Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-18May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 1 000;E42 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 18, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney Larry W. Davis, and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph- ris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve item 5.1 and accept items 5.2 through 5.8 as information. Item 5.1. Personnel Policy on Emergency Staffing. Staff had noted that the County, City and University of Virginia have adopted emergency operations plans for weather-related disasters or other emergencies requiring shelters, emergency transportation, etc. The County currently has no specific policy or regulation on how to meet the need for staffing in emergency situations. This policy would allow department heads to call on staff during times of community emergencies to report to work during nonworking hours; non-exempt employees would be compensated for hours spent on the emergency situation. Failure to respond on the part of an employee could subject them to disciplinary action which could include dismissal. The policy has been reviewed by the Joint Personnel Policy Committee, department heads, and the Employee Advisory Committee. Procedures and guidelines will meet staffing requirements while recognizing unique employee circumstances, and will be developed for use by department heads and employees. The policy was approved as follows by the recorded vote shown above. EMERGENCY SITUATION STAFFING The Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law of 1973 requires that localities prepare and keep current an emergency operations plan. Such a plan has been developed and adopted by the governing bodies of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia. In accordance with this plan, the Board recognizes that emergency preparedness requires the careful planning for handling of disasters that affect citi- zens. In cases of emergency situations, i.e., weather-related disasters or other emergencies wherein the community is required to provide shelter, emergency transportation, etc., it may be necessary for Albemarle County employees to be called upon to provide necessary services. In such instances, the Board expects that employees will respond to requests for emergency services and has established procedures whereby supervisors can meet the needs that arise. Regulation: Emergency Situation Staffing In accordance with the regional Emergency Operations Plan, various departments are charged with initial preparedness for emergency situations that may affect employees. Each of these departments will assure that the Plan is familiar to key staff members and that plans have been made to respond to emergency situations as they arise. Department Heads will be apprised of likely situations wherein their staff members may be called upon to respond to the requirement for emergency services. When an emergency situation arises that requires staff to respond in off-duty hours, the responsible department head will staff the situation with employees, providing as much advance notice as possible to those who will be affected. Whenever nonexempt employees are required to work in other than normally scheduled times, provision for compensating for services rendered will be made and communicated to employees. Refusal to report to duty when it has been made clear that the request is due to an emergency situation will 000243 May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 2 be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including dis- missal. Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 19, April 26 and May 3, 1994, were accepted as information. Item 5.3. Letter dated May 6, 1994, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella Carey, Clerk, re: Route 654 signal, was accepted as information as follows: "The Board of Supervisors requested at recent meetings that the signal at the intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road be rephased to include a protected left turn movement for traffic turning left from Barracks Road to Georgetown Road. Please advise the board that this change will be made. The left turn phase will follow the through movement of traffic on Barracks Road and will precede the green signal for traffic approaching Barracks Road on Georgetown Road. The Traffic Engineer advises me this will require some modifications to the signal and will have to await modifications of other signals which have a high priority. This means there may be some delay in implementing this change. Please advise the board of the resolution of this matter." Item 5.4. Letter dated May 4, 1994, from Betsy Davis Beamer, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Office of the Governor, thanking the Board for recommen- ding Mary Scott Birdsall for appointment to the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board, was accepted as information. Item 5.5. Semi-annual summary of activities of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) Advisory Council, as prepared by Robert J. Walters, Jr., was accepted as information. Item 5.6. Copy of Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of April, 1994, was accepted as information. Item 5.7. Memorandum dated May 6, 1994, from Tex Weaver, Information Resource Planner, re: Enhanced 911 Implementation Schedule, was accepted as information. It was noted that strict time lines must be adhered to in order to meet the specified project completion date of January 1, 1995, as estab- lished by the Emergency Operations Center Management Board. If the first item in the program is completed the first week of June, the Post Office will be able to send notification of new addresses on August 22, 1994, with the address being effective September 2, 1994. Mr. Martin mentioned a letter he has received from a person who still has four-party line service with the telephone company so is not included in the E-911 system, but is still required to pay the surcharge. He asked that staff look at the situation to determine if party lines can be included in the E-911 or if the surcharge can be removed. Item 5.8. Memorandum dated May 11, 1994, from Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, re: notice that on June 27 and June 28, 1994, Charlottesville and Albemarle will play host to the 1994 Bike Virginia Bicycle Tour, was accepted as information. Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Perkins presented the following Certificates of Appreciation: Ms. Betty Starke, EQUALIZATION BOARD: Ms. Starke served on the Equal- ization Board from January 2, 1991, to December 31, 1993. The County Assessor's Office was extremely fortunate to have Mrs. Starke on this Board. During her tenure, Mrs. Starke was involved with appeal reviews concerning 125 parcels. Her interest, insight and ultimate decisions were always well thought out and made in the best interest of both the taxpayer and the County. In addition, Mrs. Starke also served as secretary to the Board during the 1992/1993 tax year. Mr. William Colony, RIVANNA SOLID WASTE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mr. Colony served on the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee from November 14, 1990, to December 31, 1993. Mr. Colony played an active role in the formation of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority through his work on the Committee, always thinking of new and better ways to deal with solid waste. He was especially active in dealing with the question of whether waste-to- energy conversion plays a role in the local solid waste-management scheme. Mr. Colony also served as Vice Chairman of the Committee and was called upon to chair the group on numerous occasions. 000244 May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 3 Mr. James R. Skove, RIVANNA SOLID WASTE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mr. Skove served on the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee from November 14, 1990, to December 31, 1993. He was always faithful in partici- pating in the deliberations of the Committee. He participated in a subcommit- tee that made recommendations resulting in improvements to the McIntire Recy- cling Center. Mr. Skove was interested in the possible recycling of old newspapers as animal bedding material. Ms. Cauline Yates, BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES: Ms. Yates served on the Board of Social Services from November 14, 1990, to December 31, 1993. During her tenure the Board supported the creation of a Medicaid Unit at the Univer- sity of Virginia Hospital which is one of two such units statewide. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-93-41. Pagebrook Farm. Public Hearing on a request to locate six impounding structures in the flood plain on 315.86 ac zoned RA. Located on E sd of Rt 231 approx 0.25 mi N of Rts 231/640 inters at Cash's Corner. TMS0,P34. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. The applicant proposes to construct six low impounding structures or weirs in Mechunk Creek to provide "a water source to enhance the agricultural character of the farm." The stream is approximately one and one-half feet deep. The impoundments will raise the level to three feet and will cascade excess water. The channel will be widened an average of twenty feet. The stream bed will be gently sloped. Staff has reviewed this application for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1. Given its scale and additional review by the Engineering Depart- ment, this proposal should not harm adjacent properties. Given that the impoundments will support agricultural uses during times of drought, it is staff's opinion that this proposal should not change the character of the Rural Areas district. Given additional review by the Engineering Department, Waster Resources Manager and State/Federal agencies, this proposal should be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, with uses permitted by-right, and with the public health safety and general welfare. Therefore, staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. However, at its meeting on February 8, 1994, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request. Mr. Cilimber9 said at its meeting on April 14, 1994, the Board of Supervisors sent this petition back to the Planning Commission for review of new information. The applicant submitted a book entitled "Agricultural and Stream Enhancement Plan Summary Report for Pagebrook Farm," (on file) from McKee, Carson, two additional letters (letter dated 4/5/94 from J. Robert Hume, III [on file] and letter from Peter R. Taylor [on file]) and an infor- mation book by the U.S. Department of Agriculture entitled "Stream Habitat Improvement Hanclbook" (on file). Staff reviewed the new information which better explains the design and the intended agricultural uses. Staff then recommended approval subject to four conditions recommended by the Department of Engineering: Department of Engineering approval of Final Dam Design Plans and hydrologic/hydraulic computations; 2 o Water Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact Assessment; Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Panel; Compliance with applicable federal and state permitting requirements for activities within perennial streams. