Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes JANUARY 8, 1992

JANUARY 8, 1992
Mayor Eisenberg called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m.
Responding to roll call were:
Councilmember Shulman
Councilmember Herman
Councilmember Garrett
Councilmember Vance
Councilmember Freytag
Vice Mayor
Law Director
Also Present: Eric Phillips, Granville Zoning Inspector
Ordinance No. 37-91, "Granting Director Of Transportation
Authority To Maintain State Highways, Apply Standard Longitudinal
Pavement Markings And Erect Regulatory And Warning Signs On State
Highways Inside Village Corporation.
Giving Consent Of The Village To The Plowing Of Snow And Use
Of Abrasive For Ice Control Under The Supervision Of The Director
Of Transportation, State Of Ohio."
No one appeared to speak for or against the ordinance. Public
hearing closed at 7: 35 p.m. Action on Ordinance No. 37-91 was
held for old business.
December 18. 1991 -Regular Council Meeting -Councilmember Vance
to approve the minutes as written. Motion seconded by Vice Mayor
Marshall. Motion carried.
Those who signed the register were:
Rose Wingert Herb Murphy, Jr.
Marge Hendy, member of the committee to promote curbside
recycling, urged Council to consider passage of Ordinance No. 32-
91. The curbside recycling committee wanted to encourage
recycling with maximum cooperation she explained, and that was
turned down. Ms. Hendy felt refuse haulers needed to be licensed
so the Village would know recycables were being picked up and
where the recyclables would be going.
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 2
Don Valdez, 15 Sunset Hill, pointed out to the new members of
Council that there was a misunderstanding and a mistake he
believed in the last discussion of the Curbside Recycling
Committee's proposal. Mr. Valdez said the Curbside Recycling
Committee was charged to find a way to encourage recycling within
the community. The various methods, including making it mandatory
that everyone had to recycle, to all others kinds of proposals.
What the Committee ended up with to encourage recycling as
charged was to find the lowest rate they could which meant going
to a single carrier. The people on the committee were not pushing
for a single carrier originally, but by means of encouraging
recycling, the lowest price possible was the encouragement rather
than a mandatory recycling procedure.
Planning Commission -Councilmember Shulman reported on the
meeting of January 9th. The Geraghty application was discussed
and the Planning Commission' s position stood.
Manager Plunkett stated that a recommendation was received
from the Planning Commission on the Erinwood proposal with regard
to making a change within Erinwood, and that Jack Harden was at
the meeting thinking their request was going to be discussed. Mr.
Plunkett asked if the Planning Commission and Council were going
to discuss and consider that recommendation, and possibly give
him a direction as to whether they wanted that recommendation put
into ordinance form for the next meeting.
Union Cemetery -Councilmember Freytag stated that he and Mark
Zarbaugh have a matter of immediate concern to report to Council:
the need for water on the cemetery premises to undertake the
restoration work planned for Old Colony Burial Grounds.
In 1991, $5,000 was appropriated to the Capital Improvements
Fund to extend the waterline into the cemetery. Mr. Freytag said
he met with Mark Zarbaugh, Service Director, and Joe Hickman,
Utilities Director to discuss getting bids on the waterline
extension. The lowest bid proposal was for $5,774, $774 over the
original appropriation, which included a $850 water tap fee.
Mr. Freytag said the Township Trustees wanted to inquire of
Council as to whether that tap fee could be waived because in a
sense it would be like the Village charging itself $850.
Manager Plunkett said the Village still owns Old Colony so
there' s no need to waive the tap fee, therefore, the bid would be
within the ballpark. Mr. Plunkett noted that since he last talked
with Mr. Freytag, he thought the work could be done for $3500,
and within the next couple of weeks.
Council Meeting Minutes
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 3
Mayor Eisenberg made the following Council Committee Assignments:
Mr. Eisenberg noted that in the past two years the committees
have not been active, other than a few Personnel Committee
meetings. He felt that members should try to get some activity in
the community which might possibly reduce the workload on Council
as a whole. He stated further than Council deals with a lot of
minutiae at meetings that could possibly be resolved in
committee, and would like members to find a way to do that this
year, and see if the committee system works, or if it needs to
work. If not, Council should find another way to deal with the
Those present representing the Granville Planning Commission and
Granville Township:
Planning Commission
Jurgen Pape
Buck Sargent
Larry Huey
Michael Snyder Lyn Robertson
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 4
Granville Township Zoning Commission
Wes Sargent Bob Rutherford
Zoning Ordinance Re- write Discussion
Mayor Eisenberg stated that there was a list of items which were
still in question, and recommended that some of those items get
Eric Phillips, Zoning Inspector reviewed a list of items he felt
were not resolved to date. [copy of that list is attached as part
of these minutes]
1) The Home Occupation Issue
Following a lengthy review and discussion, consensus of the
group after consideration of all the input from members of the
Planning Commission, Village Council, Manager Plunkett, Eric
Phillips, and Dave Klauder, was that home occupations be
conditional uses in all districts (Village Residential Districts,
Suburban Residential Districts, and Planned Unit Districts), with
certain exemptions.
