Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes February 17, 1988

1
1 REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING
VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
FEBRUARY 17, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Eisenberg called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m..
ROLL CALL
Responding to roll call were:
Councilmember Rader
Councilmember Malcuit
Councilmember Avery
Councilmember Hughes
Councilmember
Mayor
Law Director
Manager
Morrow
Eisenberg
Munro
Plunkett
Mayor Eisenberg noted at this time that Mr. Schnaidt is expected
a little later on inthe meeting.
PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION
Mayor Eisenberg first asked Thomas F. Gallant to come forward,
which he met at the front of the Council meeting room. He then
read aloud Resolution No. 88-13, "A Resolution Of Appreciation Thomas To 1988. F. Gallant" passed at the regular meeting of February 3,
Mr. Eisenberg asked Mr. Gallant to please accept a framed
copy of the resolution with Council' s deepest gratitude. He expressed appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Gallant for his long
years of services as a member of Village Council and Mayor, and for his friendship and support, and complemented him on the excellent job he did. Mr. Eisenberg said the hardest part of being Mayor is following him.
Mr. Gallant thanked everyone and said he has enjoyed serving on Council and as Mayor.
Mr. Eisenberg then asked Albert W. Davison to come forward, and read Resolution No. 88-12, A" Resolution of Appreciation To Albert W. Davison"a,nd asked that he too accept a frame copy of this resolution with Council' s deepest gratitude.
Mr. Davison thanked everyone for the resolution. Mr. Davison was recently appointed to the Granville Development Commission for a three year tdrm.
Mr. Eisenberg then called Howard M. Garrett, and read aloud Resolution No. 881- 1, A" Resolution of Appreciation To Howard M. Garrett, and asked that he accept a framed copy of the resolution with Council' s gratitude as well.
Mr. Garrett thanked everyone and stated that he has enjoyed ghoisalstim. e on Council and wished members success in achieving their
1
1 Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
February 17, 1988
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing was held at this time for the following piece
of legislation:
Ordinance No. 3-88 An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 32-87
Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal
Year 1988 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses.
No one appeared to speak for or against this ordinance.
Public hearing closed at 7: 45 p.m..Action on this ordinance was
held for Old Business.
MINUTES
February 3, 1988 R-e·gular Council Meeting -Councilmember Avery
moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Motion seconded
by Councilmember Malcuit. Motion carried.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Those who signed the register were:
Mary Jane Dennison
Thomas F. Gallant
Hope Card
B. E. Mason
Albert W. Davison
Kate I<na*h
Helen Hoelker
Mary Verdon
Helen Phillips
Deborah Mcpeek
Howard M. Garrett
Marie Palmer
Timothy Lang
Mary Fellabaum
Anne Brockman
Hope Card, 225 South Prospect, appeared this evening in regards
to the Liquor License approved by the Ohio Department of Liquor
Control for Shades Above on Elm Street. Mrs. Card stated that she
contacted the Liquor Board Control and found out that if Council
did appeal the decision of the hearing officer, the Churches and
Welsh Hills School gave up their right to speak to the issue
during the first hearing. Mrs. Card did say however that she had
Ca oluenttceilr tofrodmisctowuoracgietizethniss LGioqrudoonr CLidoenfdisiet . and Harry Nix who urge the first hearing, but left Mr. Condit did go to early when he found out that he would
not be allowed to speak at the hearing. Mrs. Card submitted the letter for the minutes. She also had information that Ms.
Phillips license is for 1151- 2/ East Elm (upstairs)a,nd now advertises in the Booster, 2/8/88 that she has moved her restaur- ant business to the lower floor at the Elms Building, to 119 East Elm. Mrs. Card stated that this is in violation of the regula- tion: Section 4303. 273 Transfer of Location. (ORC),before the
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
February 17, 1988
Page 3
permit is even issued. A copy of the ad and the ORC section is
hereby attached as part of these minutes.
Kate Ken91, 339 West Broadway, spoke about the 5 o' clock
traffic congestion at Elm &S. Main Street, and felt it will get
worse in this area once everyone finds out about the D-1 Liquor
permit.
Debra McPeek, 133 South Prospect Street, voiced an objection
to the beer carry-out feature of the D-1 permit. She said it is
not pleasant seeing traffic racing up and down the street, people
throwing out trash and other litter. She said she objects to
picking up the trash, and the loud yelling.
At this point Helen Phillips was asked how important this
carry-out was to her business. Ms. Phillips said she still wants
the license, stating that it will be helpful in her catering
business. She said she would not be using the license for the
restaurant portion of her business only the catering portion,
which she has moved to the 115-1/2 E. Elm location.
Councilmember Malcuit stated that she has contacted the
Liquor Board Control and found out that Denison did not give up
their D-1 License and is in effect until October, 1988 (D-1
means beer by glass or carry-out).
Ms. Malcuit said she also called State Representative
Guthrie' s office, and spoke to Barbara Gilkes, who lives in
Granville and she too was concerned. There is an option that
Council could take and that would be to put this matter on the
ballot and vote this area dry. The problem with that is that the
Buxton Inn is also in Precinct B, so we couldn' t do that. Ms.
Malcuit was in favor of making the appeal.
With no new items on this subject, discussion closed.
Action on this item will be considered under Old Business.
Mary Fellabaum, 310 East Elm Street, appeared this evening to
acknowledge Mr. plunkett' s letter and to answer any questions
members might have with regard to her request to hold the "Olde
Granville Antique Fair" this fall. Ms. Fellabaum stated that
basically the format is the same as last year, other than the
suggestion by Mr. Plunkett to provide porta johns and trash
barrels.
Consensus of Council was, that they had no objection to Ms.
Fellabaum holding the antique fair and thanked her for coming
this evening.
MANAGER' S REPORT
The Manager' s Report for the month of January was presented and
reviewed. Manager Plunkett added, that water pumpage is normal,
and the light on College/ Granger is now working again. Mr.
plunkett commented that it might be a good idea to purchase a
1
1 Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
February 17, 1988
Page 4
shelf light head in case another traffic light goes bad. Following
a brief review and discussion, Councilmember Rader moved that
the Manager' s Report for the month of January be approved. Motion
seconded by Councilmember Morrow. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Commission -Councilmember Malcuit reported on the
Commission' s meeting held February 11th. The meeting centered
around the Commission' s proposed expansion of the Village' s
Architectural Review area.
At this time Council discussed a tentative joint worksession
with the Development Commission for Wednesday, February 24, 1988,
at 7: 30 p.m.,to discuss the proposed expansion of the Architectural
Review area and a number of other matters which relate to
the function of the Development Commission.
OLD BUSINESS
Ordinance No. 3-88, "An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 32-87
Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal
Year 1988 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses", was moved
for adoption by Councilmember Morrow, seconded by Councilmember
Avery.
Discussion: Councilmember Rader questioned the need for the
proposed remodeling for the radiod/ispatch area. Manager Plunkett
explained that electrical renovation is very necessary because of
the Leads terminal, and from a fire safety standpoint, plus, the
lighting is very poor for those at that station. Mr. Rader felt
that what started as a total cost of $5,000 is snowballing and
voiced a concern. Councilmember Morrow asked where the money was coming from for the proposed remodeling and electrical work.
Manager Plunkett responded and said General Fund.
Roll call vote: Morrow-yes, Avery-yes, Rader-no, Malcuityes,
Hughes- yes, Eisenberg-yes, Schnaidt-absent. Five yes votes,
one no, and one member absent. Motion carried. Ordinance No.
3-88 duly adopted.
Shades AboveL/iquor License
Councilmember Malcuit moved that Council appeal the State of Ohio Liquor Board Control' s decision to grant a D-1 Liquor Permit to Helen Phillips, dba Shades Above, and that the hearing be held in the county seat of the county in which the permit premises is to be located. Motion seconded by Councilmember Morrow.
Discussion: Councilmember Morrow commented that he spoke to Bernie Williams regarding the D1- license for Shades Above and he stated to him, that if he had known about the carry-out
1
1
1 Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
February 17, 1988
Page 5
feature of the permit he would not have approved. Further, that
he only approved of Ms. Phillips having a permit to serve beer
at the table with a meal for the upstairs location, and if
she moved the business downstairs he would exercise his right to
terminate her lease.
More discussion among members followed. Some members felt
that there was not enough new evidence to warrant another
hearing. It was noted by Councilmembers Malcuit and Morrow, that
it was their understanding that the issue would be heard by a
different officer.
Roll call vote on the motion to appeal: Malcuit-yes,
Morrow-yes, Rader-no, Avery-yes, Hughes- yes, Eisenberg-yes,
Schnaidt-absent. Five yes votes, one no, one member absent.
Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Resolution No. 88-15, "A Resolution Of Appreciation To William
Wernet", was introduced, read in its entirety and moved for
passage by Councilmember Avery. Motion seconded by Councilmember
Rader. Motion carried. Resolution No. 88-15 duly passed.
Resolution No. 88-16, "A Resolution Of Appreciation To Carole P.
