MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF STRASBURG, HELD ON APRIL 11, 2006, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL.
Mayor Crisman opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation was given by Council Member Wallace.
ROLL Called with the following members present: Mayor Tim Crisman, Vice Mayor Taralyn Nicholson, and Council Members Henry Himelright, Wesley Larrick, Steve Nicholson, Carl Rinker, Tim Taylor, Edith Wallace, and Richard Wilson.
Mayor Crisman announced Town Attorney Arthur was out-of-town on business, but Attorney James Allamong was attending in his place.
Minutes of the March 29, 2006 Called Town Council meeting, the March16, 2006 Public Hearing, and the March 14, 2006 Regular Town Council Meeting were approved as presented.
Mayor Crisman welcomed all in attendance and said all petitions and communications had been directed toward the appropriate committees.
Visitors/Guests:
Gary Weishaar, P.E., R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc: Mr. Weishaar was in here tonight to report on ongoing projects within the Town. Three projects are active at present: the non-potable water pumping station which will re-circulate water at the waste water treatment plant; the water plant which is under design at this time; and the waste-water treatment plant. The non-potable system is on schedule and they had met with the contractor today who had several problems and they were resolved. He does not anticipate any increase in cost and it should be completed in about two months. They have been working with Staff on the Water Treatment Plant and several decisions need to be made before proceeding. The first decision concerned what type of disinfectant the plant would be using. It was decided to use hypo-chlorite and the plant will be designed accordingly. This plant will be in the neighborhood of the high school and this is much safer than other forms of disinfectant. The other decision that still needs to be made is how to get access to the site. There will need to be some interaction with the Shenandoah County School Board since the school is adjacent to this site. The site plan has been modified and it is on schedule. Concerning the Waste-Water Treatment Plant, a permit application was submitted in August, 2005, to the DEQ and this has been reviewed by DEQ. They are in the process of scheduling a public hearing before they will grant the Town a waste load allocation and the limits for the plant. Design of the plant cannot proceed until it is decided what the limits will be. Environmental reports have been completed which are required by the Town’s funding agency, Rural Development. Comments of an archaeological nature were received and an archaeologist will need to be on hand during certain periods of excavation and some aspects of the plant may need to be re-located if the archaeologist should discover anything during construction.
Council Member Rinker asked when the Town will go out to bid on these projects. Mr. Weishaar said if the DEQ schedules the public hearing in the next 60 days, then he feels they will be presenting bids to Council at about this time next year. Council Member Rinker then asked for the length of time for construction and Mr. Weishaar answered he thinks it will take between 18 and 20 months for each plant.
Liz Schillinger, Director of the Strasburg Growth and Needs Survey: “With me tonight are Joy Wolf, co-researcher and analyst on this project, and Linda Wheeler, our media advisor…
Thirteen months ago, on March 12, I knocked on my neighbor Tim Taylor’s door with a draft proposal for a demographic study of the new residents of Strasburg, about whom none of us knew anything.
Nine months ago, on July 12, 2005, we stood before the Council, having been through the Ordinance Committee’s screening process, to make a much-expanded proposal --- to conduct a demographic and attitudinal study of new and long-time residents and the surrounding area; we asked for Town Council endorsement and Town funding. The purpose of the study, proposed and approved here that night, was to learn about the people who call Strasburg and the Strasburg area home, to learn what they like about our town, what their concerns are, and what directions they want our community to go. We think we have some answers now. We have information that will be useful to Town officials, community leaders, business persons, and ordinary citizens in making informed decisions for our future.
As with most volunteer projects, we underestimated the work involved. We know there were many, many wintry nights and days at the computer and in discussion, sometimes heated, about the results. A conservative estimate of the hours we and Town Staff put into this is 2,065 hours, just 15 hours short of the hours in an official “fiscal” working year.
We asked for and got authorization for $868 to cover costs and we ended up using $792 of it. We think it is noteworthy that this is one government-funded project that was completed both on schedule and under budget.
Tomorrow, April 12, we are prepared to distribute the study. We will have a limited number (20) of hand-assembled copies available to Council Members and the press tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m., in the conference room. We ask that any Council Member or candidate who will be unable to be at the Town Office tomorrow at 10, to please let us know and we will drop a copy off at your house or business before 10 tomorrow morning. Please let me or Linda know where and when you’d like to have your copy. We also have electronic versions available for the Town and the press on CD.
We believe that you will probably have questions for us. Tonight we anticipate that; we expect it; this is not the time --- you need to have read it and absorbed it and, try as we might, I’m afraid it’s not an easy read, but I think it will be an interesting and informative read. So at your suggestion/ convenience we will meet with you as a group, as a body, individually, you can contact us singularly to answer questions you have.
Finally, one of the respondents to the survey included in his comments a thank you to us, the research team, for giving him the opportunity to talk about his town. We wish to extend to you our thanks for letting us conduct this study and to learn and share with you the information we gained. Thank you for these opportunities to serve our town and remember, we love it, too. Thank you.”
Council Member Taylor added that Town resident, Jane Eubank assisted the Town Staff in tabulating results.
Council Member Rinker wanted to take this opportunity to thank the ladies for the fine job he feels they have done on the survey. He doesn’t know what is in it, but is looking forward to seeing it.
He also wanted to take this opportunity to “send out an apology to my fellow citizens here and to my fellow Council people for my reaction to an incident that occurred in this hall on Wednesday night, a couple of weeks ago. I heartily apologize for that; I don’t like my name in the paper; I really don’t like anyone else’s name in the paper. I would like to say, publicly, that I drew our Town into the newspaper and my picture there. Unfortunately, I was drawn into a situation and I responded and I shouldn’t have done that. I would like to send out my hearty, apologetic apologies for what I did here.”
Mr. Rinker continued by saying he had prepared a memo concerning the survey and the release of those results. He read a portion of this memo and said he was prepared to make a motion tonight to accept the study and release the results this week. He feels the survey will help the Town and if he were running for Council this year, he would want the results released. He doesn’t think anyone has anything to fear. He is glad they will be released because at the last meeting, “I was accused of back stabbing and didn’t release my last memo until after the meeting, but actually I asked the person who read the memo to release it at the beginning of the meeting which somebody forgot; it didn’t happen, but I will release this one as soon as I read part of it here.”
Reading from the memo: “I feel that since the citizens of this town have directly paid for certain expenses associated with this study of the Town, then they are entitled to hear the results right away. A thanks goes out to Ms. Liz Schillinger, Ms. Linda Wheeler, and Ms. Joy Wolf for the fine, professional job they have done in the preparation of a GAN study.” He said the rest of the memo contains the motion he was prepared to make and a preceding paragraph, but “at this point in time, I will, early on in this meeting, rather than my getting here late and it didn’t get out the last time, I will take this opportunity to pass it out. Thank you.”
