Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes 5/6/98

 
VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 6, 1998


CALL TO ORDER

     Mayor Bellman convened the meeting at 7:34pm.  
 
ROLL CALL

Those responding to the roll call were:
    Vice Mayor McGowan
    Councilmember Lucier    
Councilmember Robertson            Mayor Bellman
Councilmember Wernet            Law Director Hurst
Councilmember Freytag            Manager Hickman

     Councilmember Wernet moved to excuse Councilmember
Rader.  Second by Councilmember Freytag.  Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

    The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of
April 15, 1998, were presented for review.  Councilmember
Lucier moved to approve the minutes as amended.  
Councilmember Wernet second.  Motion carried.    

CITIZENS COMMENTS

Those signing the register were:  See attached.
 
Mayor Bellman announced that citizen comments would be
welcome during Council discussion of Resolution No. 98-15
and The Village Brewing Company Liquor Permit topics.  

COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Councilmember Wernet reported that the Planning Commission
approved several applications.  He noted that a variance
request from the Schnaidt’s for modifications and additions
to a residence at the corner of Mulberry and Elm Street has
been carried over pending a decision by the BZBA and more
detailed drawings.

     Manager Hickman advised that the Union Cemetery
Board is scheduled to meet during the Council meeting of May
20th.

    Mayor Bellman suggested that since County Savings
Bank is making changes to their sign to reflect a new name,
it may be a good time to do some maintenance and upgrades to
the exterior of Village Hall.  It has been suggested that
awnings could be added to the exterior of the building.
 OLD BUSINESS

    Resolution No. 98-15, A Resolution Setting Forth The
Conditions For Zoning Permit Approval For Multi-Use
Development At 1960 Newark-Granville Road.  Councilmember
Lucier made a motion to remove Resolution No. 98-15 from the
table.  Councilmember Freytag second.  Motion carried.

    Mayor Bellman recited changes to Resolution No.
98-15 as follows:

Change the second "Whereas" section to: "following an appeal
from the BZBA on the drive thru, the Council and the
applicant reached an agreement on the terms of granting the
drive thru which were mutually agreed to by both parties"
and,

    Add: "Whereas, this Council memorialized these
agreed terms in granting the approval of the conditional use
permit for this development as reflected in Resolution No.
97-32".

    He then noted modifications the Law Director made to
Section III of Resolution No. 98-15 and read this section in
full.

    Mayor Bellman opened the floor to comments with
regard to Resolution No. 98-15.

Phil Wince, representing George Fackler, had several
questions about this resolution.  He stated for the record
that he had conversed with Law Director Hurst with regard to
the various aspects of this resolution.  His questions were
as follows:

1.  Section II - Access to and from Newark Granville Road.  
Mr. Wince voiced a concern that this might be a different
standard than what is required by Village ordinances.   He
believes this section says that Council has sole discretion
and the right to close access to the property if there were
any traffic flow problems, etc.  He questioned if Council
had authority to do this.
 
2.  Section II - Right of Way.  He declared that there is
some confusion where the building could actually be placed.
 He asked if the setbacks would extend beyond 42 feet.  He
expressed concern that they may have to re-draft their
plans.  He alluded to the fact that the Planning Commission
had asked Mr. Fackler if he would donate five feet of right
of way.  He also mentioned, for the record, that the
Planning Commission gave unanimous approval for this
proposal.
 
3.  Access on Cherry Valley Road -  He alleged that in the
Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact one of the
requirements was related to providing a left turn lane on
Newark Granville Road.  He questioned why the applicant
would need to provide a left turn lane when Section III
suggests changes to this road which may ultimately affect a
turn lane.  He feels this may be a duplication of expense at
this time and request that this be required as needed.
    
 4.    He questioned the basis for a 42 foot right-of-way
and feels the argument of such     a right of way may be
unnecessary at this time.