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 10, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-93-41, Pagebrook Farm, subject to the four conditions set out above. Mrs. Humphris said originally staff recommended approval subject to seven conditions but now only recommended four conditions. She asked why all of the conditions were not recommended again. Mr. Cilimberg said staff's review on these types of applications deals with the Engineering Department's comments. He does not know why they changed the number of conditions. At 7:14 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Driver, McKee/Carson, representing the applicant said Mr. Steve Blaine, the applicant's attorney, and Mr. Jim Weirich, Director of Farm Management Division, Frank Hardy, Inc., are also present to answer questions. Mr. Driver briefly summarized the project. To address a previous concern, the applicant has further studied the water demand and supply of the stream. Based on data received from the County Engineering Department, anticipated use is only seven percent of the total water available during extreme, low-flow conditions. The report presented to the Board indicates that approximate one- oooz4s May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 4 third of one percent of base flow conditions would be used. The regulatory agencies were contacted for assistance because of concerns raised at the February Planning Commission meeting. The Corps of Engineers proposed the design presented in the report. It was also endorsed by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Department of Environmental Quality and the USDA Forestry Department. All of those agencies are familiar with the stream im- provement techniques proposed. They are currently being used successfully in many streams throughout Virginia. Regardless of whether the applicant chooses to use the water in the stream, the small structures will improve the aquatic habitat by creating ripples in the stream which increases the dissolved oxygen content. The is no need for sediment removal. The structures are made of all natural materials which include wood, wire and stone and can be installed in a minimum time with little to no disturbance to existing vegetation. The applicant believes the proposed improvements will be good for the habitat of Mechunk Creek, while providing a water resource by way of plunge pools that would be created. The applicant has shown a sincere interest in being environmentally sensitive. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Mr. Martin said he has visited the site, reviewed the materials and information, walked or drove the site and it seems to him that what is being proposed is going to be an improvement as well as serve the applicant's purpose in promoting agriculture in the Albemarle County area. Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP- 93-41, subject to four conditions (set out below). Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. (Conditions of approval for SP-93-41) 2 o Department of Engineering approval of Final Dam Design Plans and hydrologic/ hydraulic computations; Water Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact Assessment; Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan; and Compliance with applicable federal and state permitting requirements for activities within perennial streams. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-94-06. Emily H. Sanford. Public Hearing on a request for a music school on 3.640 ac zoned RA. Located on W sd of Rt 649 approx 0.75 mi N of Rt 649/606 inters. TM32,PgJ. White Hall Dist. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 26, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-06 subject to conditions. At 7:24 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Ms. Emily Sanford, applicant, was present in support of the petition. There being no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-94-06, Emily H. Sanford, subject to conditions 1 a through e (set out below) and reminded the applicant of the need to screen the parking and make it as unobtrusive as possible. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs Thomas. (Approval of SP-94-06, subject to the following conditions:) 1. Use shall not commence until the following requirements have been met: Health Department approval; Construction of commercial entrance with a minimum of 450 feet of sight distance; Approval of site plan; Installation of required parking; and Building Official approval. May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 5 000246 Agenda Item No. 9. SP-94-07. Keswick Corporation. Public Hearing on a request to expand club facilities to add a swimming pool, tennis courts & a clubhouse on 149.846 ac zoned RA. Located on E sd of inters of Rt 744/731 & on SE quadrant of Club Dr/Rt 731 inters. Existing clubhouse in NE quadrant of Club Dr/Rt 731 inters. TM80,P8Z. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at it meeting on April 26, 1994, unanimously recom- mended approval subject to two conditions. In order to clarify issues regarding access and timeframe for SP-94-07, Keswick Corporation, Mr. Cilim- berg said staff is recommending two additional conditions. He then distribut- ed a copy of the wording of the recommendations. At 7:28 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Development Planner for Keswick Corporation, said he is present to answer any questions the Board may have. Mrs. Humphris said she had one concern with the PA system, but it seems the applicant has addressed that and it will be dealt with according to the ordinance. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-94-07, Keswick Corporation, subject to four conditions (set out below). Mr. Bowerman said the schematic drawing provided to the Board shows the tip of the tennis court in the right-of-way of Route 731. He asked if this presented any technical problems. Mr. Cilimberg said these are existing courts and he does not know whether they are actually in the right-of-way or not. Mr. Bradshaw said the schematic map shows that the tennis court is in the right-of-way of Route 731, but that map was done some time ago. The right-of-way has not actually been dedicated at this time so the actual metes and bounds of the turn and taper location can be adjusted. This is something that was discussed at site plan review and is something that will have to be addressed again. There being no further discussion, roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. (Approval of SP-94-07, Keswick Corporation, subject to the follow- lng conditions:) Compliance with SP-92-59, Keswick Acquisition Corporation, and SP-85-54, Tom J. Curtis, Jr.; The clubhouse shall not exceed 6250 square feet, the viewing stand shall not exceed 2000 square feet, accessory buildings shall not exceed 5200 square feet and the pool shall not exceed 3500 square feet; 3 o Construction of the clubhouse and open air pavilion and all necessary improvements associated therewith, including required parking, is extended to commence not later than five years from approval of SP-94-07; and Access for Tax Map 80, Parcel 9A, shall be onto Route 731. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-94-10. Brass, Inc. (owner); Christopher Grover (applicant). Public Hearing on a request for a veterinary clinic on part of 6.734 acs zoned RA. Located on W side of Rt 20. Portion of property proposed for use is located in NW corner of Rt 20/Rt 712/Rt 715 inters. TM121,P91 (part). Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 10, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-10, Brass, Inc., subject to conditions. Mrs. Humphris said the minutes of the Planning Commission indicate there was discussion about limiting the special permit use to the structure and not the rest of the parcel, there was no condition placed upon the application. She asked if the special permit with conditions limited the request to that part of parcel 91. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could add a condition that the special permit applies to that part of parcel 91 north of Route 712 and west of Route 20. May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 6 oooz47 Mr. Marshall asked the applicant if the additional condition would present any problems. Ms. Bruce Murray (owner) and Mr. Chris Grover (appli- cant) were present. Ms. Murray said there is a garage building across the road. She asked if she wanted to do something in any way connected with the veterinarian clinic, if she would have to apply for another special use permit. Mr. Tucker said "yes," this would limit the approval. Ms. Murray said she would rather it not be limited. When this application was made and the plans for the veterinarian clinic made, they only included the one existing structure. Mr. Marshall said he does not think the additional condition should be required. Mrs. Humphris felt it should be included because of what is in the Planning Commission's minutes. Everything that the Planning Commission did was geared to the portion of the parcel and not the entire parcel. Mr. Marshall asked if the building is currently vacant. Ms. Murray said "yes." There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-94-10, Brass, Inc., subject to four conditions (set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. (Approval of SP-94-10, Brass, Inc., subject to the following conditions:) Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure; Boarding of animals shall be limited to animals undergoing medical treatment; 3 o Use shall not commence until the following have been ob- tained: Health Department approval; Building Official approval; Provision of adequate parking; and Approval of SP-94-10 applies to that part of Parcel 91 north of Route 712 and west of Route 20. Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-94-03. Building Permit Review. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require that a certifi- cate of appropriateness be granted by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) prior to building permit approval. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the reasons for this zoning text amendment (ZTA). He noted that Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner for the ARB, is present to answer technical questions. He said this ZTA originated when members of the Commission noticed that some buildings (where site plans are not required) are permitted to be renovated without any review of the ARB. On April 19, 1994, the Commission held a public hearing and recommended what were mostly "housekeeping" changes to the ordinance. There was one comment from Mr. Donald Wagner which is now recommended in Section 30.6.6.3.a.6. concerning decisions and determinations of the Zoning Adminis- trator as to what may be exempt under that section. The staff report notes some negatives and positives about the amendment. Negatives: the possible surprise factor for those who have not experienced this requirement in the past; additional time necessary for the ARB to make its review (this should not exceed more than an additional two weeks); additional staff time that will be required; and, the applicant may be required to