Mayor Crisman said, “Just for clarification, Mr. Rinker, you had asked me to read your comments. When we have a special meeting of Council, according to our Code, you are only allowed to speak about the issue involved in calling that special Council meeting. I read every comment from Mr. Rinker’s note that had to do with the content of the special meeting; I did not exclude anything other than those things that did not deal directly with that meeting. So it was read; I did read it and those of you who were here know that.” Mr. Rinker said the “only problem was you didn’t pass it out like I asked you.” Mayor Crisman said it did get passed out. Mayor Crisman apologized if he caused Mr. Rinker any distress and said they could discuss this later.
Citizens Comments:
Greg Nash, 125 W. North Street, Strasburg, VA: “I have a letter to read to you. I wrote this in hopes of an answer to a question, to open our eyes to that of around us. But, most of all a cry; a cry to wake up. A strong cry to see us as a community, as a town, and as a county. Traveling not the journey we are at this time --- the County as she embarks on a special investigation; Town Council members attacking one another over words in a memo; withholding information from people who have the entitlement to have the results; the community a mixture of visualization with some ready to correct the wrong, others only to point fingers upon direction of others, and those who look, listen, and say nothing. In failure to see the resolution, we fail in all to achieve a strong unity where others could learn. This call, a cry – a cry to call upon those of you who pass legislation to hold accountable those who crossed over the line of this office. If allegation has truth, have the decency to righteously step down; to not chain to the name of Strasburg, to the office you hold and trust, to this we may avoid an investigation that will leave a darkness upon Strasburg, Virginia. Good works follow good teaching – they are the good fruit of a good tree. In closing, I’ve said my piece, I’ll say no more. Thank you.”
Joyce Gary, 744 Crystal Lane, Strasburg, VA: “After the recent Special Council meeting, and during an unfortunate and rather verbal exchange, one Council member accused another Council member of being connected to “them” … and he pointed his finger at me.
I found this comment both sad and offensive, because with this label it became apparent that there is an “us against them” mentality. I thought we were all in this together…maybe with different opinions, but still not enemies. So, I AM one of “them” in his eyes, I suppose, because I don’t agree with him on certain issues which have come before the Council, and, to the other “them”, disagreement seems to equal enemy.
So, labels are being stuck to individuals and groups of individuals willy-nilly. As a group of individuals who united because of similar concerns and who made our presence at Town meetings known, we were publicly labeled “interlopers” and “THAT no-growth group”… “them”, and now most recently, we have been called the “vocal minority.”
Even now, these “no growth” and “vocal minority” labels are being used to attempt to portray us as subversive, trouble-makers who lack the intelligence to understand this Town and how “things” work.
This is ludicrous. First of all, we don’t oppose growth – we actually want growth, but we want responsible, controlled growth to preserve the integrity and uniqueness of this town. We want adequate water, sewage, and trash services; we want the security of adequate police and fire protection; and we want adequate schools, all of which are compromised by the huge and rapid growth taking place. We want commercial growth so we can shop here, go out to dinner or lunch here, and we don’t want to be forced to take whatever a sub-standard grocery store chooses to offer us.
All we said was: take it easy; take time; set standards. Don’t let the developers and builders make the decisions. Don’t let them intimidate or pressure the Town with self-serving promises and their own time lines.
But the Local government forged ahead and now all our concerns are becoming reality. We are faced with botched plans, sloppily built houses, too crowded developments, and the loss of natural beauty. There is rampant and counter-productive in-fighting; there are rumors of unethical dealings by officials and there is the irrevocable altering of this wonderful little Town.
Labels not withstanding, signs are now pointing to the fact that we are not a MINORITY. In addition to the every-growing number of residents who are deeply troubled and unsettled about the direction this Town has been taking, some local officials are now using OUR buzzwords, and expressing our concerns. So, if they have their finger on the pulse of this community, then something is happening…And it’s happening in the MAJORITY of the community.
So, VOCAL? Oh, Yes… MINORITY? I don’t think so!”
Mary Ann Littrell, 418 S. Holliday Street, Strasburg, VA: “I’ve had a lot of practice coming to meetings, participating in meetings and I just wanted to make a general reminder that it doesn’t really matter which is the forefront project, but always previous projects come up and you allowed a certain something there and we should be allowed to do it. Our ordinances are in constant review, in constant change. So when an older project is sited as an example, it pays to go back and see what ordinances were affected then and how they have been revised since. Thank you.”
Kim Bishop, 728 Crystal Lane, Strasburg, VA: “I would like to begin my comments by saying, once again, that I am not a ‘no growth’ advocate, but a responsible growth advocate. I am very tired of hearing people on this Council call me and others in this Town, who happen to disagree with them “no growth.” If you don’t know the difference maybe you should step down. Now to begin, I remember back, just about a year ago, asking this Council to deny the request to rezone the area now known as Cedar Valley. My worries were about the environmental impact of the development, something proven to be true, especially now with Crystal Cave having problems with the blasting, and the amount of houses planning to be built. However, knowing that development would come I came to Town Hall to look at the plan (which I now know to be plan 1). While I didn’t want the development, I was kind of pleased with the over all look of the drawings. The one I was shown showed a park area with a play area and green space. It wasn’t my idea of wonderful, but it looked OK and I thought, as did many others, that the commercial was going to be developed first. I was very surprised when I found out that the houses were coming first. I was even more surprised when every tree came down at once. I was under the impression that it was going to be developed in stages … much like Crystal Hill was. Anyway, here we are at plan 3 with 4 already in the works.
At the special Planning Commission meeting I felt that the Commissioners did an excellent job questioning the developer. They brought up many good points. Commissioner Kepler especially brought up the inconsistencies between plan #3 and our Town’s ordinances. The one, which is most important to me, is about the 30% open space requirement. According to Mr. Kepler, plan 3 is nine acres short of the required open space needs. We were told, a year ago, that there would be walking trails all throughout this development; I didn’t see any on the plan. Also, it was brought up that the townhouses are planned to be built in a “strip;” this goes completely against the comprehensive plan Goals – Strategy C, although, we know the comprehensive plan is more of a guideline than the rule. Also, in plan 3, I saw no playground or walking trails, but maybe plan 4 will include these … or maybe we’ll have to wait for plan 5.Will it ever end? There are too many more problems to discuss here, but you already have the report in front of you. Mr. Kepler said it best when he said that the Commission is for smart growth – not ‘no growth,’ and that if the Council had listened to them in the first place, this problem could have been prevented. I guess we’ll never know now. I implore this Council to listen closely and take heed of the Commissions report. You’re supposed to be working together not fighting; I guess there are some on this Council that will never understand that.”
(Mrs. Bishop asked Mayor Crisman if she could speak about the Growth and Needs Survey, another topic she had signed up to speak on; Mayor Crisman agreed to this).
