Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes 12/6/00

 CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:35pm)

ROLL CALL (7:36pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Manager Hickman, and Law Director Hurst. 

RECOGNITIONS (7:36pm) Mayor Robertson read the full text of a Proclamation of Appreciation for retiring Law Director Rufus Hurst, acknowledging his many years of service and dedication to the Village of Granville. Those present gave Law Director Hurst a standing ovation.

Resolution No. 00-43, A Resolution Of Appreciation To Robert Essman For His Dedicated Service To The Granville Board Of Zoning And Building Appeals, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. A voice vote on Resolution No. 00-43 yielded seven (7) ayes. Resolution No. 00-43 is adopted. Mr. Essman, though absent, received a round of applause.

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:40pm) There we none other than those intended for the Water & Sewer request of the Granville School District. Mayor Robertson noted there would be an opportunity for comment on that matter specifically after the initial presentation.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments at 7:41pm

GRANVILLE SCHOOLS – Water/Sewer Request (7:41pm) Kathy Lowery, 316 Llanberis Drive – Superintendent of Schools. Stated she was present to enlist Council’s support toward maintaining quality schools in light of what she perceived to be Council’s goals—to maintain quality schools at a reasonable cost to taxpayers, to maintain the current quality of life in Granville, and to create an infrastructure that maintains that quality of life. Lowery described the current high school/middle school complex as “modular city.” She noted that they have enrolled 225 students over the last 20 months and expect to add 100 students/year over the next decade. The current enrollment is approximately 1,865 students and the situation for next year is urgent. The Board of Education, though not a proponent of rapid growth, is committed to being proactive in handling that growth. Lowery maintained that the school district must have a new intermediate school on line by Fall 2002 or they will have to add even more modules (at $165,000 each). To accomplish this goal, the bidding process must begin by April 1, 2001and construction by April 30, 2001. This means the architects and the construction company must have site information to continue the planning process—the reason behind the current request for water and sewer (W&S) to the selected site. Lowery then reviewed the strategic planning process that had culminated in the November 27th selection of the New Burg Street site, including the decision to purchase land enough for the new intermediate school plus additional acreage for future needs, including green space. The Board feels it has adequately addressed concerns re traffic, water-table levels, and potential rapid growth. Lowery and Board members are here to ask how to proceed with selective extension (i.e., how to work together toward a common goal in an expedient manner).

Jim Harf, 120 Wildwood Drive - School Board Member. Harf spoke to address written questions and concerns received from Council earlier in the day, as well as concerns presented by the newly formed Citizens to Protect the Comprehensive Plan. · How this site fits into the Comprehensive Plan (CP). The Board agrees with the CP concerns about susceptibility to annexation (p. 3). That, in fact, is behind their reluctance to site new schools south of town, where they would either have to pay an enormous price for W&S from Granville or get W&S from Southwest Licking or the City of Newark. Once W&S was available, the Board maintains that annexation of the land would happen immediately (from either Newark on the east or Pataskala on the west), resulting in high-density development that would adversely impact the schools. The Board agrees with the CP’s desire to keep the small-town character in place (p. 4). Harf maintains we can keep the “21st century analog of the 19th century schoolhouse” in place for the next two iterations but a split in schools (e.g., “north” and “south” elementary schools) may eventually be necessary. The Board interprets the CP references to “neighborhood/residential schools” (p. 10) to apply only to land contiguous to the City of Newark. Since Granville is still using the model of a single school at each level for the entire district, it follows that each school’s “neighborhood” is therefore the entire district. The Board agrees with the CP’s general development standards (p. 15). The requirements to “preserve rural character, discourage speeding, and have streets no wider than necessary” was one of the main reasons for not selecting the Watts property south of Newark-Granville Road (e.g., the road would have to be widened by removing all the old trees lining both sides of the street). The Board agrees with traffic/transportation issues facing Granville today (p. 16) and with the provisions for safe and efficient traffic on Township roads (P. 17). It maintains that the cut-through to Loudon Street from the New Burg Street site (originally recommended in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan) would cut in half the twice- daily peak school traffic through the Village. The Board feels its plan is supportive of the CP’s efforts to preserve open green space (p. 18). In summary, Harf maintained that the Board’s plan enhances the CP’s goals in that the School Board and the Superintendent decide on the site and their choice should be residential/ neighborhood in character. He added that the CP doesn’t specifically address Burg Street. · Clustering. Harf then addressed the consequences of clustering (i.e., having all the same grades on the same site). He noted that kids in every grade live in every corner of the district. Bus runs should minimize cost and maximize efficiency; a site as close as possible to the existing schools meets those criteria. Putting the new schools on the other side of town means picking up separate age groups on separate runs. That, in turn, means that annual operating costs could increase up to 50%, depreciation would increases by a third, and we would probably need more buses. Noting that it makes sense to build where the kids are, Harf reported that approximately 75% of new kids in each of three buildings moved either into the Village or north of the Village, not south. There is also the possibility of needing more schools—one now, a second 8-10 years down the road if enrollment levels continue as projected, a third within 20 years. This being the case, it makes sense to buy the land now. In the interim it might be used as green space or recreational space for the community. The Board believes the New Burg Street site is the not only the best site, but maybe the only satisfactory site. · W&S Extension. Harf stated that the Board “believes with absolute certainty” that Council could extend W&S in a binding agreement that would allow them to deny W&S to anyone else they chose in order to stop development. He added that issues of law-enforcement jurisdiction (i.e., whether the schools located in the Township would receive police protection and service from the Village or from the County Sheriff.)