Sargent", was introduced, read in its entirety and moved . for
passage by Councilmember Malcuit. Motion seconded by Councilmember
Avery. Motion carried. Resolution No. 88-16 duly passed.
Resolution No. 88-17, "To Award The Bid For The Purchase Of A
1988 Police Cruiser", was introduced, read in its entirety and
moved for passage by Councilmember Morrow. Motion seconded by Councilmember Malcuit.
Discussion: Manager Plunkett reviewed the bids received for
a new 1988 Police Cruiser. He and Police Chief Cartnal recommended
that the Chevrolet Impala be traded in for total bid price of 10,400 for a new 1988 Chevrolet Crown Victoria S. Members
discussed the rationale of retaining the older Celebrity, has had which a lot of problems and asked what the total bid would be, trading in both the Chevrolet Impala and the Chevrolet Celebrity. Manager Plunkett said $6,850. 00.
Councilmember Morrow moved to amend Resolution No. 88-17, and make the total bid award price for a new 1988 Police Cruiser 6, 850. 00 and trading in the Chevrolet Impala and the Celebrity. Motion seconded by Councilmember Avery. Motion for passage of Resolution No. 88-17 as amended duly passed.
Pinkerton Appeal -Council set a public hearing for March 1, 1987, at 7: 30 p.m.,to hear Dick Pinkerton' s appeal to the Development Commission decision on a temporary sign at 116 West Broadway, and; Ahne Brockman' s appeal to the Board of Zoning &
1 Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
February 17, 1 988
Page 6
Building Appeals ruling on Bernard' s Williams Appeal.
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
February 24, 1988 -7: 30 P.M. Council Worksession -Joint meeting
with Development Commission. Discussion of the Development
Commission' s proposed expansion of the Architectural Review, and
other matters.
Since Councilmember Schnaidt had not arrived at this point,
Councilmember Avery moved that he be excused. Motion seconded by
Councilmember Rader. Motion carried.
With no further business to discuss, Councilmember Rader moved
for adjournment. Motion seconded by Councilmember Morrow. Motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8: 47 p.m..
111 (-P/o-t CLL14huil7f)1*7I'W-OOQk Clerk of -Council
Mayor
IiI FINANCIAL STATEMENT
VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
Mayor' s Court Monthly Report
JAN. 1988
TRAFFIC CITATIONS PROCESSED:
Excessive Speed:
Assured Clear Distance:
Disregarding Red Signal:
Disregarding Stop Sign:
Disregarding All Other Traffic Control Devices:
Prohibited Right Turn on Red Signal:
HNVI (Alcohol/Drugs):
Upett Container/ Liquor Consumption:
Opn Willful/Wanton Disregard for Safety:
Opu without Reasonable Control:
111,
Page I.
i {r,,1·..8' 1,1 104
JAN. 1987, ' fr
HUNTEr- '0
887. 00
11
78
93 '' ' i
t,I<i
U '1*3'
110.
l
48 ;,
R.
1,11..'
ilt'jir. ''.
34,4, f i: t'
5 '
i
L 0' 624'*
B i,l!{ i4, ,
48 , 1i + 1 ,0 l,i ,lj( .q[ {,j:':i j, -
0 ' 1. 1:1/. ,wlil'];l1, .,?
i it!illj}
5·, Elfid!*
i j, f 1,1 . f l,l!ilifi,2 ilill,
2 , '21 1 8!} 1',{ it:l "
ijjt1;[{ft .
1 18.'f* 1.{ . ] U 11.
j '4'.:[ft:.'
1 ,- 111 j 'Wh1{] -]}1 :
hi 't. FL.i:' '··t·..1. :
]I1 .1:11 j"i,%11. t { ' ]
1, b. . '14, 4k' !'
141,4*9 4* j*,f#{:.
f]''f .)j{f'i*,
EN·F)F#MMAWE·*, i I ' *&. 1:4/ r.#r, q: .4* , .
i
i
Br
b
6 1
4 1
1 i
14
f
9
j.,
b T
0
2981. 00
887. 00
111NjRATED CASES BY THE GRANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Iriminal Complaints:
ASES TRANSFERRED FROM MAYOR' S COURT 1
24 I 7
0 1
6 5
2 1
0 1
0
4 6
0
1
0 1
1
DEC. 1987
MON'1'11 MON'1'11
Balance of Bond Money from Last Month: 2756.00 1290. 00
rotal Noney Collected for this Month: 2430. 00 4640. 00
l'otal Paid to State (RRF&GRF) : 414. 00 505. 00
3Z22.00
741. 00
Total Paid in Refunds/Overpayments: 0-- 0
Total Paid to General Fund: 1483. 00 2669. 00
Balance of Bond Money Remaining in Account: 3404. 00 2756.00
traffic Citations: 54 63
Parking Tickets: i 7
0
49
5
CASES PROCESSED IN MAYOR' S COURT
Traffic Citations: 46 54 75
Parking Tickets: l 7 46 85
Critilitial Complaints: 0 5 0 9
Cases Dismissed: 2 f''
4
Guilty Waivers (payments out of court): 20 21 28 bi
l'.ases Appearitig in Court: 32 38
10 Licking County Municipal Court: 4
To Juvenile Court: 6 3
r-k -
IANimal Offenses:
isorderly Conduct/Public Intoxication:
Jisturbitig the Peace:
Drug Abuse/Possession:
Gatiibling Offenses:
Littering:
Falsification:
Page 2.
JANI 1988
MON'rlt
DEC. 1987
FiliN'rll
JAN. 1987
tiuil ilii,
11 'C· ; 4'''
F{.' 111,1?
r; 1 '12"B]E,,L'
0
3
0
4
il
C44'!
j i.,hf j
t
341
1 {(?i i,4,1 QNF''
2 filf
e'i·.
1>Ij!,9 1
K
m
5 #94:
Pj.'f,i
i 7)3· .
lfIL :,S.t3,.,
29442
1{ t 4 24
JIft''I.il
02 ' A
F:p4b 1''I..
i.4.1,,.1,
ifs J'''
r:il.', 15
if:.,j!1:1-'..
f:, S], t/41:qi}i<z:m#Ag/TIA
' .24 t; i(4,'DS,Pt'! ;fk, ji:1.-4, ' ;fl.i··-:
<3{ ,
6 ' 1{AFFIC CITATIONS PROCESSED (con' t)
Fleeing a Police Officer:
eating Tires/Peeling/ Cracking Exhaust: 0
rmitting/or Riding/Hanging Outside Vehicle:
11- Turn (Opposite Direction/ Enter Parking Place):
4
Failure to Yield:
0
2
0
No Operators/ Chauffers License:
4
0
5 Opn Under Suspension/Revocation:
2
0
4
0:
f
n
n
r X;;
1
1'
t
ra
d
i
Mi.
1
i C
j 1
2.
0 0
0
2
0,
2
Ii,tuit,itietit Violation:
Pedestrian Violation:
3
No Motorcycle Endorsement:
Restriction Violation:
Registration/Title Violation: 5
Leavitig the Scene of an Accident: 0
Failure to Stop for School Bus Unloading/ Loading:
improper Passing:
All Others:
6 0
tiNI NAL COMPLAINTS PROCESSED
Failure to Report a Crime:
Obstructing Official Business:
Failure to Aid a Police Officer:
Obstructing Justice:
Resisting Arrest:
Sale of Alcohol to a Minor:
Misrepreseutation:
Upet, Container in a Public Place:
Sexual Imposition:
Pul,lic Itidecency:
Voyeurism:
11,11}ortuning:
Assatil. t:
4
l'Al{KI.NG TICKETS
J Violation #1-Double Parking:
Violation 2-Fire Hydrant Parking:
Violation #3-Parking Facing the Wrong Direction:,
Violation #4-Parking in a No Parking Zone:
Violation #5-Parking on Crosswalk:
Violation #6-Overtime Parking:
Violatiou #7-Parking 20' of Intersection:
Violation #8-Blocking Driveway:
Violation #9-Parking on Lawn (Sidewalk/ Curb):
Violation #10- Parked too Far from Curb:
Violation #11-Parked on Sidewalk:
Violation #12-Parked over Diagonal Lines:
Violation #13-Parked Opposite' Excavation:
Page 3.