provide some additional information not currently required for building permits. Positive attributes: maintenance of the corridor and allowing the corridor to be treated in its entirety; a more equitable process when site plans and building permits are reviewed will maintain the intent of the Code of Virginia as to the allowance for entrance corridor districts; and, maintaining the economic health in the community. Mr. Cilimber9 noted a typographical error in the language of the ordinance. Section 30.6.4.1.a. references Section 30.6.5 and and it should reference Section 30.6.6. At 7:48 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Kevin Cox said he sees this as an intrusion and does not feel it is any business of the County what people do with private property as he does not feel its appearance is the County's business. He feels the County's business is to maintain the building codes and insure that property is built in a safe manner. He does not appreciate local government telling people what their May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 7 000248 property needs to look like. He does not understand how staff can claim that this is promoting the economic well-being of the community because tourists do not care. Many board members characterize themselves as being conservatives, but when it comes to local affairs each seems quick to take away freedom and liberty and replace it with government control. This is one more "nibble" on that path. A lot of other people feel the same way he does, but they are frustrated and feel it is fruitless to come to these public hearings. This authority and power is resented by a lot of citizens throughout the County. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris said she feels this amendment is long overdue. The Board did not realize in the beginning that this problem would occur and that people renovating property would be treated differently than those building new projects. She feels the positive attributes in the staff's report about the importance of treating the entrance corridors in their entirety under the Code of Virginia are well set forth. She feels it is important to tourists how the entrances to the area look and it is fair to do it this way. She also feels it is extremely important for the economic health of the County. Mrs. Humphris then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an ordinance amending Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require that a certificate of appropri- ateness be granted by the Architectural Review Board prior to building permit approval. Mr. Bowerman said he concurs with Mrs. Humphris' comments. Mr. Perkins said he does not disagree with Mr. Cox, but in this instance feels it is something the business community can live with. It may take an additional two weeks to obtain a permit, but if major renovations are to be done to a building, the County may help to make it look more attractive. There being no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 30.6.4, AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; HEIGHT REGULA- TIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEA- TURES, be amended and reordained in Subsection 30.6.4.1 to read as follows: 30.6.4.1 A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following: so bo Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building permit shall be issued for any pur- pose unless and until a certificate of appropri- ateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for improvements sub- ject to such building permit. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section 32.3.8, for any development subject to approval under section 32.0, site development plan, no final site development plan shall be approved by the commission or be signed pursuant to section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certifi- cate of appropriateness has been issued in ac- cord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for all buildings and improvements shown thereon. The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the proposed development as to conditions of issuance. The certificate shall certify that the proposed development as may be modified by the conditions of issuance is con- sistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon the final site development plan or building permit, as the case may be, shall be deemed to constitute such certification. In making such determination as to consistency with design guidelines, the architectural review May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 8 000249 board may specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscap- ing and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of this ordinance. AND FURTHER ORDAINED that Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District be amended and reordained in subsection 30.6.6, NONCONFORMITIES; EXEMPTIONS, by the addition of a sub-subsection 30.6.6.3 entitled "Exemptions" to read as follows: 30.6.6.3 EXEMPTIONS The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate of appropriateness shall be required for the following activities: so The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and structures: Interior alterations to a building or structure having no effect on exterior appearance of the building or structure. 2 o Construction of ramps and other modifica- tions to serve the handicapped in accord with section 4.9. Repair and maintenance activities and improvements to nonconforming uses as may be authorized by the zoning administator pursuant to section 6.2. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural buildings where no site development plan is required for the work subject to the building permit. General maintenance where no substantial change in design or material is proposed. Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial change in design or material is proposed as determined by the zoning administrator. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Humphris said in the VACo newsletter there was a page about the "Right to Farm Legislation" and what it would do to localities. She asked if this is something the Board needs to be concerned about. Mr. Tucker said the only thing he is aware of that may be affected is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance in the Rural Areas District concerning a special permit for hog farming. This is the only County provision that would be affected by this legislation. Mr. Davis said he agrees with Mr. Tucker. He will be examining this more closely and a report will be brought to the Board on these issues. Mr. Marshall requested that the grass on Route 20 between Route 53 and the City limits be cut. He asked if any carryover funds were available that could be used for this project. Mr. Tucker said he will check on this. Mr. Humphris said the grass is.getting very long in that new section of median on Barracks Road. Previously Mr. Roosevelt had mentioned that someone from the Hessian Hills apartment complex would consider taking care of the maintenance of that median. She asked for an update. Mr. Tucker said he will follow up. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 7:56 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 9 OO02$O The following agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 12, 1994: SERVICE AGREEMENT THiS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 31st day of January, 1994, by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and, WHEREAS the Town has agreed with the County to provide full-time police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjustment becomes effective on or at midnight of December 31, 1993; and, WHEREAS the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides under Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 that the Town, the Sheriff, and the County may enter into a tripartite agreement for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforcement services in the Town; and, WHEREAS the Town now desires to enter into such an agreement for law enforcement services with the Sheriff and the County pursuant to Section 15.1-131.3, NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby agree as follows: 4 o 5o 7o The Sheriff shall provide two (2) full time deputies for the purpose of providing law enforcement services in the Town. A reduced number of deputies may be provided upon the con- sent or request of the Town. 10. The said deputies shall be deputies of the Sheriff's Office and wear Sheriff's Office uniforms. 11. The deputies shall be specifically assigned to the Town and may, in the discretion of the Sheriff, assist deputies outside the Town when called upon to do so. The deputies shall be selected by the Sheriff with the full advice and consent of the Town. Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the County. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely by the State Compensation Board, and all other costs not cov- ered by the State including, but not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town. The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff serving as a Town law enforcement officer shall have authority to enforce the ordinances of the Town. The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff, while serving as law enforcement officers of the Town, shall have the same pow- ers, rights, benefits, privileges and immunities as those of regular Town police officers. Under this Agreement, the Sheriff shall be the Chief of Police of the Town. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties at any time, or by any party for good cause after providing six months written notice to the other parties of the intent to terminate the Agreement on a date certain. The Town shall pay its pro-rata share of dispatch costs of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Emergency Operations Center based on the same formula used for other law enforce- ment agencies that are dispatched by the Center. These costs shall be assessed after a full year of data for calls for service is collected. The Town and the County shall enter into a reciprocal agree- ment for mutual assistance between the Sheriff and the May 18, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 10 00025 t County's Police Department prior to any services being provided to the Town under this Agreement. This reciprocal agreement shall determine which agency shall have primary responsibility for responding to calls for service, for handling criminal investigations, and for any other matters. In addition, the reciprocal agreement shall determine the procedure for Federal and State crime reporting requirements so that there will be no duplicate reporting of crime sta- tistics. 12. Notwithstanding paragraph 9, above, upon any final determi- nation by the County that the amount of State aid received by the County for its Police Department pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 10 of Title 14.1 (Sections 14.1-84 through 14.1- 84.7) of the Code of Virginia, also known as "599" funds, is diminished or reduced as a result of this Agreement, the County may void this Agreement at any such time so as to restore that funding for that fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.