He summarized by stating that this applicant has done
everything to get this project approved, and that the
Planning Commission suggested to Mr. Fackler that the giving
of an additional five feet would guarantee approval of this
project.  He alleged there was unanimous approval while
noting that after the fact the Planning Commission didn’t
have authority to make such a deal.  He feels Mr. Fackler is
under no obligation to adhere to an agreement which was not
authorized and that a property owner is entitled to just
compensation should there be a taking of property.

    In response to Mr. Wince’s first question, Law
Director Hurst noted that the standard remains the same as
required by Village ordinances.  He pointed out that  
Section II is for clarification and not to suggest any
deviation of authority as to ingress and egress onto
property.

    In response to Mr. Wince’s second question, Manager
Hickman believes in this situation that moving the right of
way will not affect the set back but simply change the
location of the sidewalk.

    In response to Mr. Wince’s third question, Mayor
Bellman stated his opinion is that it’s difficult to make a
prediction with regard to a boulevard and turn lane on
Cherry Valley Road but feels it is prudent at this time to
accommodate future ideas.  Councilmember Wernet concurred
with this opinion.

    Councilmember Wernet declared that in his
recollection the Planning Commission did not give unanimous
approval on the issue of right of way, and that during the
meeting they expressed the belief that this would be an
issue finalized by Council.  He advised that the Finding of
Fact reflected this conclusion.  He noted that the Planning
Commission gave approval contingent upon a number of changes
to the plan, as well as working with Council with regard to
right of way requirements.  

    George Fackler, developer and owner of said
property, stated that he is tremendously upset with this
situation.  He noted his "take it or leave it offer" during
the last meeting which was related to the giving of five
feet with the possibility of acquiring  additional  right of
way.    

    Following a display of emotions between Council, the
applicant and the applicant’s counsel, Councilmember
Robertson asked Mr. Fackler what he would like to see as a
solution to this situation.  

    Mr. Fackler declared his hope for tonight’s approval
on this project.  He expressed the need for fair
compensation should the Village need to acquire additional
right of way.

        Mayor Bellman asked for citizen comments on this
issue.  There were no citizen comments.  Mr. Bellman
declared the discussion period closed.
      Councilmember Freytag moved to table this matter
pending legal advice on the numerous issues that Mr.
Fackler’s Counsel has brought forth.     Councilmember
McGowan second.

    Councilmember Wernet revealed that he had the
intention of voting for this resolution this evening.  He
now feels that given the degree to which issues have been
raised, he is in agreement with Mr. Freytag’s motion.

     Councilmember Lucier stated that although she was
prepared to vote on this issue tonight she now also feels
inclined to wait.

    Mayor Bellman stated he would like to see this
resolution voted on tonight.  
    
Following a discussion, Council agreed it was not their
understanding that the resolution was jeopardized as a
result of the tabling of this issue on April 15th.

Council then reopened the question to Mr. Fackler that he
reconsider conformity to the language of this resolution.

    Mr. Fackler requested five minutes to discuss
options with his legal counsel.

Mayor Bellman granted a five minutes recess.

The meeting re-convened and Mr. Fackler implied that if he
retained his position this evening, he believes this
resolution will be tabled and consequently end up in a court
of law.  He does not want to see this happen and would like
to set a precedence by doing what he previously committed to
with the Planning Commission and render 5 feet right of way,
as he is a man of his word.

Manager Hickman stated that the Village would like to work
with Mr. Fackler so that in the event the extra seven feet
were acquired, it would not affect any previously located
landscaping.      Mr. Fackler stated that this was workable.

    Councilmember Freytag withdrew his motion to table
Resolution No. 98-15.  Second by Vice Mayor McGowan.

    Councilmember Freytag made a motion to amend
Resolution No. 98-15 to include Mayor Bellman’s additions as
recited and to include the revised Section III language as
presented.  Councilmember Wernet second.  Motion carried.

    For clarification to Council and the applicant, Law
Director Hurst read language as it appears on the back of
the zoning permit application which consists of conditions
of zoning permit approval.  
 Councilmember Wernet suggested to Mr. Wince that if there
are problems with this agreement that they be brought
forward at this time.