JAN. 1988 DEC. 1987
RUNT7H-- H U H 11 1 -
t
f
6 1 4' 1'.181{5!i)i ,
j -i,.,f]f,f,t.31Pli.ft*{'
r
JAN. 1987 £
1* 1*11 NAL COMPLAINTS PROCESSED (con' t) tiONTII-
7
r
E
i
j.,
1 Aggravated Menacing/ Menacing:
Et,datigering Children:
Teleilione Harrassment: 1
Dottiestic Violence:
ArsoN:
ri,„ilial Damagitig:
Irimitial Mischief:
Criminal Trespass:
Petty Theft: 4
111!authorized use of Property/Vehicle:
Passing Bad Checks:
Receiving Stolen Property:
Curryilig a Concealed Weapon:
improperly liandlitig Firearm in Motor Vehicle:
Ulscharging Weapons:
Fireworks Violations:
Atl Others:
0
3
I 3
45
0
14
0
0
6
1
0 72 Ilour Ordinance:
Ilati,licapped Parking:
0
Ullillto tls Issued for Failure to Pay: 0
Ill!,Vl;lf.D l'jil:klNG '1'llKEk' (5/ ,
IV10 iP'1-Parking on Sidewalk or Curb Lawn:
Vlo #2-Blocking Public or Private Driveway:
V10 #3-Parkdd within 20 ft of an intersection:
INr,!4 .,1
1/81
3
0
1
UJU #4-Parked on a Crosswalk:
#5-Parked in a No Parking Zone:
1 #6-Parked Too Far from Curb (lft or more):
MO # 7-Parked in Same Spot in Excess of 72 Hours:
VI.0 #8-Overtime Parking:
Vio #9-Parked Facing in Wrong Direction:
Vio #10-Parked Outside of Marked Parking Space:
Vio #11-Iii Handicapped Zone w/0 Proper Tags/Placard:
VI(J #12J-o!uble Parked:
VIO #13-Parked Upon a Bridge or Overpass:
VIO #14-Parked in Roadway Creating aTraffic Hazard:
Vio #15-1'arked within 10 ft of a Fire Hydrant:
SU Illillotls issued for Failure to Pay:
4
i
1/
1-'.
1
0
7 1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
WATER DEPARTMENT
MANAGER' S REPORT
Total Produced (MC)
Daily Average (MGD)
New Meter Install.
Cust. Svce. Requests
Meters Repaired
Meters Replaced
Final Readings
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Total Treated (MG)
Daily Average (MGD)
Sludge Removed (MG)
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Jan. 1988
22. 257
718
8. 736
282
3. 60
Dec. 1987
24.017
775
8. 959
289
280
Downtown water fountain flows at a rate of 15,000 gallm/ onth 0(.7%).
Repair service on North Granger Street.
Installed inlet air vent in water plant per the request of Ohio EPA.
NMoGte) :
MGD)
Million Gallons
Million Gallons Per Day
1
12
Jan. 1987
25. 116
810
n
30
9.782
316
070
0
32
1 3 10
8 1 12
4 20 1
MANAGERS REPORT:
PAGE 3 SERVICE DEPARTMENT
JANUARY 1988 DECEMBER 1987 JANUARY 1987
Amount Manhours Amount Manhours Amount Manhours
New Signs 4 <
Signs Replaced
Street Maintenance
Hot Mix -Tons) 9.8 1 -T t.
1 •1 6-,
Streets Swept
Hours)
Inlets Cleaned
Tops) 30 4
Inlets Cleaned
Inside) 90 9
Storm lines cleaned
Jet Truck)
Inlets Repaired,
adjusted, or rebuilt 2 13
Grass Mowed
acres)
Brush Picked Up and
Chipped (Loads) 9 49
Leaf Pickup
Loads)
Snow Removal 10
Shop and Offices
Salt Water
gallons) 73.000 71
Trash Pickup 30
cleaned 67
Backhoe Worked
Days)
Berm Work (Tons-
Gravel)
Street, Curb, and
Guardrail Painting
Other Projects
See Attachment) 8 168
Call Out 6 r.= -
ZONING
Building Permits 1:Misc.
Remodeling Permits 0
Sidewalk Permits 0
Demolition Permits 0
Sign Permits 0
all
40,000 40
30
k home
1 addition
r,
1
C)
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS Vehicle Maintenance
Community Service -
Welfare Workers -
12
8
152 Hrs.
0-
97 Hrs.
44. 1 348
49, 000 108
26
29
64
9
8 4 4
8
64
90
2 9
1 1 5
2
40 9 65
1 6
8 48
39 ' '
5 4 4
1 343 60
4 11 87
0
0
C)
0
0
0
jC1 . \ *
1
OTHER PROJECTS JANUARY 1988
1) Removed Christmas trees from the downtown area
and returned barrels.
2) Straighten 35 M.P.H. on S. Pearl and a stop sign
at the Denison entrance.
3) Reiristalled "Service Depart,nent" sign at shop.
4) Worked on light at College and Granger.
5) Cut three trees from the Sugar Loaf path.
6) Began working on the map and storage room.
18 Hrs.
5 Hrs.
2 Hrs.
10 Hrs.
8 Hrs.
32 Hrs.
7) Trimmed and chipped brush away from various roads. _ 14 Hrs.
8) Repaired storm sewer line at College and Granger.
TOTAL HOURS
79 Hrs.
168 HRS.
1441K: I: :4: b!' ·.e.l:, / .i·.,· ·- . ·.- .-'4:·,,-i--:'... '*1R:ieM*·z.u4..eh: p**:.r.:,8,·v.·.13' 1t. ,•€i'=y....„.-s':.r·.*„0* ···:u.u:•i, i„ ,·;,i
PATROL ACTIVITIES
Miles Driven:
Parking Tickets:
Citations:
Traffic Stops:
Radar:
Traffic Details:
Motorist Assists:
Impounded Vehicles:
Vehicle Checks:
Record Checks:
Person Checks:
Foot Patrols:
Other Dept. Assists:
Fire Dept. Assists:
House Checks:
Escorts:
Patrol Time:
TOTAL PATROL:
MMPLAINT ACTIVITIES
Non- Injury Accidents:
Injury Accidents:
Complaints Invstgtd:
Offenses Invstgtd:
Follow- up Invstgtns:
Misdemeanor Arrests:
Misdemeanor Charges:
Felony Arrests:
Felony Charges:
TOTAL COMPLAINT:
ADMIN. ACTIVITIES
Meals:
Breaks:
Equipment Maint.:
Refuels:
Special Details:
Admin. Details:
Mail:
Wand Delivered Mail:
Summons/ Papers:
Briefings:
TOTAL ADMIN:
GRANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Report***
January 1988 December 1987
Quantity Time Quantity Time
4072
17
53
40
23
54
41
5
113
77
39
130
13
16
1088
2
5783
9
1
162
10
42
8
9
0
0
241
47
14
36
63
66
94
30
69
1
168
588
39
607
167
408
744
117
74
105
50
0
1674
144
125
2597
0
21261
28112
552
122
1756
618
1507
238
127
0
0
4920
1626
256
735
402
1069
2234
178
275
6
2346
9127
4229
49
61
107
30
40
32
5
149
114
118
164
20
21
1368
0
4229
4
1
191
23
140
6
5
0
1
371
42
9
43
63
40
127
28
27
7
175
561
105
762
514
382
429
73
90
39
103
0
1921
278
188
3622
0
22527
31033
257
492
3566
1645
3855
558
34
0
59
10466
1471
233
866
392
501
8281
209
117
127
2661
14858
January 1988
January 1987
Quantity Time
3851
93
78
52
N/A
128
20
1
94
N/A
9
189
3
12
823
1
5354
10
2
142
7
N/A
5
2
0
1
169
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
449
18
47
N/A
N/A
514
22920
N/A
a
0
0
1
GRANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Report***
January 1988
FLEET USAGE
Fuel Utilized: 436.70
Total Mileage: 4072
VEHICLE:
87 Ford:
85 Celebritx:
83 Impala:
Odometer
19041
67369
78982
December 1987
504.40
4229
Miles
3482
149
441
January 1988
January 1987
346.20
3851
STATE
DEPARTMENT
DIVISION
CITY GRANVILLE
A 1 GENERAL
A 2 MUNICIPAL BLDG. RESERVE
B 1 STREET
B 2 HIGHWAY
B 7 REVENUE SHARING
B 8 PERMISSIVE TAX
MONTHLY FUNDREEORT
C 1 DEBT SERVICE F-2.
C 2 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
C 3 SEWER REPLACEMENT &IMPROVEMENT
322- 0 3 OWDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
D 3 OWDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
in E. 1 WATER 7 122.
.-@<
E. 2SEWER
22-
m E 6 SEWER DEBT SERVICE FUND
s=: E 7 SEWER DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND
EIWATER-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
E92 SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
3.-F 2 EQUIPMENT RESERVE 14=
re .4"27: 6 5 HILENGREEN ESCROW
H 1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
GRAND TOTALS ****
IS.·
BALANCE
AT BEGINNING
212,668.26
14,065.31
313.59
792.63
00
52,461.71
26-94931_66.
43,266.97
00
66,921.48
20,781.05
79.197.21
163,227.61
27,835.41
6.982.65
150,515.64
6,633.21
19.395.19
REPORT NO.