Questions from Council Councilmember Moore asked if an attorney could clarify how the Village could grant W&S to the School Board but deny it to anyone else. (David Klauder, 436 Thornwood Drive, commented that he was unable to get water service 36 years ago when he was developing on Route 16.) [Steven Smith, Attorney with Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, spoke to Councilmember Moore’s concerns. The first legal issue is whether a village or any governmental entity has the right to grant selective extension. They do, per an Ohio Attorney General’s opinion (which Mr. Smith will forward to Council). He noted that the acreage in question could be deed-restricted (e.g., for green space), the School Board could grant first-refusal rights to the Village, or a combination thereof. Since the immediate need is for only 22 of the 179 acres to be purchased, the School Board and the Village could enter into a lease agreement (i.e., $1 per year) whereby the Village could then make its own decisions about the land. The School District believes these W&S lines are to serve the children of the district. Therefore, they will pay all costs associated with laying W&S lines as well as the service distribution and will agree not to extend that service to anyone else without specific consent from the Village. The Township has represented to the School District that easements will be granted as needed. Mr. Smith reiterated Mr. Harf’s assertion that he had no doubt that an agreement could be fashioned to protect against future development, against the School Board selling off any of the land, and against any tap-ins by other developers. Assuring Council that two governmental bodies that serve the same constituencies can work together, Mr. Smith offered to work with the Law Director to ensure that those acres will be taken out of development, if-and-when they are bought by the school district. He specifically stated that “there will nothing else out there.”

Councilmember Lucier told Mr. Smith that this issue had been discussed at length in the course of the Kendal discussions re their proposed Burg Street site. Council’s greatest reservation at the time had been their fear that there was no way to restrict any future Council from changing decisions made by the current one. [Mr. Smith restated his assertion that the land could be deed- restricted, i.e., “take it out of your hands and put it on the dirt.”]

Councilmember Bellman said he was aware that the Village could in fact provide W&S outside its area but would then run the risk of becoming a public utility—an entity that could no longer discriminate between area users. [Mr. Smith felt that could be handled through a win-win agreement whereby, in return for the Village giving it the service, the School District would give over the use of the land (citing an Ohio State Supreme case re Indian Hills). He added that we don’t want to be without an agreement and leave the way open for a third party to get extension via judicial act. For example, if Council decided that nobody else was to get W&S, then someone did get it via a lawsuit, Council would be unable to stop subsequent extensions. The new W&S line would be jointly owned by the Village and the School District.] Councilmember Bellman cited the Western Reserve Steel Co. decision—118 Ohio State 544 1920—in which the municipality did become a utility once W&S was extended. [Mr. Smith, in turn, cited a 1948 decision that interprets the matter in a different way, added that the Attorney General’s opinion is much more current as well, and asserted that “there’s a whole body of law out there on our side.”

Vice Mayor Wernet asked if Mr. Smith believed there was a way to structure an agreement between the Village and the School District to avoid the risk of judicial intervention.] Mr. Smith responded there was, “but we have to give ‘consideration’ in the contract.” The School District doesn’t want to go the annexation route to get service; that leads to defeating the goal of being a small quiet community and, besides, annexed land has a right to services. [Councilmember Lucier asked if that meant the School Board had not even looked at annexation.] Mr. Smith said they were not ruling it out but preferred not to go that way. They don’t think it meets any of the CP’s goals. Ms. Lowery added that, from the School District’s point of view, the effects of annexation, should it occur, would be the opposite of the CP’s intent to preserve the integrity of a small village. She added that anything contiguous to annexed land could tap in to W&S services. [Councilmember Crais asked how the added restrictions were assembled and what it takes to undo them.] Mr. Smith responded that “it takes a heck of a lawsuit to undo them unless they become illegal by act.” He thought the better option would be to deed-restrict the land, confining it to school purposes— a “virtually permanent” option. Even better would be a lease arrangement with cooperative management, for recreational uses, green space—something specific.

Vice Mayor Wernet, following up on the referenced 1928 decision, asked if, by having already granted some W&S extensions, the Village had already triggered the “contiguous land…” issue (assuming the 1928 decision is still in effect). [Mr. Smith said the Village had triggered that clause. However, having extended W&S services two times, he felt if someone wanted to challenge it they would have already done so. He suggested making an “ironclad agreement” that benefits both sides.] Vice Mayor Wernet asked if ownership of the land would pass through the hands of whoever would receive it back. [Mr. Smith said it would if a reverter clause were included and noted that contracts can bind us either to do or not to do certain things.]