2) To selectively zone for different kinds of business in the
Village Business District
Vice Mayor Marshall stated that this issue was discussed
extensively by the Planning Commission and was not addressed in
Mr. Mikulecky' s latest re-write. Members of the Planning
Commission felt the issue to be very important and wanted Mr.
Mikulecky' s opinion.
Herb Murphy added input on this issue: he remarked how Columbus
had a category of "L"before a particular zone such as LB or LR
which describes the zone as "limited to"business, residential whatever. Members or that were interested in Mr. Mikulecky' s opinion on approach as well.
Law Director Rufus Hurst said one could either specifically say X Y are allowed, and everything else is subject to review, or Council could expand the list into broader categories as Mr. Marshall did. He said however, they could still have a conditional use category where someone' s going to come along with something that fits, and that' s going to be their conditional uses. 1
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 5
Mr. Hurst said he would like very much to see what Columbus
has done with the ability to have general categories and all
specific uses limited. He thought that was probably the best
compromise between the two philosophical orientations to have
what is desired by both parties. He stated that he had not see
that legislation.
Mr. Murphy was not sure whether the L "limited"category,
was by legislation or practice.
Manager Plunkett said he would call Columbus and see what he
could find out about this practice.
Bob Rutherford, Granville Township Zoning Commission, noted that
they seem to have the same conversations that basically the
Village has when someone wants to rezone something to a
commercial classification or businessc/ommercial classification.
Their Commission would go through all of the permitted uses and
say even though John Doe wants to have a nice office building
there the Commission would need to look at that rezoning request
with all of the permitted uses. Mr. Rutherford felt the more
permitted uses one has the worse off they are, and the more
conditional uses one has the better off they are.
Mr. Rutherford continued and said that in the Townships
Zoning Ordinance rewrite, they' ll be going with a conditional
uses rather than permitted uses, and then, if there' s a question
about the conditional use they' ll have some kind of say. It will
require more hearings, but at least they' ll have some kind of say in the situation, and if the neighbors don' t like a gas station
but don't mind an office building, they' ll have that say too.
Councilmember Freytag was interested in knowing what the Township
thought of the Village' s zoning ordinance rewrite. He also
expressed an interest in some effort to coordinate the Township' s zoning ordinance re-write with the Villages.
Mr. Freytag suggested that discussions stop at this point and
hear input from the Township Zoning representatives so as not to
tie them up with specific Village items.
Manager Plunkett noted that Mr. Sargent gave him a copy of the
Township' s proposed changes for their proposed zoning ordinance
trweow-. rite and that members should have that in the next day or
Mr. Sargent said that the Township Zoning Commission haven' t seen anything as far as what the Village' s proposed changes were, except what they've read in the newspapers.
ordinaMnacneager Plunkett sid he sent a copy of the Village' s zoning rew-rite to Norman Kennedy before Christmas, but would get Mr. Sargent a copy.
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 6
Mr. Sargent said there was some common things he felt needed to
be talked about, and noted that the Village talks a lot about the
aquifer area because of their water supply.
He said when Jack Lucks was moving a lot of dirt out on the
old Quisenberry property the township heard a lot of comments
about that from the Village through the press. The Township has
done the following things: restricted what was done in that area,
and 2) the township put something in their ordinance re-write so
nobody could do what Mr. Luck did as far as go push dirt around
and nobody know what was going on. Mr. Sargent said he wasn't
down- casting Mr. Luck himself, but said that it was in the
aquifer area and consequently, the township was very concerned
about that primarily because the Village was concerned.
Mr. Sargent felt that the township and village needed to
work a little closer together than what they have in the past. In
the past, the Township and the Village have gone their separate
ways and he felt joint worksessions on issues of mutual interest
to both entities was important and should be encouraged. Mr.