PAGE 1
DATE
MONTH OF
RECEIPTS
54,923.09
0 .00
1,897.67
153.86
00
00
18,047.26
1.365.36
2,474.50
00
36,985.76
23,447.48
10,789.22
95.85
R 13
OPER 0
01/29/88
JANUARY
BALANCE
DISBURSED AT MONTH FND
52,059.83
3,215.77
366.99
11,008. 11
975.00
00
00
22,685.54
14,753.55
81, 237.50
00
00
00
00
215,531.52
12,747.21
100.46
792.63
00
59,500.86
270,322.47
45,741.47
00
81,221.70
ENCI IMR= prn 1 INFNrt IMP-Prr)
12,435.45
00
6,310.80
00
00
00
00
44,323.DO
00
00
0 35,373.00
64,959.41
29,474.98 2,847.20
A, 74A-93
00 163,323.46
27, 835.41
6,982.65
150,515.64
6,633.21
0 19,395. 10
00
561.00
00
00
203,096.07
6,436.41
100.46
797 -Ar
00
59,500.86
725' FOR. 40
45,741.47
00
351 - CTZ. 00- -
16,262.29
26,627.78 '
00
00
R, 7AR 03
163,323.46
27,835.41
A ; 401. AER
150,515.64
6,633.21
1,134,989.58 * 150,180.45 * 186,302.29 *1,098,867.74 * 166.809.86 * 92,057.88 *
ACCOUNT
FUND DESCRIPTION
0
00 00 nn
00
00
00 00 00 0
00
00
00
00
00 0 nn 10 -TO«10 11,·%, f
February 24, 1988, 7: 30 p.m.. Council Worksession -
Tape Summary:
Welcome.........
Ben is not going to be here tonight, Chris is at the Science
Fair with his boy and he' s going to make it as soon as he can,
probably around 8: 00 or so, the same with Tim Hughes, possible
that Tim won' t be with us at all, he' s going out of town tonight.
He might have to leave.
This is not a formal Council meeting, it' s a worksession of
Council which we invited you to join us, and I will conduct it
on an informal basis. I' ll chair the meeting and try not to
interfere too much, but I if the debate or discussion gets out of
hand I will ask the people to be recognized before they speak.
We don' t have a printed agenda but we do have at least two main
areas for discussion. As I understand it tonight in the first is
a new proposal from the Development Commission for a revision of
the Architectural Review District. I think that' s one of the
main reasons for our meeting here tonight, and the other group of matters are several which relate to the function of the
Development Commission, its powers, its relationship to Council
and I think you perhaps may have a few items that you would like
to put on that portion of the agenda yourselves. I' d like to
hold that portion in advance until we get the first piece of
business out the way. So what I would like to do is go directly
to your proposal for the revisions of the Architectural Review
District. When we' re through with that we' ll discuss the further
agenda. Is that agreeable?YesO..k.a. y...
The floor is yours.....
Buck Sargent -I don' t know who' s suppose to be spokesman for
us, JoAnn is our Vice Chairman, we don' t have a Chairman as yet. We brought the Architectural Review to you, you refused it.W.e. studied it for quite some time and I do not to my knowledge felt that the Council studied it as much as the Development Commiss- ion. We did not have any specific reasons why you did not like it, and when it comes to Architectural Review and Zoning, if you like what we have in our community today, then you can' t refuse Architectural Review or Zoning. That' s the way I look at it. Now the only thing that we did was to extend the Architectural Review District to the old corporation limits. That is all. We did have plans of going out further to the roads entering into the village, but we pulled our horns in on that. The main reason wite did that was that there was ever any part that needed cleaning was some of our entrances. I don' t have to tell you which entrance that I' m referring to, because I think each and every aodnde of you know that. That is the start. If you have anymore to to it go ahead.
Arnie Eisenberg -Have you prepared a new map which alienates
the changes in the new proposed area?
Buck Sargent -It' s already on here. Buck stood up and went to
the Village Zoning Map and pointed out to everyone the area in
which the Development Commission has proposed to be expanded.
Streets -On the west Shepardson Court, Thresher Street, up
Burg Street, and around the College and out to Cedar Street,
Granger (both sides), Sunrise Street, around Maple Street.
Arnie -Just to refresh our memories Buck could you approximate
the existing review district, is it just what' s in yellow.
Buck -Pointed out the existing Architectural Review District,
mentioning that Granger Street was only on the west side.
Arnie -It certainly is a more moderate proposal than the last
one you proposed.
Buck -I' ll tell you the way that I look at it, if your satisfied
with what the community is today, then I' d think you' d be
satisfied with the new proposal. We' re not dominating anything,
and we want to preserve what we do have, I feel that way, and I don' t think it' s going to hurt anybody.
JoAnn Morey -It seems to me that in some areas that extending we are to are compatible to what we already have. We did a review of the applications that had come before the Development Commission for the last ten years, and the majority percentage
of them (largest percentage) was passed without any problems
whats- oe-ver. There were only a very few that created any problems. We' re not disapproving applications because of paint
or things like that. I don' t mind anybody telling me what I need to do with my house, because I want somebody to tell my neighbor that he can' t satellite dish in the front yard or something like that.
Arnie -Was Granger Street the only street where it was on one side of the street but not on the other. I remember we talked a lot about that.
Buck -That' s the only one that I know of.
Arnie -I think one thing that all of the members of Council at the time were unanimous thought was that certainly abnormalities like that need to be corrected and resolved. Was any of us smart enough to bring the minutes of the last bid meeting on this matter? I do remember that there was unanimous opposition to the extension of the arteries of the Village and that further extension. Are the boundaries of this area the same as the pthreevisouubsurbparnoposal with the exception of the legs reaching out in areas.
l
Shapiro -NoW..he.n we were here before there were three distinct
parts. One is the one we are now talking about. The core area.
There was also a proposal at that time to extend then out
Broadway down south, west in all directions, not just the access
roads but actually the residential areas themselves. Then the
third proposal was all of the access of routes, on the basis
that if the core was important then coming in and out the core
was important. If you recall that the we had a worksession with
Council and discussed those proposals and Council asked us then
to have a joint public hearing, which some of you attended. We
had a public hearing and based on what we heard at that public
hearing, then we have been working on it and have come up with a
proposal to merely extend into the core of the Village which is
the area outlined, which Buck has indicated. Basically at our
last meeting we asked Mary Ann to indicate that to you and ask
that a meeting. We received word that you wanted to discuss it.
Arnie -I think that of the members of Council who were involved
in the exercise of the last time, myself and Sam and Al were the
only ones here. Seems to me, my recollection is that this
proposal is pretty closely in line with what we asked the
Development Commission to go back and do.
Buck Sargent -One other thing is this section that' s down in
here (pointing to the map), you know we asked for this at time,
and one of the sections which needs to be cleaned up. We feel
this will be in the Suburban Business District and therefore
that will take care of that. The Architectural Review in the
Village doesn' t necessary have to be there.
Arnie -Okay, I' ve been doing all the talking can I get something from other members of the Council.
Art Morrow -Since I' m new, what happened in the Village that
gave rise to the perceived need to expand the Architectural Review borders?
Buck -Would you like to be living on one side of the street and beT-old what you could do, and your neighbor across the street from you can do as he d please? That was the first thing...
Art Morrow -Your obviously talking about Mrs. Baker house.
Buck -That' s exactly right. All the way down Granger Street on the east side of the street. That was what prompted this, the first thing.
Art Morrow -I guess that argument would hold on this too. There' s no stopping until you get to the village boundaries.
Buck -That' s exactly true. That was the Village boundaries at one time.
1
Shapiro -I think the basis of that Art was that if there was a
reason for Architectural Review because of neighborhoods or
blocks were harmonious and compatible architecturally, then it
would make sense that both sides of the street should be compatible.
The house on Granger I think was (at least that started
the most complaints about why is that being aloud on that side
of the street when it' s in our neighborhood). You might say that
there is no stopping, but if you take the boundaries that we' re
suggesting, basically beyond those boundaries the character of
the Village changes for the most part. The homes become different
or there are no homes beyond certain parts. Cedar for instance
the homes do change just beyond Cedar to the east there is
nothing except the golf course and Mt. Parnassus which sits
separately.
Art Morrow -Let me ask about Cedar. Are you going on the north
side of the lots on Cedar Street or are you going right down the
middle of it?
Shapiro -It would be as if there was an alley behind the houses
on the north. So the houses face Cedar on both sides would be
included. So that we don' t have the same situation of one side
of the street is in and one side is out.
Buck -The character of the homes..interruption....
Shapiro -The back of the lot line. The same thing to the south beyond Maple, there really is nothing except the service area.
Buck -There' s one house down there, on Munson.
Shapiro -There' s always exceptions..
Shepardson and Thresher the character
taking that older part that has been t
because the character of the neighborh
At least that' s what the attempt is.
Then to the west beyond
changes. So we' re really
here, in a sense it stops
ood stops at that point.
Sam Schnaidt -Your not taking up Cedar Lane then is that correct?
Shapiro -NO
Sam It gets real technical. There anything. is no real stopping point to You can argue any of it. When you take my Mother' s house and what I call Abbie Flacks house, those go back the same distance as the houses do on Cedar Lane. Cedar Lane houses were cut out of the old Flack farm as were two newer houses on the end of Cedar Street. The Rob house and the Cook house.