“Since Vice Mayor Nicholson has made the public statement that she is proud of how this Council has kept the growth of Strasburg at the proper levels, I would ask the Council and especially Mrs. Nicholson to give their blessing for the growth and needs survey to be made publicly available as soon as possible --- kind of a moot point, because it is. I for one am anxious to see what the growth rate is, because I believe it has exceeded the limit. Let the truth come out. I would also like to ask how citizens will be able to view the report in its total when it comes out instead of just bits and pieces in the paper. If there is a way we could find that out, it would be nice. Thank you.”
Joyce Gary, 744 Crystal Lane, Strasburg, VA: “A few months ago, a demographic survey for Strasburg was proposed and approved by the Town Council. Later we were advised that the results of this survey would not be released until after the Town election. Now, we have learned that the results are ready for distribution, but the individuals who conducted the survey are waiting for “someone in authority to tell them that the results can be released to the public.
Apparently there are Council Members who are opposed to releasing this information for fear that whatever it may contain may become an election issue. That rationale seems pretty far-fetched to me, because campaign issues are already in place and results of a survey would certainly not put any NEW issues on the table…And, if it should contain information that could somehow affect the election, then we as citizens of Strasburg deserve to have that information to make informed voter decisions.
I therefore urge the Council to give the authorization that was requested and call for the public release and distribution of the survey results now because the majority of the people in Town would like to see what the information reveals. We’ve heard the information will be released to officials, candidates, and Staff; we’d like this information to be released to the public. So maybe Mr. Rinker’s motion for public release of the survey is not inappropriate. Thank you.”
Ron Mislowsky, PHR&A, representing Cedar Valley: Mr. Mislowsky said that last week we met with the Planning Commission and received comments on this project and have tried in the days since then to address these comments on a plan that was re-submitted on Friday. He believes this plan addresses the comments and he has tried to summarize this in a letter that was submitted along with the plans. Mr. Mislowsky pointed out several items on displays of the plan and added this was the plan that was proffered in the plan approved last year. He said this is the existing proffer document and so it was used as a guide in the preparation of the site plan, preliminary plats, and also it was the guide for the new master plan. He said there have been some changes, but it is generally the same plan that was submitted several weeks ago with the changes requested by the Planning Commission. He thinks the error we (the applicant) made was in thinking that the master plan was just a general document; many of the comments received from the Planning Commission required site plan level of calculations be done. They have tried to do this on the newest plan. He added the most obvious was the Planning Commission wanted all the calculations of the landscaping requirements for all of the street trees, etc., to be provided on the master plan; this has been done on this most recent plan. The other calculation is that they have provided the 30% open space; some lots had to be changed so the plan now shows 244 lots. They do have a good idea of sections 1 and 2 because they know the house types that will go in there, but they don’t have this information for section 3. Once a builder is selected for this, there may need to be adjustments made so the lot count may go up or it may go down. Initially, 256 units were proffered and if necessary revisions will be made to the plan if the count goes above or below the 244 shown currently. Dimensions of lots have been provided on the cover sheet and recreation areas have been added to bring it up to Code, along with the walking trails. He feels these are actually site plan issues and they will be shown better on those plans.
He said the final issue on this project is the driveway through the townhouse area. This plan, at the direction of the owner, has been revised to a 30’ width. There will be parking on one side; garages on the other; and a 30’width to provide emergency access through the site. Thank you.”
Ben Butler, attorney for Crystal Gateway, LLC: “The developer has requested I come down here and express to you that it is in favor of working out a suitable compromise with this, with the idea that PHR&A did submit a plan which we believe in the first instance to be in keeping with that which was proffered at the time of the re-zoning. Apparently, there have been some differences of opinion between the parties there-after, but one of the things I did want to say to each one of you, and perhaps it is good for the audience here to hear, is that the zoning ordinance of Strasburg requires a master development site plan to be proffered at the time of rezoning. A proffer is a contract between the parties. There is a requirement there of substantial performance by both parties. Further, and I think this is important, under Virginia law, vesting – that is a right that you have as a developer and is set forth in section 15.2-2307. I’m not going to sit here and try to browbeat you with the law, but I just want to tell you that the Code refers to a significant, affirmative governmental act and there are three items here and I think you are going to see that each one of these three items is ‘smack dab’ on this case. Number one is that the land owner obtains or is beneficiary of a significant affirmative governmental act which remains in effect allowing the development of a specific project. That was the rezoning. The landowner relies in good faith on a significant affirmative governmental act and number three, the landowner incurs extensive obligations or extensive expenses in diligent pursuit of a specific project and relies on the significant affirmative governmental act. I have paraphrased this somewhat, but it is in the Code, it is right here, and you have Counsel, and if they disagree, they can tell us. The Code further goes on and lists, and I think this is interesting, lists certain examples of what these significant affirmative governmental acts are. Number one is that the governmental body has accepted proffers; that is what happened here. Number two is that the governing body has approved an application for rezoning for specific use or density; again, that happened here, A third one is, a governing body has approved a planned development for the landowner’s property and the applicant diligently pursues approval of the final plan within a reasonable time; I believe that has occurred here. What I am saying is this, the developer is willing to work with this Town; it wants to be a good neighbor, but the plan that was submitted on the rezoning approval was approved and we believe that a contract was made at that time and we think that we, as the developer, are bound by it as well as the Town. Thank you.”
Scott Terndrup, 247 S. Fort St., Strasburg, VA: “To be honest with you sir (Mr. Butler), I think we have been browbeaten here. I think this is one of the problems with this plan. Legal issues should be taken up with Town Staff; I don’t think the public needs to be chastised about legal issues. I think there are two things here: one thing, we need to take our time and we need to be proactive.” He feels part of it is the rezoning was rushed; “we are hearing the rezoning was not properly scrutinized.” He feels the result of this is “we have a flawed plan. It appears to be a master plan that is not even clearly defined and it appears to be a plan that does not meet our Town Code.” He doesn’t think we can afford to be re-active to these developments and maybe “it is time for the Council and the Staff to be proactive. We need to create master plans for our developments; we need to create timetables for what we want our development to be so that it’s all clear --- our public interest is set; the developers understand what we want and then it is very clear about the type of development and who’s in charge and that would be the Council and Staff and the public interest.” He said his belief is plans 3 and 4 still violate provisions of the Town Code that the Planning Commission has stated. His understanding of this is that if these issues have been addressed, then it needs to go back to the Planning Commission for review again. It is the responsibility of the Council to enforce the Code from improper development; he doesn’t think this is an improper development --- just one that has become muddled. If Council Members disagree, he thinks all would like to hear their arguments before you vote.”