(Note -  Mayor Bellman submitted the following language):

After lengthy discussion, the parties agreed to the 5 foot
of additional easement and summarized their agreement with
reference to Resolution No. 97-32 (passed last year during
the appeal of the BZBA decision on the drive-thru) and
Resolution No. 98-15 (which is up for passage, with
modifications, this evening).  At this point, the following
discussion took place between Mayor Bellman and Attorney
Phil Wince:

Bellman:  "What I understand is that this has been a lengthy
process in the last couple of years there are two
resolutions and everybody sitting in this room tonight is
agreeable with what's in place.  Am I misunderstanding
anything?"

Wince:    (Shaking his head "no")

Bellman:    "And your shaking your head ‘no’.  Right
Phil?"

Wince:    "No, as far as I’m…"

    Bellman:    "Yea, so we’re all on the same page.
 We’re in agreement."
    
    The question was again called.  6 ayes, 0 nays.  
Motion carried.  Resolution No. 98-15 was adopted.
    
     Liquor Permit (Brews) - Jerry Martin

Jerry Martin, an owner of The Village Brewing Company,
addressed questions regarding the Liquor Permit Change
Approval requested for The Village Brewing Company.  He
pointed out that this is a D3 permit which is already in the
Village but not currently being used.  He noted that this
permit excludes Sunday liquor sales.

Councilmember Wernet pointed out that this has been a
responsible business with no problems in the community,
which speaks positively for the management of this business,
therefore he believes this permit should be issued based on
that fact.

Mayor Bellman described a concern over the possibility of an
overemphasis of higher consumption which may exacerbate a
problem.

When asked about the hearing process, Law Director Hurst
advised that the burden on the filer is significant unless
there is concrete basis to criticize the license approval.  
He summarized that as a general rule, the appeal will not be
successful.  He revealed that a previous hearing requested
was not even scheduled for three years.
 
Councilmember Robertson voiced her opinion that she would
like a local public meeting thus allowing citizens to voice
their concerns on this issue.

Mr. Martin declared that the Advocate had written an article
in notification of this agenda item.  In addition, he
advised that all the area churches were notified of this
permit request.  He pointed out that there was no opposition
to this permit in attendance this evening.   

Councilmember Freytag commented that if there were sentiment
on this issue in the community, it would not have an effect
on whether there would be a hearing.  He is concerned a
public hearing would only cause disillusionment to the
community.

     Councilmember Wernet agreed that although he feels
it would be valuable to have public input, he concurs with
Mr.  Freytag’s concerns and feels that as there are no
grounds for opposing the permit, we should drop the request
for a hearing.

    Paul ?????? , an owner of The Village Brewing
Company stated he believed this was the second public
meeting with which the public could attend to voice a
concern on this issue.  He surmised that there isn’t either
objection or approval by the community and believes another
public meeting is not necessary.

Judith Thomas of 4 Shepardson Court stated that The Village
Brewing Company is a great amenity to this town, and as it
is being run efficiently and responsibly she has no
objection to the issuing of this permit.

    Councilmember McGowan noted that he doesn’t believe
that another two weeks would hurt this permit process and
would like to see a public hearing set.

Councilmember Lucier expressed that she would like to see a
motion to withdrawal the request for a hearing on this
permit approval.

Councilmember Bellman stated he would cast his vote with the
majority.

Councilmember Freytag made a motion to withdraw the request
for a hearing on a liquor permit for The Village Brewing
Company.  Second by Councilmember Wernet.  Five ayes, 1 nay
(Councilmember Robertson)  Motion Carried.  

    Mayor Bellman asked a member of the audience (Mr.
Thiele) if he needed to address an issue.
    
John Thiele of 210 S. Mulberry St., questioned how far the
issue of the addition to a home on Mulberry Street had gone
and if Council knows what is going on.  

Councilmember Wernet summarized that the Planning Commission
has asked the applicant to get further information ie, more
detailed site plan, dimensions, etc.
 