JoAnn Morey -We don' t have problem to extending.
sStaa-m -No, but as I say there' s no.yo.u.k.nowa.n.y where you do rt or stop it gets difficult. If somebody said you were
talking about the line, the old corporation limits of 1951 or
some such date as that, its what you' re going to and of course
if your going to that then your back to the one side of Cedar
Street deal again.
Shapiro -The area you' ve pointed out if the most difficult.
Buck -I think the main thing is that we looked at was the
character of the homes in this section and the character of the
homes outside of the section.
JoAnn -Do you feel we' re too restrictive. Do you have a problem
with that?
Art Morrow -I have two things that are running through my mind.
1) Councilmembers have to consider whether this is something
that the Village residents want.
JoAnn -May I answer that?We had a public hearing and with the
exception of Mr. Attebery, and we were talking about the artery
then going south on Main Street. Did we have anyone?
Buck -We had one other man.
JoAnn -Oh yes he lived on Pearl Street. Outside those two
people, the people who came to the meeting, all spoke in favor
of what we were doing.
Doug Plunkett -I disagree with that. I was there too. I don' t
remember the names. But Mr. Hollingsworth was one. I distinctly
remember several people who were opposed to the extension of the Architectural Review.
Art Morrow -May experience in government is that most people
won' t participate until it affects them. If they with come before you an application, then all of a sudden they realize that it affects them. So I don' t think that at a public hearing (even though I think it' s good, you don' t want to do something like that without a public hearing)r,ating of the citizens of the village.
The other thing is that when I hear you say if you like what the community is today then you would be for Architectural Review. Isn' t the community what it is today basically without Architectural Review. Architectural Review is relatively new. Twelve years old. I think we are fortunate to live in a town where people really take pride in their property. They recognize that it increases the value of their property.
So I' m wondering what is the real cause here "the way Granville is today"?
Al Davison -The problem with that argument is that all communi- ties are changing, even Granville, and I think we have to prepare for these changes whether we like it or not. I think the nature of the community is true that we are very fortunate of
the fact that people more or less have upheld a certain standard.
There has been instances that where this has not been happening.
This could happen and the question is do we create guidelines
that everybody has to follow or not? That is the question. I
think if we sit back and do nothing, then I think we will suffer
the consequences down the road.
Art Morrow -Are you talking about things happening in the old
Village area or things that may happen further out?
Al Davison -The old Village area, basically the new expanded
area, maintain the historical area. I think with a few exceptions
were still talking about that obviously.
Buck -I think one of the biggest objection that night that I
66-GId gather from that we was changing our Zoning Ordinance. You
know we have small lots in town in this section, and you can
still build on this small lot. Regardless of what side yard, back
yard and so on the Zoning Ordinance says you have to have. But
this Grandfather clause is in there that you can still build.
This is one of the things that I think that a lot of the people
that night thought we would change the Zoning Ordinance. We
tried to explain it to them if you remember. That there is no
changes in any ordinance other than that you be under Architectural
Review.
JoAnn -I think that once that was clearly explained the majority
of those people were satisfied.
Buck - FEEr Well I think so, but that' s my own person opinion. I' m in of it, I' m not one that' s opposed to it.
Sam Schnaidt -I think another problem that we' ve got to address,
and if I remember, it occurred to me, we all tend to hear things
at a meeting that we want to hear and kind of ignore the rest. Or at least I think most of us are guilty of that. But the thing that I seem to notice over the past ten years or more that I' ve been on Council is the restrictiveness of probably interpretation in Architectural Review. I don' t know how certainly how you can write these things so that there is less problems, but it seems like when your not so restrictive in how you review the request or how you perceive them, in other words what' s good for the community and what isn' t, but is where the difference comes. For example: this is probably a very minute example, I don' t think five years ago, if somebody wanted to hand a little thing on the bottom of a sign like Dick Pinkerton wanted to do, that that would have flown right by. I think this is what part of my problem is in this interpretation and as the interpretation gets stricter 'by the Development Commission and it is composed of people that are human beings and there is a certain amount of interpretation there that you start hearing more criticism. I' s like to see an ordinance drafted or changed so that it was less subjective, and I believe Dave price spoke a lot to that issue that night that he was questioning and Dave calls me after the
meeting and he was talking about you can' t make these things so
subjective or so much interpretation. I don' t know how you are
going to get around it, I don' t have a solution, I just think
it' s another part of the problem that we have.
Arnie -I think we got to the nub of the real problem in that
sort of thing Sam. There' s a catch twenty-two there. If you make
it restrictive enough so that there' s no question about issues,
and it' s real easy to make decision, and yet that sort of thing
is not going to work unless the Board has a certain amount of
discretion, and yet if you make it broad enough to give them
sufficient discretionary powers, what flies and what doesn' t fly
depends on who happens to be sitting on the Board that year ,
because it becomes an individual subjective judgement, and I
don' t know how you resolve that. Everybody that I' ve ever
discussed this has finally come up with that. You' re either
going to have a Board which serves as the inquisition or you' re
going to have a taste panel that you know depending on who' s
sitting there that month is going to oppose their idea of what
is right and what is good taste and what is not. So with all
questions and no solutions, I' ll go back to you now.
Shapiro -I think that Sam has brought up a good point. One of the things that we found, and Mark Zarbaugh did a real nice job
on a ten year analysis of the decisions of the Development
Commission, and one of the things we found that the denials that
came out of those over the last ten years, fell in primarily in
the category that you were just talking about that sign. And
when you say subjective, that is one that is not subjective.
That' s one that we have no discretion at all. It was a zoning
ordinance passed by Council that says you may not have that kind
of sign. So when somebody applies for that all we can do is this is what the Zoning say Ordinance says. It isn' t a question of
whether we like your sign or whether we don' t like your sign, or whether it' s too bright or too orange. The Council has passed an ordinance that says you may not do that, so all we can say to you is, you can' t do it.
Arnie -I' m not sure I agree with that Harvey. If the only function the Development Commission is to simply say yes it is exactly according to the letter of the rule and the requirement, then what do we need with a Development Commission, we' ll simply refer every application straight to the Law Director and it will be yes, it will be no and it will be done. Probably you do have discretion, and I think there are times when common sense has to be employed.
Buck -I think we do that. I bend for business, to other members I say if you want business by G then lets have business. If
you don' t then say the h with it. But we do use our discretion
on some of these thingsan,d- we do bend.
JoAnn -When you make exceptions then you' ve got the problem of somebody else comes in and says well you let him do it.
Arnie -Council has to do that all the time. You don' t deal in
black and white.
Buck -
small.
Arnie
Buck -
You don' t dare to in this community. Because it' s too
No you can' t.
That' s the reason this committee is here. I think I' ve
been on longer than any of the members, and I think this committee
has bent a lot of times and I could give you several examples
and when we did bend, we' re sorry we did on some of them. It
came back to haunt us, and I think you can say the same thing on
the Council. It' s the truth, and Chris you know one in particular
on Elm Street that has come back to haunt us.
Arnie -Chris are you familiar with the latest proposal for the
expansion of the Architectural Review District?
Chris
Arnie
Yes.
Okay, that is very close to what we asked the Development
Commission to do and come back with it the next time, which
they' ve done.
Chris -I' m very much in favor of it, and I guess the way I look
at it in some respects is that 99%or 95%of when it comes
across the board I think generally just go as written. I think
what it' s really there for is to catch those few that come through that are really kind of off the wall and you know I think as a Commission we' ve kept it a pretty scope as to what is
permissable in keeping within good taste and so forth, so that people can express their own ideas. They are the property owners after all. I do think that it gives us some formal review to really catch those things. I think primarily what really comes into play is when we' re dealing with businesses in the Commercial
aspect of it, they try to get pushed through when they are not really in the best interest from an architectural standpoint, to this community. But most people that own property and own homes here are pretty responsible about it and want things to look nice and so forth.
Arnie -Do we really have a good handle on what the feeling is of the people in that area about whether they really do want to see that Architectural Review District expanded. A good bit of debate has been about what was said at the public hearing. Have we ever considered on a matter like this on either on this specific matter on another matter like this and actually putting it to the voters, or a proposition of?What would be the proper term. Referenduamnd .w..o.u.ld that not be appropriate if there is really a question in our minds as to what the feelings are of the body of residents in those areas?
Doug -You want to place something on the ballot maybe?
Arnie -yes, or if you all think it' s a cock-a-mania idea say so
right and I won' t look any further.
Chris -I think human nature tells you most people are not
looking for more work or more government imposed on their lives
or however you want to look at it. I would say if you brought a
group of people in that are not in the Architectural Review and
tried to sell them on being in the Architectural Review area as
I think we' ve found with our first public hearing, there was a
lot sentiments against it. It means more work for everybody, if
you got to come, you have to make drawings, you have to think
things out, etc.
Arnie -Is that necessarily bad?
Chris -No I don' t think it' s bad, but I think property owners
look at it is, just one more think I' ve got to do when I want to
put a fence up. Why do I want to do that?
Harvey -I think if you ask the property owners, should my
property be in Architectural Review I might say no. But should
all of my neighbor' s property be in I would say yes.