Ken Williams, 273 Royal Avenue, Strasburg, VA: “I’d like to speak in general about what I think is going on in this Town. I think you people, all of you up there, are under the impression that you’re the untouchables; you’re not, believe me. You are not the untouchables and we will prove this the next election. We get up here and we talk and it goes in one ear and out the other; you don’t pay a bit of attention in the world to us. If you had, we wouldn’t be in the shape we’re in today. One good example is out here on East Queen Street; boy you really got suckered in on that one --- $7,200 for sewer and water taps for a little strip of land there that it’s going to cost over $500,000 to put that road across there. You don’t even know that VDOT is going to let you hook onto Route 11. What kind of thinking is this? What are you looking at? You’re not looking at the whole picture; you never have. You sit up here and all you say is, ‘yep, yep, we’ll approve it; you don’t look at the whole thing. You do what you want to do and not what the people in this room or in this Town want to do. You’re supposed to be representing the Town and the people, not the contractors and from the way things have gone, that’s exactly who you’re representing – the builders. If you look back, any and everything that comes before you people, you eventually approve it in their favor. Oh, you’ll sit up here and say ‘well, the sidewalks not wide enough; we don’t have enough shrubbery here and we don’t have enough shrubbery there’, you’re not looking at the overall picture of what’s happening. It’s like out here at Cedar View, let’s talk about townhouses for a minute --- look at Hupp’s Hill; look at Crystal Hill out here; down here on Jackson Street; Ash Street, you’ve got townhouses going in here; out on Mr. Boyd’s property, he’s putting townhouses in out there; and the property where Bad Water Bills, that’s going to be a combination of houses, duplex, single family, and help us townhouses. I noticed a sign out here at Cedar Valley where it said ‘site of elegant townhouses,’ yet this gentleman here (Mr. Mislowsky) made the statement about three weeks ago that they were going to place the townhouses where once the commercial section went in, they wouldn’t be seen from the road. Now, if they are such elegant buildings, why, and I can’t understand this, why are they trying to hide them from public view? You give me a reason for this and I don’t think you can. You people are rushing this stuff through; you’re not looking at the whole picture and I’ll tell you, it’s not going to last, it’s not going to keep happening. That’s all I have to say.”
Town Officer’s Reports:
Town Attorney Arthur: Absent, but Mr. Allamong said he did not have anything to report on his behalf.
Town Manager Fauber: I had issued a memorandum to the Council regarding the release of the study. Basically that memorandum stated that I had received a letter from the Northern Virginia Daily requesting that the study be released, the Growth and Needs Study be released, under the Freedom of Information Act. Upon receiving that letter, I talked to Town Attorney Arthur and he advised me to get in touch with a lady out of Richmond, Maria Everett, who primarily deals with Freedom of Information Act requests. I had an opportunity to speak with her yesterday by phone and she gave the opinion that since the Council had endorsed this project last year and that there were public funds to go towards this study as far printing and so forth, that she felt like the study should be released as soon as possible. So I just wanted to basically clarify that – I know Council has this in front of you, but for the audience’s purposes, I wanted to make that somewhat clear.”
Mr. Fauber said he had also included a copy of the Scoping Report for the Queen Street project. He explained these are the official minutes of the meeting that took place several months ago. He urged all to look at this.
He said Town Staff has been in touch with Rural Development and they are working on some financial data that has been requested concerning the Town’s user rates, the current budget, the budget for next year, and also proposed budget for when the plant comes on-line. When this information is submitted, a representative from Rural Development will come to Strasburg to assist in the application process. He expects this to take place in the very near future.
In the Council packets a recommended approval from the Planning Commission had been included concerning:
SUP2006-04 Shenandoah Family Homes, Inc. to operate an office out of the residence on property identified as Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 025A1 ((4)) (3) 8. The property is located at 527 Ash Street and is currently zoned Residential-2 (R-2).
Mr. Fauber said the property is currently zoned R-2 and the application stated this office would be closer to the group homes giving administration quicker access to the homes in case of emergency. A joint public hearing was held and it was reviewed at the Planning Commission Worksession on March 16, 2006, and at the Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2006. Approval was recommended with the condition of limiting the number of people working at the facility to five (5) and if that number should increase, the applicant would come back for an adjustment. Reasons for approval were: this use seems to be a good fit in the residential area and for a good cause and the Town should support this type of development and social services.
Council Member Taylor moved for the approval of SUP2006-04 Shenandoah Family Homes, Inc., as stated; second by Council Member Larrick.
Discussion:
Council Member Nicholson stated he has lived beside one of the properties and there are numerous parking issues and mail boxes have been knocked down. Just from his experiences, he doesn’t know how he can support this.
Mayor Crisman said for clarity, part of the agreement or part of the recommendation was that the number of employees be limited to five. Town Manager Fauber said he believes there is enough parking for four vehicles. Council Member Nicholson said he can see where this is okay, in essence, but he can see how problems have occurred on his street where parking spaces are tied up for two or three days since they have 24 hour staff. Vice Mayor Nicholson added another issue on her street is when one property comes to visit another, they park on the street so as to not block anyone in the driveway. She continued by saying since this will be where they pick-up pay checks and conduct training, she doesn’t think Ash Street is large enough for this. She thinks the citizens on Ash Street will be troubled by this in their neighborhood.
Council Member Rinker said he understands this is just for an office and not for a group home and he wanted to know if this is correct.
Christian Sawyer, LPN, and assistant director of Shenandoah Family Homes, Inc.: Ms. Sawyer said they are simply looking for a centralized location for office space so that when there is a medical emergency or staffing emergency, she is closer. This office will not be a 24 hour operation; it is a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 operation. She said this will have less of an impact on the surrounding area then if she moved her family into the home – you won’t have the noise, music and at no point do they have more than four vehicles. She said she is the only person who works a 40 hour week at this facility. State agencies and inspections are done by appointment. She said there is enough parking for six vehicles.
Council Member Rinker asked if workers would come in to pick-up checks individually or are they delivered to the homes. Ms. Sawyer said the workers will come to pick them up, but the rule is, and has been the rule, if you see there is no parking, to come back later. Council Member Rinker asked where the closest group home is located and Ms. Sawyer answered 538 West King Street. Mr. Rinker asked how many homes were in this particular area and Ms. Sawyer said the homes are located on West King Street, Potters Circle, and Fairchild Drive so they are spread out throughout Town.
The motion passed on a roll call vote with the following results:
Council Member Himelright: yes
Council Member Larrick: yes
Council Member Nicholson: no
Vice Mayor Nicholson: no
Council Member Rinker: yes
Council Member Taylor: yes
Council Member Wallace: yes
Council Member Wilson: yes
Town Manager Fauber said he had provided Council with some information about a re-zoning request in the North Shenandoah Industrial Park. This is a request by Shenandoah County and a public hearing will be held by the County on May 4th. He explained where the property is located and said the properties surrounding it were all zoned Industrial and this is clearly in the Industrial Park and is more of a “house-cleaning” issue. Mr. Fauber asked if anyone had any comments on this.
