Tonight, the Leesburg City Council will meet at 6pm in City Hall.
On the Agenda are several routine items, including the monthly committee reports and the monthly update from Stevenson and Palmer regarding the new sewage treatment facility. Also to be discussed is the January 2010 Financial Statement, which I hope to be able to see – assuming there is some form of document.
Among the non-routine items to be discussed are a rezoning application, consideration of a water shed contract from Ecological Solutions, consideration of assisting the County in paying for the cost of the FEMA flood study that the Commissioners want done, and consideration of a temporary sign moratorium.
I don’t know anything about the water shed contract, so I’m not going to comment on it yet.
On the flood study, if there are significant impact areas within city limits (I haven’t yet examined a detailed map), I would ask the Council to go along with the Lee County Commissioners in approving the City paying a proportional amount of the remaining funds needed to pay for this study. (In other words, if the City of Leesburg would be impacted twice as much as the City of Smithville, I don’t mind the City of Leesburg paying double what the City of Smithville pays.)
On the rezoning application: I’m a Libertarian. I’m not a big fan of telling people what they can and can’t do with their property. HOWEVER, this is also an issue known as “spot zoning”, and I am worried about the precedent an outright approval of this request would set. If this request is approved as requested, it would set a precedent to change any R1 zoned property in the City to either a C2 Commercial or R2 Multi-Family zoning. (Multi-family most often meaning duplexes within the City of Leesburg.) If such precedent is set, theoretically a person could buy a house in the middle of Indian Oaks – or Groover Park, where I live – and ask the Council to approve a rezoning to put a duplex on that property. If such a request is made, there would already be legal precedent for approval, and there would have to be significant valid reason to deny it. I’m not sure what the exact legal requirements for a denial would be, but they would certainly be higher than if the precedent is not set to begin with.
Because of these two competing thoughts, (theoretical freedom of property vs actual legal precedent), I therefore propose the following compromise: Since the property seeking the rezoning is 8 acres, and most subdivision plots in the City are under 1 acre (usually in the .25-.5 acre range), the Council could amend the proposal to only approve such a rezoning when the original parcel is over 5 acres. I think this is a decently fair compromise between the two thoughts, and this is what I will recommend on the record during the public hearing on this matter tonight.
The final issue is the temporary sign moratorium. The City is still seeking to tell private businesspeople what they can and can’t do with their businesses and property, and without a truly compelling reason to do so. I call instead for a moratorium on enforcement of the sign ordinance, since I am sure the reasoning for the sign moratorium is to allow the Council to redo this ordinance.
Here’s my proposed new sign ordinance for the City of Leesburg (and I know this isn’t in legalese):
At any location where there is currently a commercial enterprise, said commercial enterprise may erect any signage they wish, so long as such signage is no taller than two stories. Furthermore, at any location along Walnut Avenue, Robert B Lee Rd, the Leesburg Bypass, Main Street, or Leslie Highway that is currently zoned residential but a commercial rezoning is subsequently approved by the Council, the first clause shall then apply to that location as well.
I think this proposal strikes a solid balance in allowing commercial growth while still retaining residential neighborhoods as just that – residential neighborhoods. It also respects private property rights in that it allows current businesses to do as they wish with only a single requirement as well as giving future landowners the ability to keep property as residential or to start a business there.
I assume this issue in particular will be decided before I have a chance to speak on it, so I hope the Council members have a chance to check this site in the two hours before the meeting. 