Chris -And that' s the way people are. They' ll come in and why didn' say t you do something. Once something atrocious goes up then they' re back on us. Then they say why didn' t you stop that
how could you let them build a house like that or put a fence up that looks like that. But they don' t want that same restrictions.
JoAnn -Good for you but not them.
Chris -That' s human nature, and I' d be willing to bet you if
you put it on the ballot it would pass for sure. Not a true test.
Shapiro -Why is it the true test here when other things have
come before Council, that' s not a true test. When Council passes ordinances that affect all the citizens of the village on a regular basis. We discussed' this at our last worksession, and
you recall you passed something, had everybody been notified. We' ll there had been a notice in the paper. But a hearing we then list as Architectural Review, and went through the extra- ordinary step of actually sending mail notices to every property owner who would be effected by this and asking them specifically and inviting them to come to this meeting to discuss it. And that was an expense and really a lot of work basically for Mark in having to research where all of these people were. If Council wants to accept this proposal they would have to have a public hearing on it also, I thinkT.he.n..again have an opportunity hear to people who would be for or opposed to the expansion.
Arnie -Too bad when you did that mailing you didn' t propose that they write down their feelings.
I
Art Morrow -I don' t think people really understand what Architectural
Review is, unless they' ve been through it. I think we
would have to educate the whole Village on that if wanted a true
feedback. I guess I have a problem of additional restrictions on
the issue of property owners and I want to make sure that there
is a sound reason before we tell somebody there' s going to be
some restrictions. They already have restrictions in the form of
our zoning ordinance. Now we' re adding more and more on top of
it. We should think it through.
Sam -The thing that I think about and I think its alright to
talk about specifics. The Baker house that prompted this whole
thing certainly is not my taste in architecture. Most of you
know pretty much about what my taste is. But I also look back
over the years that I' ve lived in the community and remember
such places as the Geech house where Andy and Beth Sterrett live
on Pearl Street, when that house built I think the whole town
was in an uproar, that it was so horrible looking and now I
don' t think anybody objects to that house and when its been up
for sale it certainly hasn' t been a problem to sell. I don' t
think it has affected anybodies property values around it
adversely. The houses that were built out Pearl Street, the
Livingston house just this side of Carl Frazier' s, everybody
thought that was terrible. The houses at the time that are
though outrageous, they don' t fit in, they' re not in keeping
actually get settled in get some shrubbery around them, landscaping
and what have you, they don' t hurt anything, they kind
of lend atmosphere. The house down on Granger Street, near the
north end next to Blair' s house (the Mahard house), certainly
when that house was built it was not properly thought of being in good architecture as keeping and so on, but now after the
Blair' s painted that house a couple three years ago and they did
some kind of pink and grey and it, I really think that house
looks neat. That' s an example of a 1950' s house. Not every house in our town is and 18001-820 house. There is a blend and that' s part of what makes the character of the town as well. Not
everybody wants and 1820 colonial and not everybody wants and 1890 victorian, not everybody wants 1940' s cape cod. But they kind of look neat together and it is a blend, and yet how when
you' re sitting there judging, how could you if you have architec- tural review, on what good grounds would you have turned down Mrs. Baker' s house for example? If I loved modern architecture, and that' s what that is, and I wanted to build that house. On what grounds would you have turned me down?
JoAnn
Sam -
UP.
Chris
We probably wouldn' t have made that judgement.
Wait a minute this is the house that stirred everything
I think there was changes that might have been made.
0Ann -It would have given the neighbors who became aware that
J
1
that there was a house like this being built to come in and
express themselves. I think that' s one major reason. That is
what really brought it up, was the fact the neighbors on that
side of the street. There they were very unhappy with what was
going on, that they had no place to come to, to express themselves.
I dod' t think its what we really like the house or
didn' t like the house.
Buck -Same way with the house across from your mom (Sam)In.
architectural review and if that had been zoning restrictions
they couldn' t have built it, because they' re setting out too far
in front of Chris' s house and everybody else' s. Now that' s not
architecture it' s your zoning ordinance.
Sam -But it had to comply with the zoning ordinance.
Buck -You have your front yard setback line.
Chris -Architectural Review would have given you that play in
there. When you have your meetings of the fine line of the law
because of the surroundings this house would look better if it
were more in line with the other homes.
Shapiro -In those instances where there is a specific prohibition
such as in sign ordinances, we only have so many powers.
There' s so many things that we can review. Somebody comes before
us for a variance, do we say well, it looks okay to us, we say
no we' re not the right place to come. That' s not one of the
things we can do, and that was my point. There' s some things
that are specifically prohibited, that we can' t deal with. But
the things that we can deal with I think probably Chris has hit,
a lot of it is just compromise. But the compromise comes with
the property owner or the applicant recognizing that there is a review. I think the reason that so many things go through is that they look around and see what' s there, they look around the
homes across there and on each side. What is compatible. But when there' s objections from the neighbors, usually the applicants
willing to say well what can I do to keep harmony with my neighbors both emotionally as well as architecturally. A lot of people at the Development Commission meeting make changes and
say well if that seems okay with you and your neighbors then
I' ll do it this way and it' s okay with me. And the Commission
says fine, it looks okay to us too. If anybody has been to these meetings I think that' s what mostly happens. Discussing and reviewing and coming to some agreement and what' s going to be compatible in the neighborhood.
Chris -I' d say that a majority of cases where either the application is approved as written and when it' s not there is a compromise without really any bitterness or they can see that side of it and they' re willing to do that. Then there are a few there that we get into a real battle with. Those people usually get into battles with about everybody. You can usually pick those people out. It' s not an adversarial type thing we just say hey
well don' t you think this would look better, or how about this.
The neighbors are worried about what possibly this is going to
look from their viewpoint, or what could you change about it. It
all seems to work out.
Buck -I' ll tell you one thing being on this Board and adding
ETITs Architectural Review District larger, I don' t think any one
of us including Mary Ann is looking for more work, because we
have such a high salary as it is, but we' re looking for the
betterment of our community and that' s what we' re doing it for,
and that' s what we' re asking for.
Arnie -To Mary Ann Malcuit -Which half of you is the Development
Commission and which half of you is Council.
Mary Ann -I don' t know tonight Council, tomorrow night Development
Commission.
Buck -That' s the way I look at it.
Arnie -Alright does anybody else have anything they would like
to add? Obviously we' re not going to come to any decisions here
tonight, it' s going to have to be discussed once again in full
Council and a decision made. I think we need a public hearing if
the decision is made to expand the district. I don' t think we
require a public hearing, or perhaps we might decide that we
want to hold a public hearing just to get public sentiment.
That' s probably the more likely outcome.
Sam -Can we hold a public hearing on an issue without an
Ordinance before us?Answer: yes
Okay you can bring it up and discuss it.
Chris -The thing I see is about two issues that came up at that
public hearing, they keep getting intermingled, and I think loose site of what we we' re after. On one side we seem to be do we want Architectural Review or don' t we? Then on the other side do
we want to expand Architectural Review or don' t we? I think we need to get those issues, separated and have firm in our minds do we want it or don' t we. If we do, and we think it works and its worthwhile having and we' re committed to that then I think the other one almost answers itself. I' ll tell you right now if
oyouutsihdaeve ththaet public hearing and the people in the residence from area, well gee what' s this mean, I don' t think I want it, seems to be working alright without in the years past
and so forth then we get back to the same old debate whether we want it or don' t we? That seems to be the biggest question I hear just walking in here is that some people in here are not firmly (I' m getting the impression)a,re not convinced Architec- tural Review is worthwhile having, maybe I' m reading you wrong, but if that' s an issue we ought to deal with that first, then deal with the expansion.
Arnie -I don' t think I' ve heard that, I' ve heard them making
Chris -On what grounds? If you believe that Architectural
Review is valid in where it is now, if its good on one side of
the street why isn' t it good on the other side? Why doesn' t it
make sense, if it makes sense where it is now.
Arnie -
problem
I' m personally not opposed to Architectural Review. My
is administering it.
Sam -I' m not opposed to Architectural Review in black &white
EUE I' m opposed to things that are so subjective that they can' t
be enforced. The time I' ve been on Council I' ve seen a lot of
issues that come back we get sued, or a person gets an attorney
to represent them, their rights are being interfered with and
I' m not in favor of expanding something or voting for something
that it' s so subjective that it can' t be well enforced. I' d like
to see something more well defined. I don' t know the answer how
to do it.
Chris -I have been on six years that I' ve been here and when
the Architectural Review was where it is now, nobody to my
knowledge on this Council has ever discussed what you just said
and there' s questions about that. About the Architectural Review
and being subjective.
Arnie -I' ve heard that discussion, previously proposals.
Chris -But before we talked about expansion. It' s as if this is a whole new issue. I think the record stands on itself. been doing We' ve it for ten years, then all of a sudden its a new idea.
Shapiro -Maybe the Development Commission could be guided if we knew what prior to the discussion of the proposal what were the
complaints, I' m not aware of those. Prior to the discussion of expansion. Does anyone know specifics?