Council Member Rinker asked that regardless of what Council comments, will the County go ahead with this; he asked what if the Town opposes this. Town Manager Fauber said they can certainly act on this either way, but he thinks they would take any comments under consideration. Council Member Rinker then asked if all of this is currently out of the Town limits and Mr. Fauber said it was. Council Member Rinker then asked if this was part of the area the Town has a contractual agreement with that after 20 years, the Town can annex this entire industrial park into the corporate limits of Strasburg. Mr. Fauber said this is correct, but he believes the time frame is 15 years and this is part of that area.
o Cedar Valley Master Plan: Town Manager Fauber said he was going to let Mr. Leon Smith give a synopsis of the special Planning Commission meeting held on April 4.
Leon Smith, Chairman of the Planning Commission, report from Planning Commission:
“The Town Council submitted the 3rd Master Plan for Cedar Valley back to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to this meeting. The full discussion is in the minutes of that meeting held on April 4th. I would like to give you an Executive Summary of our comments which highlights the important points.
First, I should note that at our meeting on April 4th, we received a 4th Master Plan. Since there was no time to review that item we focused on what the Council asked for --- a review of Master Plan #3. Also, I am aware that Master Plan #5 was received on April 10th. I received a copy of that submittal but have only done a cursory review. To my knowledge, the other Commissioners have not yet seen this plan.
The Commissioner’s review of Master Plan #3 found the following errors.
As required by 2-11.5(a)
o All structures are not shown as required.
o All open spaces are not identified and the amount of open space provided is not sufficient.
o Only about half the open space amenities required are provided.
o Buffers and landscaping are not completely shown and those shown do not meet the ordinances.
o Dimensions are not completely shown.
As required by sections 2-11.5(b) and (c):
o An environmental analysis, engineering studies for roads, utilities, and drainage, and a traffic analysis are needed.
As required by 2-11.4(c):
o Single family large lots do not meet the minimum size requirement.
o Single family small lot area is incorrectly computed and required rear yard setback is not met.
The townhouse front and rear setbacks are smaller then required.
A total of 258 residences shown, (101 townhouses and 157 single family) and a maximum of 256 has been proffered. Further, there is no delineation as to which and how many of the single family lots are small versus large lot.
The following comments are also applicable and should be considered prior to any approval of this master plan as such approval is likely to constitute approval of the details shown thereon:
o The townhouses shown are on a private street of less than required width which is prohibited by section 402.14.
o The diameters of the two cul-de-sacs shown are less then required by our ordinance.
o As required by section 402.8(b), cul-de-sac streets shall not furnish access to more than 20 dwelling units. There are 55 and 46 townhouses, respectively, on the two cul-de-sacs.
o This plan has not gone through the typical review process with VDOT and other agencies.
o One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan calls for planned developments to limit strip residential development. The long straight line of townhouses does not meet this goal.
After a very quick review of Master Plan #5, while some of the above problems have been addressed, I have found the following continuing problems:
o The Single Family Large Lots have now been changed to Single Family Large Cluster Lots. This reduces the required size of the lot while not changing the layout of homes into a cluster pattern. A cluster layout is used to provide additional open space which is not the case here.
o The cross section of the townhouse area shows that to meet the minimum lot size requirements, the lots extend into the street and meet in the middle. Therefore, the setback requirements have not been met. In fact, the garage townhomes are setback from the curb by only about 4 to 5 feet.
o There is still no delineation of large versus small lot single family homes.
o The private street still is an integral part of the plan.
I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.”
Council Member Rinker asked Mr. Smith if he was saying that these townhouse lots, coming in and abutting one another, in the middle of this roadway that traverses through there, that is in violation of section 402-14 of this Town’s ordinance --- “a direct violation in that they specify a specific right-of-way for a roadway going through there and also it specifies that there is no such thing as a private street. Mr. Smith said, “402.14 basically says you cannot have a private street. The developer would argue that this is a driveway, not a street, and that has been his contention all along; I don’t see it that way and I’m sure that you should. For one thing, these driveways are named, they have street names. The other thing is, because our ordinances are so clear about private roads and this is such a long access to so many townhomes, it needs to be on a public street. I feel very strongly about that point and the way I interpret the ordinances, the ordinances say that.” Council Member Rinker then asked, “then the ownership of this roadway would actually be vested on each property owner on either side of the street, is that not correct.” Mr. Smith answered, “yes sir.” Mr. Rinker said the lot lines would come out and meet in the center of the street and Mr. Smith said it would not be exactly in the center, but they would meet in the street. Mr. Rinker asked if Mr. Smith knew of any other developments in the Town do this and Mr. Smith said he is not aware of any others
Council Member Himelright said, in review, when the Council approved the master plan, when we voted on that, did we receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission? Mr. Smith said, “The Planning Commission looked at a master plan and sent it forward with a recommendation; what the Town Council received, I don’t know; I can’t speak for that.” Council Member Himelright said, “in your opinion we did receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve that master plan that you saw.” Mr. Smith said that was correct.
Council Member Rinker said, “the question that Mr. Kepler, Randy Kepler (Planning Commissioner), brought up about the quote/unquote unseen master development plan or the one that exists out there, does anybody know which one for sure the Council looked at? Was it that plan or the one that followed that plan? And, if the Council looked at that, I don’t ever remember of anybody recommending that it be approved. Do you know which one it was?” Mr. Smith said he knows what they recommended, but he doesn’t know what Town Council saw --- “I never saw what was in your packet.” Mr. Rinker said, “well, to be quite honest with you, I don’t know what we saw for sure either. I mean, I’ve got to tell you, I’ve never seen such a mixed up thing. Nobody, but nobody seems to be able to answer the question what did we see; who recommended that it come on up here for our approval; and what happened at that point and time that it never went back after we made the suggestions and corrections, that it never got back to the Planning Commission for a re-review and back to us. And, nobody to this point, in this Town, whatsoever, has been able to satisfactorily answer that question.”
Vice Mayor Nicholson said she believes, “on the 29th when we met, when Councilman Rinker was not in attendance, we had agreed that night that we were going to take the latest master plan and go forward and we were going to forget the previous ones, right? Isn’t that what kind of came out of that meeting that we were going to take the latest plan, which we had gotten like revised #3, but now it is #5, but we were going to take the latest one and go forward, were we not? … I thought we had answered Council Member Rinker’s question on the 29th.” Mr. Smith said he did not know; “I just focused on, you sent plan #3 back to the Planning Commission for its review and comments.” Council Member Taylor said the motion had been for the Planning Commission’s review and comments and that is basically what we heard from his (Mr. Smith) report. Mr. Smith said he had been provided with a copy of the motion and it was basically to send #3 back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Vice Mayor Nicholson asked if we would now take #5 and move forward? “Number 5 comes up with or answers all the concerns that we brought up from 1 through 4.” Mr. Smith said, “No.” Vice Mayor Nicholson said that for the most part it did --- the recreational issues, but we still have concerns. Mr. Smith said some of the concerns have been from plan #3 forward and there was still a way to go.