Sargent thought perhaps the Village should be looking at some
things in zoning that the township does.
Mayor Eisenberg said perhaps the Village's newly appointed intergovernmental
relations committee could do something about
fostering more contact and cooperation in the coming year.
Planning Commission member Larry Huey noticed that the Township
was interested in mixed businessr/esidential zoning out at the
old Quisenberry property.
Mr. Sargent said the township still has some kind of
control, because the area was currently zoned as the Commercial
Classification. With no control out there as long as it fits a
permitted use within the classification, and they can put
residential units on commercial property.
Mr. Huey noted that this was not allowed in the Village.
Manager Plunkett noted that the Village's PUD gives the Planning
Commission and Council a great deal of latitude. PUD is generally
seen as Planned Residential District, PCD is Planned Commercial,
and PID Planned Industrial (which the Village has none).
Councilmember Garrett asked what the Township was doing about the
transportation corridor overlays on the south side of SR16, and
if they had restrictions.
Mr. Sargent said the Township has a transportation overlay
and restrictions were probably very similar to the Village' s. 1
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 7
Mr. Rutherford stated that all major roads in the township,
except the dead- end roads will require a 50 foot landscape bumper
Ms. Garrett had further questions with regard to the Village' s
transportation overlay, noting the 500 foot overlay on Newark-
Granville Road and an amount equal to that on SR16 which doesn' t
cover near as much territory beside the actual highway, and
thought it thin in contrast. She said while it might be totally
adequate for SR16, it was a little excessive in other places.
Mr. Pape said it was suggested that the Village have the same
formula for all the major approaches. The main concern was to
highlight the approaches coming into the Village and to keep some
of the rural character as one approaches the Village.
Councilmember Garrett also wanted to know why South Main Street
was not listed as one of the major approaches to the Village.
Response to Ms. Garrett was that it was pretty built up
which didn't leave much that could be altered.
Ms. Garrett felt that S. Main Street should be listed, since
it was one of the main entrances to the Village. Noting that West
Broadway was totally built up and it was listed. She said if the
policy is ever tested, the question will be, "why wasn' t South
Main Street listed when all other major entrances to the Village
Councilmember Freytag asked Mr. Sargent what the township was
doing about residential densities. Mr. Freytag recalled that the
township master plan had large tracts of five acre parcels, and
wanted to know if that was being retained.
Mr. Sargent responded and said the five acre parcels were in the
agricultural area. In the residential area their recommendation
to the Township Trustees was two acre parcels as opposed to three
In larger developments the lots are 1/2 acre lots minimum,
with central water and sewer, as compared to four or five lots
per acre which happens quite frequently in municipal areas.
Residential areas presently are 1. 6 acres per house in Rl.
Half the township is still agriculture and a fifth to a quarter
is Rl. Presently that would be 1.6 acres to a house, the township
is increasing that to 2 acres per house. Most of the houses built
in Granville Township over the last four or five years are on lots of two acres or more partly because of the County Health
Department with their requirements for septic tank sewage. The
township is going for 1 acre lots minimum for business (local
business, general business, PRO), manufacturing will be going to 3 acres, with 100 ft. setbacks in everything, 50%open spaces,
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 8
which means grass and trees (local, general, professional office
building (PRO), and manufacturing), to preserve green space.
Mayor Eisenberg thanked township representatives Wes Sargent and
Bob Rutherford for their input.
Village Council resumed with Eric Phillip' s list of items to be
resolved before final input could be provided to Mr. Mikulecky.
Two family dwelling units
Mr. Phillips said that it was suggested to make two- family
dwellings conditional uses in the Village Residential District,
which would require the hearing process. He said there had been a
lot of discussion about this issue but no decision one way or the
Following a lengthy discussion, consensus was to seek an
opinion from Mr. Mikulecky on the definition of a two-family
dwelling. Also, consensus was that the current definition for two
family dwelling units was felt to be inadequate and a better
definition should be sought from Mr. Mikulecky.
Ordinance No. 32-91, " An Ordinance To Amend Chapter 521 Of The
Code Of Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville By Adding Sections
521.11 Through 521.29, Relating To Licensing And Operations Of
Garbage, Refuse, And Recycling Materials Contractors Within The
Village And Establishing Penalties."
Motion to remove Ordinance No. 32-91 from the table was made
by Councilmember Garrett, and seconded by Councilmember Herman.