Arnie -Sounds like a major research job.
Shapiro -The suggestion that there has been lots of conflict and law suits and objections to Architectural Review prior to roughly 6-8 months ago, and I hadn' t heard about that, perhaps it would be informative to us if we knew what those were or when they came about.
Arnie -He does not recall any great debate or raising of: so the questions of difficulty of Architectural Review over the years.
Shapiro -In turn I can make the statement I don' t think there have been, I think it' s worked really well, and that' s why we haven' t heard anything really one way or the other because its worked well. It' s hard to know what comes first, the chicken or
some who take issue with further expansion of that sort of
control.
egg, as Art is saying. As somebody that has had to appear before
Architectural Review, I know that I gaged my projects in order
to go to Architectural Review and I think too its not something
that you need to our area, Architectural Review is in place in
other communities are in other parts of communities and in
recent years has been put into place, because apparently there' s
value for it, and the value is that it protects neighborhoods.
Maybe realtors are more worried when people come to look at
places here a lot of things they' re intrigued with that my
investment in this community will be protected.
Arnie -Everything that you' ve have just said leads to somewhat a
feeling of if it ain' t broke don' t fix it, you know?
Shapiro -We' re talking about the concept. The concept of
Architectural Review. But I hear the attempt or at least some
discussion we ought to fix boundaries so they are consistent.
Al Davison -Only one case that was over-rode by Council. Don' t
sense Council was ever opposed to what the Development Commission
was doing.
Shapiro -The concept isn' t broke but seems to be broke and I
think what' s brought this up, that the boundaries are inequitable.
That' s the break, that is what needs to be fixed and
that' s our proposal is fix the boundaries so that neighborhoods
are consistent and are included.
Arnie -Alright, be assured that we will give this serious
consideration. Thank you.
Now we need to move on to some other matters. Things that I had listed here were, and we started to talk about some of them think that I the matter of the pinkerton Sign, decision by your Commission and the appeal to Council and your attitude toward
that, and the Forsythe room addition permit, the controversy
that seems to have developed over that are symptomatic of some differences of opinion between how the Development should
function and what its responsibilities are. I think we need to discuss that general area and think those are good examples to
use. And the other thing I have on my list is the actions of
some members of the Development Commission having to do with our recent appointments to the Commission and the things that were said or done to oppose and attempt to overturn that decision. I think that' s something we have to get out in the air and discuss openly. I know that a number of members of, Council have been pretty upset abgut that entire situation. Do you have anything dthisactuysosu?would like to add to that short list that we can
JoAnn -Well, I' ll be the first. Because I think maybe you' re speaking to something that I did. When we went to the meeting that night and realized that the School Board' s appointee was not going to be able to attend our meetings regularly I was
1
concerned about that. I think it' s very important that whoever
sits on this Board be available to meet regularly in order to
carry his share of the work load. If you think I was wrong. I
did call Bob and ask him if in fact that *as the situation that
he was not going to be able to attend the meetings regularly and
he said he couldn' t. If that was wrong on my part, I guilty.
Shapiro -I think the discussion that came up at the Development
Commission was what JoAnn said. I think we conveyed that to Mary
Ann that she take that to Council that our concern was that we
would loose our continuity from week to week. Not only do we
meet in regular session, but then we have worksessions because
there are things that we are trying to do and a lot of these
things are carried over from meeting to meeting. Forsythe, which
we' ll discuss after this, is a good example. Where somebody has
asked to complete the information where they' ve left something
out or their application is there but thef' re not there to
answer questions. Our concern was that if, and this is not a
reflection of Bob but if you' re only there at every other
meeting you just don' t know what' s going on. So we asked Mary
Ann to convey that back to Council. JoAnn was to talk to Bob,
and I called Terry White as a School Board representative to
express our concern about that also. To let him know that that
was our concern. I don' t know if there was any other action, but
that' s what I' m aware of.
Arnie -The other action was that part of both JoAnn' s discussion
with Bob taking him rather unawares and your conversation with
Terry White. I had a subsequent conversation with Terry and
suggested that the School Board withdrawn its appointment of Bob
and reappoint Bill Wernet to the Development Commission in his
place. I personally feel that both of those actions Mere inappropriate.
Bob Erhard was appointed to the Development Commission
because it was the will of Council and the decision of Council
that he be appointed to the Development Commission. It seems to
me that this question of his inability to attend the meetings related is only to the intransigents of the rest of the Development
Commission in reaching an accommodation on meeting night. Now
we' re all busy people, everybody here on Council is a busy
person and we all have to find accommodations so that we can find nights when we all can do the things we have to do. Sam &I wanted very badly this month to attend a couple of seminars which Judge Frost is holding in Newark on Operation of Mayor' s Court, its very important to me and Sam has been standing in and standing by and observing so that he can stand in for me if I cannot hold Mayor' s Court. We brought that issue to Council and we managed to find alternative meeting dates for Council meetings in March. I think this happens all the time and I feel as though your unwillingness to even consider changing your meeting night on being used by you to as a lever to force the issue. I can tell you as far as I' m concerned Bill Wernet was not reappointed, as Bob Erhard was appointed to the Development Commission, as Al Davison was appointed to Development Commission Bill Wernet was not reappointed to the Development Commission because that
was the decision and the will of Council, and that is the way
it' s going to stand as far as I' m concerned. I' d like to hear
other Council members on that issue.
Buck -Being a member of the Development Commission, it was just
I-Ike kicking the rug out from under your feet, when your Chairman
is not reappointed. The reason that I understand is that we
couldn' t have three attorneys. Diversity, different opinions,
and that was the main reason. Well Bill Wernet is as far as I' m
concerned has been the best Chairman that we' ve had, he studied
it more than any other Chairman that we' ve had. I' m not objecting
to Al Davison because I know Al Davison will be a good member,
I' m not objecting to Bob Erhard either. If you all put Bill
Wernet back on I' 11 resign, because I think he would be a h
of a good member, and he has been a good member. Regardless of
whether the feeling that I had, I didn' t have any objection of
Bob nor Al, but it did surprise us when we got our note that he
was not going to be reappointed. That' s my personal feeling.
Arnie -I think that before we took that action, I think we
tried to be very sensitive to Bill Wernet' s feelings and make
sure that he was properly notified and made aware of all of our
thinking and the reasons and heard that we greatly appreciated
the services he had given. I think perhaps we should have also
taken the step to personally notify the others members of the
Development Commission and I apologize for that. That was an
oversight on certainly on my part, I' ll take the blame for that.
Another matter came up.
Art Morrow -I think its the first time the School Board member
has been a resident of the Village. I think we' ve been blessed
with five township people up until Bob' s appointment. It opportunity to have was an a School Board representative that actually
was a resident of the Village. Second thing is that Arnie
mentioned and I don' t think nobody spoke to it was the possibility
of changing the first meeting in the month from Thursday to Tuesdays. The School Board meets the second Thursday of every month. Is that a possibility?
Shapiro -We did discuss that, it was brought up. First of all it was not a personality issue, I want to make that clear and second of all we discussed the possibility could we change and Thursday night in terms of the Development Commission was the only night that collectively this Board felt it could meet. So that would be the answer.
Arnie -I find that rather hard to accept with all the permuta- ctioomnbsi,naftiiorsnst and third, second and fourth nights of the week there are, I just find that hard to accept, I really do.
Everyone said they would discuss it tomorrow night.
JoAnn -I remember the when the School Board met on Monday
night, which wouldn' t be a problem for him to come to our
meeting then. Is there any reason the School Board couldn' t
discuss about changing their meeting night?
Art Morrow -I don' t think that' s in good taste JoAnn. I threw
it over to you to see whether you would be willing to change one
of those nights. Are you that busy that this is out of the
question to move to the second Tuesday or the second Thursday of
the month?
JoAnn -Well one night a month on Tuesday (I can' t tell you what
night),is the Realtors professional meeting.
Buck -I don' t care which night of the week it is it' s going to
con-flict with one of the six of us. So its just going to have to
be ironed out so that we can do it. I think it can be solved.
I' m not say it' s going to be solved but I think it can be solved.
Arnie -I have never personally been involved in one of situations
where is the desire to resolve it can. I really think you
can do that.
Can we expect that you will make an honest attempt to do
that? Response -yes
Arnie -That' s all we can ask in that regard. Now why don' t we
move on to the question of the Pinkerton sign. In questions like
that you do have discretion vary from the letter of the requirements.
If your best instincts and common sense tells you that
that' s the thing to do, that' s what you should do. I think the
other your disagreement that Dick has the right to appeal that
decision directly to Council. I personally agree with Doug that
that' s where Council does have the right to hear a appeal decision of either the a Development Commission or the Board of Zoning &Building Appeals.