Council Member Taylor said, “I think the motion was made at the meeting we had between now and our last regularly scheduled Council meeting --- I’m not trying to rush anything, I don’t think two wrongs make a right, etc., I’ve always respected and appreciated any comments the Planning Commission can give to us. Basically I think what we did was basically get this process started. We picked #3, we’re getting comment, etc. We really didn’t ask for them to basically give a recommendation when you came down to it – a decision they made at a meeting which is usually what occurs. They get together at a Worksession, make comments, then they make a vote and bring a recommendation back to us. That is what I’d like to see; I’d like to see the process continue on. I see this list is getting shorter, our concerns; there are still some concerns, though. I know some people want to get this thing done, but I want it done as right as possible. I think the way for that to happen is to continue with the process. Now we have this “5” which is addressing some of them (concerns); let’s take it back to the next Planning Commission meeting and let them look at the thing; it’s addressed; take a vote on it and go from there. That’s the way I feel right now from all the information I have….I’m just trying to get this thing back on track as much as possible. I’d like all our comments to be going forward and not backward.”
Council Member Taylor moved that Council send the latest version of Cedar Valley Master Plan back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation at their regularly scheduled meeting at the end of April (April 25, 2006) for review by Council at the next Council meeting; second by Council Member Larrick.
Discussion:
Council Member Rinker said he agrees with Council Member Taylor about going back and forward, that we need to go on forward. “But, I think Mr. Butler here has made very, very, timely, interesting point about this thing and that is the proffers were hung on the basic plan that nobody knows what’s happened to or how it got where it got. So, if we are going to move on forward, and we’re going to jump on out here ahead, and we’re going to look at this master plan, which I’m in favor of, I think we really subject every citizen in this Town to a lawsuit, especially if this thing gets into a position where it gets into an extreme delay and it costs the developer money. I am all for taking another look at this thing – a hard look, but I’ve still got to go back and say why didn’t we take a hard look at that before.” He continued by saying, “this was a by-right development, in case anybody is sitting out here, and it has been said before, we didn’t control rather it could or could not be developed; it was already zoned for what basically they wanted to do; that was taken care of a number of years ago.” But, he added, our Code says the Planning Commission will review this and make a recommendation off of the master plan to the Town Council. “I’m going to say it one last time: way back, several plans back, I never heard anybody say that the Planning Commission had reviewed it and had made a recommendation to confirm it or deny it.” He believes in a court of law this would be the most “hinged on, interesting, hung-up possible point that could cost this Town hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in a lawsuit.” He doesn’t want to go through a lawsuit so he feels it should be re-visited, even if it means having special meetings. He doesn’t want to “drag it on,” but he wants to do what’s right.
Vice Mayor Nicholson added that in March, 2006, “one of the things that was brought up in the Planning Commission was dates.” She said there is still a problem with the dates on the plan they had tonight --- the front sheet has a date, but the sheets where the actual plans are, does not. She would like the plans to have a specific date and not just a month and year.
Council Member Nicholson said he hears what Mr. Rinker is saying and the Council Member Taylor is saying the questions are getting less and less and “my contention all along has been that maybe since everybody is saying this is approved, maybe Staff could look into these things and see what you need instead of like Councilman Rinker said, dragging it way out where we open ourselves up for maybe a lawsuit.”
Council Member Wilson asked Town Manager Fauber if he had reviewed the latest plan. Town Manager Fauber said the plans were received late Friday evening (April 7) and he actually saw them Monday morning (April 10). He can see the obvious corrections that have been made. “The big source of contention has been all along this private street versus parking area and to be quite honest, from a Staff perspective, we don’t know which way you want to go --- we absolutely do not know how to comment on that. This has been talked about for about two or three months now and I really think that is the major issue. I’m not sure sending it back to the Planning Commission is going to resolve that issue. I can tell you from a Staff perspective, we looked at it as a private parking area and I think Dewberry and Davis did the same thing because they did not offer any comments back as far as the public street goes. Mr. Rhodes, John, can probably fill in the pieces of the puzzle a little bit better on that because his Staff reviewed as far as the street layout, but I’m a little bit concerned that we keep sending this back to the Planning Commission and we have this issue hanging over us of this private street versus a parking lot. We need some guidance from a Staff perspective on what you want; the engineers need an answer; that’s all we’re asking. Yes, there have been changes made to the landscaping, the street trees, the recreational units, the open space requirements --- yes, I can say that they have been changed; I cannot tell you tonight that the private street versus the parking lot because, to be quite honest, I do not know which way you all want to go on that.”
Council Member Rinker asked Mr. Mislowsky, “in other localities, where you have townhouse developments like this, is it a common practice to run the lot lines into the middle of the street and have public passage over everybody’s individual lot. If so, are we possibly asking for something here that’s different from everywhere else you’ve worked?” He continued with a second part to his question: “how do we treat this thing with it sort of being, not sort of being, it being in conflict with 402.14 where it says we shall provide access and public streets?” Mr. Mislowsky said, “to answer your first question, yes, and I think it is fairly common to have the lots encroach on the parking lot areas; that area is to be maintained by the homeowner’s association --- all the parking lots will be maintained by the homeowners association; they wouldn’t be maintained by the Town. I think, and I’ve expressed this to the Planning Commission, that my reading of the Zoning ordinance that pertains to townhouses, section 310, clearly envisions that a parking court is going to be provided for townhouses and the ordinance specifies that parking court has to provide direct access to a public street. In addition, the Planned Development ordinance, says townhouses are to be developed in accordance with section 310, zoning ordinance for townhouses; it does not say the subdivision ordinance for public streets. The Planned Development district says townhouses will be developed in accordance with section 310 which is the zoning ordinance that has to do with townhouses. I think that the Planning Commission is reading the subdivision ordinance and applying those standards to a site plan. We are doing a site plan here and I believe, and I’ve looked at some previous townhouse developments that were done --- Oxbow, Founder’s Landing --- and those developments all, the townhouses have access on private parking courts, all front on private parking courts --- they are not fronting on public streets; they all have frontage on a private parking court and that parking court has access to a public street as we show. So, I believe as I’ve stated previously, our townhouse layout does conform to Section 3-10 which is the zoning ordinance that applies to townhouses. Now, there was the issue raised about the width of the street – the 24’ wide street. We’ve argued this and argued this, that we believe a 30’ width is required by the subdivision ordinance which we are doing a site plan, but all through this process we’ve made changes as comments have come up and everybody giggles because we’re on master plan #5, but we keep trying to respond to comments that we get so as we go back to Planning Commission, we may get to master plan 6 and 7 and we’ll take Council Member Nicholson’s comments to heart and make sure there are dates on those, but I just want to say that we make these changes that come up, that are requested, we will do that…It’s our belief, and maybe that was erroneous, that the Town would not want to maintain this parking court. They don’t maintain the ones at Oxbow; they don’t maintain the ones at Founder’s Landing; the homeowners association is going to maintain the parking court, but we did provide the 30’ width as requested by the Planning Commission.” Council Member Rinker asked if there was enough clearance for emergency vehicles in this 30’ width. Mr. Mislowsky said it was 30’ and one side of that will be posted “no parking” and the other side is driveways going into garages, “so there is not going to be any parking on either side of that so it is a free and clear 30’ width that will not have any cars legally parked.” He went on to say, if you go by the subdivision ordinance, it calls for a 30’ wide street, but there would be parking on both sides which would reduce the amount of clear driving area; they are providing 30’ clearance. Council Member Rinker felt Mr. Mislowsky’s answers helped explain the differences between subdivision ordinance 402.14 and zoning 3-10.