Mayor Bellman advised Mr. Thiele and Councilmember Wernet
discuss this issue in another forum as at this time this is
not an issue of this Council.  Councilmember Wernet
suggested Mr. Thiele contact the Village Planner for more
information.

NEW BUSINESS

    Joe Magdich of Season Good & Mayer came before
Council to answer questions with regard to Ordinance No.
08-98 and the issuing the $765,000 notes.   He disclosed the
fact that they have looked at converting these notes into
bonds and found too many negatives at this time.  He
mentioned that if rates stay where they are it will be
recommended that this be done somewhere within two years.  
He affirmed that the rate for tonight is 4.11%.  At
Council’s request, Mr. Magdich briefly explained the setting
of rates afterwhich Council requested that he return at a
later date to explain the bonding process in more detail.

      Ordinance No. 07-98, "An Ordinance To Amend
Ordinance No. 22-97 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual
Budget For The Fiscal Year 1998 And Revising Sums For
Operating Expenses And Declaring An Emergency", was
introduced, its title and emergency clause read by
Councilmember Wernet.  Second by Councilmember Freytag.

    Roll Call on the emergency clause for Ordinance No.
07-98:  Lucier, yes, McGowan, yes, Robertson yes, Wernet
yes, Freytag yes, Bellman yes.

    Roll Call on Ordinance No. 07-98: Lucier, yes,
McGowan, yes, Robertson yes, Wernet yes, Freytag yes,
Bellman yes.  Ordinance No. 07-98 was adopted.

    Ordinance No. 08-98, An Ordinance Providing For The
Issuance Of $765,000 Of Notes By The Village Of Granville,
Ohio, In Anticipation Of The Issuance Of Bonds For The
Purpose Of Paying Part Of The Cost Of Constructing
Improvements To The Municipal Sanitary Sewer System, And
Declaring An Emergency was introduced, its title and
emergency clause read by Councilmember Lucier.  Second by
Councilmember McGowan.

    Roll Call on the emergency clause for Ordinance No.
08-98:  Lucier, yes, McGowan, yes, Robertson yes, Wernet
yes, Freytag yes, Bellman yes.

    Roll Call on Ordinance No. 07-98: Lucier, yes,
McGowan, yes, Robertson yes, Wernet yes, Freytag yes,
Bellman yes.  Ordinance No. 08-98 was adopted.

    Ordinance No. 06-98, An Ordinance To Amend Section
1305.03 (c ) (1), And (d) (1), (2), And (3) Of The Codified
Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, Ohio was introduced
and its title read by Councilmember Freytag.  Mayor Bellman
set the Public Hearing date for Ordinance No. 06-98 for May
20, 1998.
 
    Ordinance No. 09-98, An Ordinance To Amend Chapter
1171 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville,
Ohio was introduced and its title read by Councilmember
Wernet.  Mayor Bellman set the Public Hearing date for
Ordinance No. 09-98 for May 20, 1998.

    Resolution No. 98-17, A Resolution To Express
Appreciation To Willard H. "Bud" McFarland was introduced
and read in full by Mayor Bellman.  Second by Councilmember
Freytag.  Motion Carried.  Resolution No. 98-17 was adopted.

    Resolution No. 98-18, To Award The Bid For The Micro
Surfacing Of Village Streets For 1998 To American Pavements
Inc. And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An
Agreement Therefor was introduced and read in full by
Councilmember Wernet.  Second by Councilmember Freytag.  
Motion Carried.  Resolution No. 98-18 was adopted.

Manager Hickman informed Council that the alternate bid for
work on S. Prospect will be appropriated from the Water
Fund.

    Ordinance No. 04-98
Councilmember McGowan inquired as to Section 509.09 (a) (4),
Ordinance No. 04-98 which pertains to "noise" and whether it
applied to such events as ball games and the 4th of July
activities.

Councilmember Wernet stated that he thought the Law Director
would redraft that section to reflect such exemptions.

ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Wernet moved to adjourn the meeting at
10:17pm.  Councilmember Lucier second.  Motion carried.
 

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.