Shapiro -The application was for a temporary sign for an enlargement of a non-conforming use. The decision of the Development
Commission with regard to this is that temporary signs are specifically prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. In the past prior two months in the same building denied a sign application for one of the tenants who wanted to throw a banner outside the window everyday and denied that on the basis that banners are specifically prohibited under the Zoning Ordinance. One of the things we' re trying to do is to have some consistency with our discretion. The other thing is that in this instanc*there were two parts of this application that will specifically prohibited. One that you can' t enlarge a nonc-onforming use and two that temporary signs are prohibited. So the decision of the Develop- ment Commission was, we don' t have the ability to grant that sign application. I think that' s basically what the denial was all about. The second part of your concern is whether or not its appealable to Council, we then received a communication in our packet I believe that Dick pinkerton was advised to appeal that
decision to Council and the comment was made, and I suggested
that based on our denial, the appeal section that was referred
to says that you can appeal a denial of a conditional use to
Council, and since the application was not a conditional use
application, it had nothing to do with a Conditional Use, it
seemed to me that it was inappropriate based on that, and
suggested that was not the proper procedure. The only thing was
that there was some discussion that maybe he hadn' t read the
zoning ordinance. I think what we' re trying to say to people if
your going to deal with the application on the zoning ordinance,
read it so you can understand where your rights and obligations
are so that you don' t have to keep going round and round from
place to place. That was my thinking on that.
Doug -The sign permit application that came in did call it a
temporary sign, which in my opinion is a misnomer, but in
dealing with the public we generally try, or at least I always
do to correct and oversight. What this was to be, was a hanger
to be added to an existing sign which is a non-conforming use but is permitted as such because it' s been there a lot time
before the Zoning Ordinance. It is not a Conditional Use, but it
is as you say a non-conforming use that particular sign. What he
was asking for was an expansion of a non-conforming use. And in
the non-conforming use section of the codified zoning ordinance,
section 1149. 03 (c) Appeals -Whoever is aggrieved or affected by
a decision of the Commission involving an application for a
non-conforming use shall have the right to appeal to Council. To
me that was fairly clear, that was the way I instructed Mr. Pinkerton.
Shapiro -I don' t know whether you' re concerned that the basis
of our denial or that we discussed his appeals. Which part?
Chris -What' s the issue?
Art -The issue is that there Eventually was some confusion, how things came out, I think the original minutes say you denied. I think you made the motion to deny and I think it was unanimous. I think at the next hearing, Penny suggested that he seek a variance of the Board of Zoning &Building Appeals. Looks like he got the direction to go two different ways here, maybe
all we' re doing here is arguing about a procedural matter. Dick has filed an appeal to Council, the Council will hear it whether he gets an approval, that' s not even an issue. The issue here is that he got two different directions, he didn' t know which way to go.
Shapiro -There' s two things that that brings up. One is that when you read our minutes it seems like the same people make the motions over and over again. There is so few of us, that we sort of take turns in making the motions. The other thing is I revoke any making that suggestion for a variance, we were attempting to compromise. The idea was once we had made the denial, what came up was should Mark go and tell the man to take down his sign.
The we said how can we let him keep his sign until he can figure
how to do it. So the suggestion was well if he would file an
appeal, until he finishes that he would have a sign until there
is an ultimate decision, because we didn' t feel we were the
ultimate deciders on that matter, and he could have filed that
appeal. I assume he still has his sign up and he' s filed his
appeal.
Buck -We interpreted that it had to go to the Board of Zoning &
Su-Irding Appeals, not go before the Council. That' s the way we interpreted, whether we were right or wrong doesn' t make a
difference, just so he can appeal.
JoAnn
Arnie
He has thirty days to take some kind of action.
We have two other appeals next Tuesday, the other is Ms.
Brockman' s appeal to the Board of Zoning &Building Appeals on
Bernard Williams appeal to a Development Commission decision.
Buck -I' m going to be true full, I didn' t give a d about that,
Ffe-lt right along that we were asking too much for him curb clear to put a up through there, I think if it had been on the lower
part well and good and for us to tell him where to put this
dumpster and what to do with it was out of line, because if we
did, then its time that you look around the Village and clean up the rest of them. That' s exactly the way I felt about it, and
I' m d glad they give him everything.
Arnie -We' re still going to have to consider that and all the
facts and come to a decision but I think that what a lot of us would like to see is a lot more of that type of thinking and
action when its appropriate. There are times when if it seems like the right thing to do and common sense tells you that thats the right thing to do and where it' s not going to harm anybody do it.
Buck -I don' t think it was this Board that done this.
JoAnn -Obviously there' s an example of where you do have a neighbor who thinks that that' s the problem.
Shapiro Which is the incident with the Forsythe question.
Arnie -Alright lets move to that. You threw it to Ann for a decision and Ann' s decision was that the Development Commission does have the discretion.
Shapiro -Forsythe' s came with an application to add onto the back of their home on the southwest part. Both the side lot requirements and the rear lot requirements under the new codified zoning ordinance passed by Council they didn' t have ten feet either direction. We felt that this would really impact upon those two neighbors and asked that those two neighbors be specifically notified that there was a meeting with this application
review, so they have some input on that. If somebodies
building real close to you, you should have an opportunity to
speak.
Sam -I thought if anything came before the Development Commiss-
Ion they were notified.
Buck -Not if it is in compliance.
Shapiro -In any case the Fellabaums did appear and violently
objected to this structure being put there. One because they
would look right at it within six feet of it, their bay window
would look into the back of this building. They had lots of
objections. We discussed with the contractor if the addition
could be sidewards as a rectangle which would then comply with
the lot line requirements and also allow more light and fit into
the roof line, he didn' t feel he could swing that with the
Forsythe' s. The Fellabaums' continued to object and at that time
it was clearly prohibitive because of the lot line requirements
and because we had never had something like this come before us
really. We made the decision that we couldn' t approve. We
approved it Architecturally because it met all of the criteria
of compatibility: same siding, same roof line, same materials,
but we did not feel we could pass on the lot line requirements.
We also indicated to the Fellebaums if the Forsythes' then
proceeded to the Board of Zoning &Building Appeals to variance get a on their lot line they would have an opportunity with
any of the other neighbors that they were able to muster to
waive their objections at that point. They were satisfied at
that point that their was a procedure by which they could
continue their objections to it. But since it was the first time that it had come to us, we asked that our solicitor that she
give us some kind of guidance so that in the future if we had
these questions ten foot lot lines what could we do. So at the
next meeting we got Ann' s decision. I think basically that' s where it was. Somebody mentioned the Forsythe situation again
and it was our fear that we had arranged all these objecting
neighbors that they would have this opportunity to do object should it continue on to the BZBA' s. The Forsythes' understood
that that what' s the procedure would be so we let it lie.
Buck -There was a little more to it. The way that I gathered rETth-ere was a little personality concerned. When Fellebaums built their building they wanted to build it on the lot line and Mr. Forsythe objected. At that time they the zoning ordinance
was not in effect. So they could build on the lot line but Mr. Forsythe didn' t like that. So they graciously moved it over two feet. Now Mr. Forsythe he has six feet where his building is going to be so that' s eight feet in between. But they want him to move his in ten feet. So as far as I' m concerned there' s a lot of personality that' s concerned and it was very difficult at that time to say too much. Since Ann has made her decision, how I interpreted and its written in the zoning that we have the authority to set that lot line at a discretion that we feel is
1
safe. We can go back. I personally would not consider passing
that until we recall the neighbors in and let them sit in on the
meeting. As far as I' m concerned we have got to. But now since
Ann came back with this I feel that we have to do something.
Ann -We don' t want to exercise our discretion to grant you a
permit in this instance . We think that you need to go before the
BZBA and request a variance, so the neighbors can come in and
review it, you don' t have any mechanism of getting them in there
except very informal. I think that you can go either way.
The question addressed to me was, what does this mean. Well
you' ve got minimum lot line but you don' t if you choose not to
have one because the use as being proposed is a point of view.
But its discretionary.
Shapiro -We chose not to exercise discretion and to let it go on to the BZBA' s.
Buck you made the motion as a matter of fact to do that.
Arnie -Okay we' ve about covered those subjects. I hope you' re getting a sense, at least the way I feel and I think some other
Councilmembers feel we would just like to see you be a little
more flexible and use a little more of your discretionary powers.
Buck'- Well we' re not going to be too d lenient. We' re put on that Board, we' ve got a Zoning Ordinanceth-e same as you have
your rules and regulations of Council. I was on Council once, and if we' re going to be on this Board to exercise our beliefs
of what that zoning ordinance says, then I think that' s what
we' rd for. I don' t think we want to nit pick here and everything else' which we have done some.
Arnie -If common sense tells you and it feels right that' s the time to be a little flexible.
Did anybody else have any other matters that we need to discuss tonight. You are going to meet tomorrow night and resolve the meeting time competition?Ans: yes
Buck -Leaving jokes aside it doesn' t hurt for us to get together every so often.
Arnie, -The last time was when we talked about the expansion of the Architectural Review area. Absolutely without question we ought to do this at least twice a year. Good to be face to face and talk about things.
Too much communication between us goes around in circles cdoomesinng' t. come direct. That' s not always good. I thank you all for
Mr. Shapiro was asked to stay a minute or two. Everyone else left except Council.

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.