Council Member Himelright asked, “between master plan #1 and the one we have here tonight, the questions that we are asking about the private streets, public streets, parking lots, whatever, on those 1 – 5, up until tonight when you agreed to make those 30’, forget 5, 1-4, had they changed on any of those plans?” Mr. Mislowsky answered the layout of the townhouses did change, “but the parking court arrangement, the private driveways with the parking spaces off of them, has not changed.” Council Member Himelright for clarification said, “so master plan 1 up through 4 had primarily the same layoutof the parking…” Mr. Mislowsky said it was envisioned. Council Member Himelright said he just wanted to make it clear that “plans one through four, whomever says that they didn’t see it or did see it, that was the same, primarily, the same;” Mr. Mislowsky agreed with this statement.
Council Member Nicholson said “it seems to me that you named these private streets and it seems this is the biggest complaint; do you have, like in your other properties, is there basis for naming private streets?” Mr. Mislowsky said the street names are a requirement for Shenandoah County for the E-911 so responders know where they are to go and he added this is typical in all jurisdictions.
Council Member Himelright said he had made the motion at the last meeting to send it back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation; “I’ll go with it one more month, but after that I’m not having anymore to do with this; we’ve drug it out long enough. The Town needs an answer; these folks need an answer; and we need to answer the question.”
Mayor Crisman made one request of Mr. Mislowsky which was, “if we send this back that it doesn’t come back as revision 6, 7, 8, 9 whatever; it comes back as revision 5 with the revisions annotated on 5 --- that we don’t get a new master plan; we get this master plan with the revisions on it.” Mr. Mislowsky feels this is what has been done, but the current one is #5 and everything will be a revision to this.
Council Member Taylor said it is obvious Town Manager Fauber is frustrated and is asking for guidance; is there anything the Council can do. He realizes the streets are a big issue and he asked Mr. Fauber if he had any suggestions. Mr. Taylor said he would like to have all the information and history of this and would like to help with this and wonders what is going to happen --- will it come back next month and Mr. Fauber said this is his fear. Council Member Rinker thinks the “quickest way to clear this up and put it to bed is have a zoning attorney of our choice review the subdivision/zoning ordinance, look at these two sections, and give us a written opinion --- are we talking a zoning problem here or a subdivision rule and regulations problem? And, if we’re not talking a zoning problem here, then we don’t have a problem here, folks; we’ve got a legal street here. I think the quickest and easiest way is to chose an attorney, not necessarily put this burden on the Town Attorney, but…” Attorney Allamong said, “I think it is a zoning issue.” Mr. Rinker said he thinks it is, too, so “I think we need as the first step to get a zoning attorney to take a look at this thing and give us an opinion. I don’t mean two or three months down the road, I mean we need to find someone who can do this.” Council Member Nicholson said he was looking at Council Member Himelright’s motion and he is saying at the May Council meeting we either approve or disapprove this master plan so the Planning Commission needs to have it back so Council is ready to vote on it by next month; Mayor Crisman said that was the way it was stated. Mr. Nicholson went on to say if it goes for an attorney’s opinion, Council wouldn’t get it back by May. Mr. Allamong said he doesn’t think it needs to go to a zoning attorney; he feels it is a zoning issue, but that is up to the Council. Council Member Rinker asked, “Well, who would you say would make this ruling? Who is going to look at this and make a ruling one way or the other and be responsible for it?” Attorney Allamong answered, “Why do you have town attorneys if you’re not going to accept what I just told you?” Council Member Rinker said, “the only problem I’m thinking about here is everybody sitting out here in this audience has made accusations at some point in time about conflicts of interest and right now I just don’t want this thing to get off on some foot that anybody in this room is going to be accused of conflict of interest. So that is why I think this thing needs to go up to someone else other than you guys here; maybe Al Mitchell looks at it; or the Commonwealth Attorney’s office; I want to remove the potential inference of conflict here of any kind. We all know maybe it’s not a conflict, but I want to remove any potential appearance. That is why I suggest we get this thing to another level and I’m only doing that for everybody’s sake here.” Council Member Himelright said in all the meetings, “I haven’t heard anyone say there is a conflict of interest other than tonight - one person kind of insinuated that; I have heard comments to the point that there have been a lot of dumb and stupid decisions made, but quite frankly, folks, I’ve been called dumb by a lot smarter people than I’ve heard in the last few months…This thing has gotten out of hand here; this thing is totally gotten out of hand. Now, I’m telling you, we can stand here at that podium and sit up here and argue back and forth for ever on this thing.” He understands the Planning Commission made the recommendations, but all he can vote on is the material he receives. “I voted, and I don’t know about the rest of you, I saw a recommendation from the Planning Commission on this project. I went by that information; I voted on it. Now, we have a problem here ---I want to see a recommendation, I may agree with it; I may not…The Planning Commission knows half the time I don’t agree with their recommendation and I vote that way, but that’s my vote. I’m going to tell you, next month I want to see something in here to vote on.”
Council Member Himelright called for the question with the following results:
Council Member Himelright: yes
Council Member Larrick: yes
Council Member Nicholson: yes
Vice Mayor Nicholson: yes
Council Member Rinker: yes
Council Member Taylor: yes
Council Member Wallace: yes
Council Member Wilson: yes
The motion passed.
Director of Finance Mullins: Said the budget is being worked on. She also showed a map that had been found that is dated December 29, 1783, which was preserved. It is believed to be one of the first maps of Strasburg.
Director of Public Utilities Tewalt: no report
Director of Public Works Rhodes: Stated Spring Clean-up has been scheduled for May 8 – 11, 2006. He has put a flyer out telling what will be picked up and what will not be picked up. Crews will only go through neighborhoods once so items must be out by 8 a.m. on the first day of the start in your area. Mr. Rhodes said the Queen Street project is back on schedule.