Discussion: members reviewed the latest modification of Ordinance
No. 32-91. Councilmember Garrett had questions on the insurance
portion of the ordinance (page 5).Councilmember Freytag's
concerns as to form was addressed to his satisfaction.
Councilmember Vance had several questions mainly with firms
serving less than 12 customers which the ordinance seems to have
exempted them from Articles 521.11 through 521.29. Mr. Vance' questions s lead to some extensive modification of the ordinance.
Re- writing of the ordinance to incorporate recommended
modifications was deferred to Mr. Hurst.
Motion to table Ordinance No. 32-91 was made by
Councilmember Vance, seconded by Councilmember Freytag. Motion 1 carried with the vote of six ayes and one nay.
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 9
Mayor Eisenberg asked members of Council to communicate with
each other on any other thoughts they might have on Ordinance No.
32-91 before the next meeting so that final action on the
ordinance could be accomplished.
Ordinance No. 37-91, " Granting Director Of Transportation
Authority To Maintain State Highways, Apply Standard Longitudinal
Pavement Markings And Erect Regulatory And Warning Signs On State
Highways Inside Village Corporation.
Giving Consent Of The Village To The Plowing Of Snow And Use
Of Abrasive For Ice Control Under The Supervision Of The Director
Of Transportation, State Of Ohio."
Councilmember Marshall moved for the adoption of Ordinance
No. 37-91. Motion seconded by Councilmember Freytag.
A lengthy discussion among members of Council and Manager
Plunkett was conducted on the ordinance proposed by the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT). Manager Plunkett stated that
ODOT didn' t have the answers to the questions raised by Mr.
Freytag, and recommended the ordinance be tabled indefinitely.
Vice Mayor Marshall asked if the ordinance would be brought
back in two weeks if the Village received satisfactory answers to
their questions. Manager Plunkett said he thought it would be
appropriate for Council to reschedule a public hearing on the
matter. He added, that the Village wasn' t the only ones to raise
some of the same questions. Roll call vote on the motion:
Marshalln-o, Freytagn-o, Garrettn-o, Hermann-o, Shulmann-o,
Vance- no, Eisenberg- no. Seven no votes. Motion defeated.
Ordinance No. 37-91 failed to pass.
Planning Commission member Larry Huey stated that there was some
confusion about what areas were to be designated as the Nature
Preserve Archeological Park). On the preliminary plat the area
designated as Nature Preserve was attached to a smaller lot just
north of that area on the preliminary plat and approved by the PC
originally and subsequently by Council.
The developer came back to the Planning Commission stating
that the lot to the north (indicated as lot C on attached
drawing), wasn' t intended to be part of the Nature Preserve
Archeological Park). They asked to have lot C separated from the Nature Preserve and remain a separate lot. The PC said before
they could consider the final plat, they would have to come to
Council to get the matter resolved as to whether or not lot C
should be split from the Nature Preserve as originally approved,
and what use was to be made of that lot. The developers asked the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to Council. The recommendation was made on a split vote that lot C be separated
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 10
from the Nature Preserve (archeological park), and attached to
the lot beside it (lot B as indicated on the attached drawing),
and a twenty (20) foot easement on lot C be granted to allow
access through to Trinity Court.
Mr. Pape stated that the whole intent was to have a
continuous green strip from the Nature Preserve through to
Trinity Court. He said the Planning Commission didn' t want to see
another house at that particular point (lot C) because it sits on
the ridge, which the master plan recommends not happening.
Mr. Huey said a vote was taken on that recommendation, the
minority vote was that lot C be allowed to stand as a separate
lot, buildable on, however, an access easement would still have
to be provided.
Manager Plunkett said the developer would prefer to have Lot
C split off as a separate lot.
Mr. Harden said the developers will give the easement if the
access is important, but would like to have lot A as a separate
lot. Mr. Harden added, that the lot next to the one discussed
lot B),is combined with another lot (lot A),and a house has
been built on those two lots. Mr. Harden as far as density goes
it really didn't make a lot of difference because the developer
up a lot they lost when a house was built on two lots.
Councilmember Garrett asked why the upper access was so
Responding, Mr. Pape said continued access was important,
and continuous green space was just as important as continued
roads. People would be able to walk through the neighborhoods and
then go on, otherwise it would become a dead space.
Mr. Harden again said the developer had no objections to
allowing the easement, that was not an issue.
