the JLMA where such consultation in open session would adversely affect negotiations
and litigating posture of the Town. Do I have a second?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Vice Mayor. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That passes seven zero. So, we are going into closed session now.
Council went into Closed Session at 8:32 p.m.
Council reconvened in an Open Session at 9:52 p.m.
Mayor Burk: You told me, [unintelligible], didn't you? In accordance with Section § 2.2-3712 of the
Code of Virginia, I move that Council certify to the best of each member's knowledge, only public
business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under Virginia's Freedom of
Information Act and such public business matters for the purpose identified in the motion by which the
closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed and considered in the Council. Council Member
Cimino -Johnson?
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Cummings?
Council Member Cummings: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Wilt?
Council Member Wilt: Aye.
Page 25]June 12, 2023
Mayor Burk: Council Member Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Nacy?
Council Member Nacy: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Vice Mayor Steinberg?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Aye.
Mayor Burk: And Mayor Burk, aye. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: [Unintelligible]
Mayor Burk: Second?
Council Member Nacy: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Ms. Nacy. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? Alright.
Page 26IJune 12, 2023