Chief of Police Robinson: Report will be given by Council Member Himelright.
Standing Committee Reports:
Public Safety Committee: Council Member Himelright said the police department answered 842 calls which resulted in 64 adult arrests and 9 juvenile arrests. He thanked Chief Robinson for his hard work and for the department’s hard work and also the work of the fire and rescue departments.
Personnel Committee: did not meet
Public Utilities Committee: did not meet
Recreation Committee: Vice Mayor Nicholson said the committee met on March 27 with the engineers of the walking trail They are planning to go to bid later this spring with construction starting in August.
Ordinance Committee: Council Member Taylor said the committee had met and the main thing the committee is concentrating on is the zoning and subdivision ordinances. They are requesting input from Staff and Planning Commission and anyone else involved. As they progress through this, he will chair information.
Buildings and Grounds Committee: did not meet
Streets Committee: did not meet.
Special Committee Reports:
Shenandoah Advisory: did not meet.
Strasburg Heritage Association: Council Member Taylor said the association met in March and discussed the 2007 calendar and wanted all meeting dates to be added to this 16-month calendar. Newsletters will be sent out shortly before the June membership meeting which will be held on June 11, at Vespar Hall. A total of 19 plaques have been produced. They voted to become a part of the “Adopt a Highway” program and want to adopt from the Town limits, south on Route 11 toward Fishers Hill, and want to plan a clean-up before Mayfest. The group is planning to have more walking tour brochures printed before Mayfest and the next meeting will be on April 19 at the Town Hall.
Chamber of Commerce: Vice Mayor Nicholson said the Chamber would like to invite all to the grand opening of the Strasburg Theatre on April 13. The next mixer will be on April 20th, at Sager Real Estate. Be sure to mark calendars for Mayfest on the third weekend of May.
Main Street: no report
Old Business: Vice Mayor Nicholson said, “I would like to address comments made recently in regards to the Growth and Needs Study that was conducted by Mrs. Schillinger and others. I feel that this survey was disturbing from the beginning and one of the reasons it disturbed me was because it was not a fair representation of what our community is. I felt that we were using tax payers dollars to conduct a study of those that lived outside of the Town of Strasburg and I did not think that was fair. The article came out on July 20 (2005) in the Northern Virginia Daily and it had specifically stated that I had asked Mrs. Schillinger not to release the results of this survey until after the election. And, she didn’t have a problem with it at that time; she waited until three weeks before the election to address the issue --- why wasn’t it addressed in July? That kind-of answers my question that this was a political ploy from the beginning. (Disagreement from the audience). Well, I’m sorry, that’s the way I feel about it. The timing – you talk about timing, it’s not fair. I feel that we had a good faith agreement and we trusted you (Mrs. Schillinger) and I think that you mislead us. I feel that you lied to me and you lied to Strasburg. I do not feel that it was a fair representation of Strasburg and how we really, truly feel. You only conducted the survey to 1,400 residents and only 300 responded and those aren’t in the Town of Strasburg and I do not feel that it was fair. You contacted me before the end of the year and asked me if I had a problem with releasing it and what did I say? (Could not hear response from Mrs. Schillinger) Yes, and I told you I did not have a problem with you releasing it, but you would have to talk to the Mayor and that’s up to the Mayor, but I’m not finished. I have every right to speak, if you don’t mind and I feel that everyone should have a voice. We live in this town --- it’s not you, it’s not me, it’s not them --- it’s us. We all have to get along and May 3, God help us, May 3rd, please come, it’s all going to be over and we’re all going to have to work together. Ms. Gary and Ms. Bishop, for opinions to all be so much alike, I had the same feelings as you. Why is it that we seem the enemy? I spoke to you (Ms. Gary) on church on Sunday and you couldn’t even look me in the face. We are on the same page. You didn’t speak. I feel that this, you can do whatever you want to, this was not scientific; it was a political piece of garbage and that’s the way I feel about it. Thank you.”
Council Member Nicholson said he had a comment also. “I felt like this survey, we’re paying Town money to do a survey to serve everybody --- Mrs. Schillinger picked and choose who to give this survey to --- I’m saying give it to everyone. If you want to do a survey, give it to everybody, not 70% new residents and 30% people who have been here. I’m not running so you all can’t get me so I’m here for two years, like it or lump it. But, she threw the other people under the bus when she agreed I’m not going to put this out until after the election. Now all of a sudden it turns up and we don’t have any choice but to turn it out because the NVD is going to get a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against us if we don’t put it out. Go out and get a survey and get everybody in the Town if we want to put the money out to do it. (Comments from audience not recorded). Can you remove Ms. Bishop from the meeting, she is out of order (addressed to Chief Robinson).
Mayor Crisman spoke and said, “No, you’re not allowed to do that. I run the meeting. I run the meeting, flat out! I run the meeting. Everybody understand that? Now we are in Council session anything other than unfinished or old business, but I have a couple of comments to make. It used to be a situation where I could move around the community and other communities where I work and I could keep my head up high because I was proud of this Town; I was glad to be in service to it; I was happy to greet people; and tell them what a wonderful place Strasburg was. Last week, for the first time, somebody said, ‘hey, you’re the Mayor of Strasburg’ and I ducked it because it is downright embarrassing, to me anyway; maybe you don’t feel that way, but I happen to love this Town. I think it’s the greatest place I’ve ever been; I still do today. But, this senseless bickering, fighting, pointing fingers, is that really what your town is? I’m talking about everybody. Strasburg Pride --- it used to be rampant in this Town; it’s no longer here! We used to bleed purple; now we just bleed. And, I’m fed up with it; I’m tired of it being in my meetings; I won’t permit it any longer from anyone, anywhere, whether they’re a Council Member, a citizen, or a Town Staff member. Not in my damn meeting. Is that understood? Get a grip, people. I’m fed up with it. Behave yourselves. You represent Strasburg --- all of you! And, that’s the last I want to say about it and with your help it will be. But, that’s it --- show some civic pride. I’m done.”
Continuing with old business, Council Member Rinker asked where the Town was in regards to the lodging tax. He knows correspondence was received from the County and was wondering if a motion was needed on this or did it need to be taken back to the Finance Committee.
Town Manager Fauber said he is not sure where the Town is because he has read some of the minutes from County meetings and it appears they will be coming to the town’s and asking for a percentage, 2%, and he will get in touch with the County and bring it back to the May meeting.
New Business:
Unfinished Business:
Committee Meeting Dates as Follows:
COMMITTEE DATE TIME
Public Safety Committee TBA
Personnel Committee TBA
Utilities Committee April 24 7:30 p.m.
Recreation Committee TBA
Finance Committee April 27 7:30 p.m.
Ordinance Committee April 12 & 20 7:00 p.m
Streets Committee TBA
Buildings and Grounds Committee TBA
Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:26p.m.