Councilmember Garrett wanted to know who would maintain the
Mr. Huey explained to Ms. Garrett that having that easement
would allow the Village or whoever was going to be responsible
for the area the right to landscape, put a path or steps there or whatever.
Councilmember Freytag asked if the adjacent owner was
willing to pay market value for lot C, commenting that he read
somewhere that the owner was interest in buying the lot.
Mr. Harden said he probably wouldn' t be interest in paying
market value for the lot, and didn' t think he would buy the lot if it had to be tied to the two lots he has his house on. 1
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 11
Mayor Eisenberg said the proposal of the majority of the PC was
that the twenty foot (20) easement be in place and that the lot
be either attached to the adjacent lot or to remain as it is in
green space.
The minority position, and the position of the developer,
was that they would like a separate lot, they will grant the
easement, in addition, they covenant that a certain portion will
remain in green space.
Mr. Eisenberg said all Council has to do is discuss it and
give instruction to the Village Manager.
Law Director Hurst asked by what rationale can the developer say
to the owner of lots A& B that lot Cis now attached to your
property and you own it?
Mr. Harden responded to Mr. Hurst' s question and said the
only way the Planning Commission will change it, is if the owner
of lots A&B buys lot C and attach the lot to his other two lots.
Mr. Hurst didn' t think that could be done. Mr. Eisenberg
concurred, and felt that the restoration of lot C with the
easement should be allowed.
Councilmember Freytag expressed that the lot ought to remain
as green space and an area that one could walk through. He was
opposed to a house being constructed on the property (lot C),
which is on the ridge. Further, he didn't think there was a whole
lot of green space on that particular plat in general, and
another lot would be well advised.
Councilmember Garrett said any house that' s built on lot C
wouldn't be on the ridge like the existing house. She said the
land was not that high and most of the lot slopes down, part of
it rather steeply. She pointed out that if a house was built on
the lot it would not sit on the ridge like the existing house.
seconded by Councilmember Garrett. Roll call vote: Marshall- yes, Garrett- yes, Shulman- no, Vance- yes, Freytag- no, Herman- no,
Eisenbergy-es. Four yes votes and three no votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Eisenberg thanked everyone for being very patient, and
Council would see them Tuesday, January 14th, at 7:30 p.m.
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 12
Resolution No. 92-1, "A Resolution To Authorize The Village
Manager To Seek Proposals For A Comprehensive And Classification
Study," was introduced, read in its entirety, and moved for
passage by Vice Mayor Marshall. Motion seconded by Councilmember
Discussion: Vice Mayor Marshall suggested that an interim
report be submitted so that Council could review the report and
make any adjustments to the document prior to submittal of the
final report. Councilmember Vance wanted to go on record that he
would rather not spend the money or that the $15, 000 appropriated
for the study be given to the existing staff. Six yes votes, one
no. Motion carried. Resolution No. 92-1 duly passed.
Resolution No. 92-2, "To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter
Into A Contract For Criminal Prosecution Services With Hugh
Masterson,w"as introduced, read in its entirety, and moved for
passage by Councilmember Freytag. Motion seconded by
Councilmember Vance. Motion carried. Resolution No. 92-2 duly
Manager Plunkett informed Council that he would have a resolution
in their hands in two weeks authorizing him to seek bids for the
construction of the East Granville Water Main Extension.
Facilities Tour
Manager Plunkett asked members of Council what Saturday would be
convenient for everyone to tour the water and sewer facilities,
and the Village Hall (if they like).He said if Saturday wasn' t a
good day any other day would work.
Saturday, February 1, 1992, was finally selected as the date
for the annual tour of facilities.
Village Council/ Planning Commission Joint Meeting -Tuesday,
January 14, 1992, at 7: 30 p.m.
Planning Commission -Thursday, January 16, 1992, 7: 30 p.m.
Village Council -Wednesday, January 22, 1992, 7: 30 p.m.
Village Council' s Tour of Village Facilities -February 1, 1992. 1
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
January 8, 1992
Page 13
Manager Plunkett recommended that Council go into Executive
Session to discuss property acquisition.
Vice Mayor Marshall moved to go into Executive Session for the
purpose of property acquisition. Motion seconded by Councilmember
Vance. Time: 10:38 p.m.
Motion to return to regular session was made by Councilmember
Vance, seconded by Councilmember Freytag. Time: 10:55 p.m.
Motion to adjourn was made by Councilmember Vance, seconded by Councilmember Herman. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10: 56 p.m.

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.