That being the end of the School District’s presentation, Mayor Roberts opened the floor for Citizens’ Comments. (8:30pm)

Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place (co-author of the “Dear Neighbors” letter). She was concerned that a lot of the agreements being discussed could be subject to interpretation. Obviously everyone wants “ironclad” but anybody could challenge it. Would the school board therefore be responsible for defending the village and indemnifying the village for any and all costs in defending and litigating any challenge? What can we do to prevent a mess? Ms. Consolo also asked Council if they knew how much water they had to give, and for how long? She urged them to check with the Village Manager of Seville, Ohio and emphasized how important it was for them to know the quantities. Ken Klatt, 58 Rose Drive (Township). He agreed with the Superintendent Lowery on the crying need for an intermediate school. Re the fact the deed restriction historically can be broken, he was concerned about what would happen if the State Legislature were not only to decide that centralized sewage-treatment facilities are the way of the future, but mandate them. In that case, private septic-tank owners might be required to tap in to the Village sewer lines, making any W&S deed restrictions obsolete. He also expressed deep concern about the dangerous nature of the Burg-New Burg intersection—fairly quiet at mid-day but a real problem at peak times. He cited one death in the last 15 years and hoped we never had to attend a high-school student’s funeral because problems in that spot had not been addressed. Charlie Metzger, 81 Maplewood Drive. He spoke as one of 17 “founding fathers” of the CP, wanting to keep debate on an even playing field by making sure the CP’s intentions are clearly represented. He stated that the original writers had no intention of either locating schools or specifying their type. He disagreed with Ms. Consolo about the language on p. 10 about “neighborhood residential zoning,” saying that the PC does not recommend that the School District choose a Village site. Rather, the intention of the language was/is to alert developers that they have to give consideration to the School District in their planning. He also stated that, contrary to what Consolo had said, the PC did not specify or intend that Burg Street, north of New Burg, should remain as rural open space. Their intent was to keep as much of this area as possible as open space, recognizing that “agricultural” zoning includes farm and residential use.

Abram Kaplan, 843 Burg Street (a co-author of the “Dear Neighbor” letter). He stated that all effects of local decisions are local, then asked if we want Granville to be a rural and attractive place to live, to maintain our quality of life. He urged Council to ask as many citizens as they could for answers—to search for common points of view—instead of assuming that future development is a good thing. He reminded those present that a citizens’ group three years ago identified three major goals: to protect ourselves from strip malls and urban sprawl, to protect our open space and preserve working farmland, and to protect the guidelines re annexations that threaten the schools. He added that residents also are concerned about excess traffic as well as the extension of infrastructure into rural areas of the Township. He asked why we would want to extend W&S—and thereby foster the effects of a school or schools—in the most pristine parts of our Township. Kaplan felt it was “frightening” to hear Mr. Harf say that the Burg Street site is consistent with the CP, stated that extension of W&S for Burg Street is a dangerous precedent, and asked the School Board to take another look at the Reese property. Laurel Kennedy, 758 New Burg Street (co-author of the “Dear Neighbor” letter). She felt the School District’s proposal was surprising, given that the burgeoning family housing market is now growing to the south and east of the Village. She questioned whether a cut-through to Loudon Street would in fact ease Burg Street traffic, and stated that it was the parents’ and students’ car that were the greater share of the problem, not the buses. She pointed out that there would be virtually no pedestrian access to the proposed site. She urged creating two campuses—one north and one south, buying only the land needed for the currently proposed intermediate school, then locating the new campus, if agreed on by the community, in the area where the growth is at the time. In short, don’t sacrifice sound reasoning in a race to begin construction.

Don Lewis, 2284 Burg Street. After citing his experience on previous W&S study commissions (for Owens-Corning and Alexandria), he encouraged Council to request input from the County Health Department. Re deed restrictions, he urged that Council require annual inspections for W&S and move to centralization of the water situation. He also urged checking with the State to see if there are any plans for future changes in requirements or consolidation of resources. 

Alden Stilson, 177 Glen Carin Lane. He was impressed with the School Board’s plans, and pleased that the Board’s counsel had given us reason to believe that the situation re W&S taps may not be as dire as we thought. He asked for written documentation on that opinion (“since we live in a time when strange things happen in courts.”) He said he couldn’t understand why the Board was not impressed by the Watts site since it is served by three roads and the bike path and could be accessed from adjacent Township land. He also said the proximity of that land to Newark-Granville Road would make it relatively easy to develop good bus transport access. The Watts location would also negate the need for W&S extension as well as the new connecting road to Loudon Street. He said he represented a newly formed Group to Protect the Comprehensive Plan—a subcommittee of which would be happy to work with the Board on taking another look at the Watts property. The Group has submitted notes and questions to Council from their formation meeting of December 3, 2000, including requests for information from the School Board.

Elaine Kent, 240 Glen Carin Lane. She noted that the beauty of the Township is its vastness, and expressed concerns about safety issues for elementary-age children (i.e., would Granville or the County Sheriff cover the area), worrying about the time it’s taken in the past to get a response from the Sheriff’s office.

Monica Grafeo, 235 Bryn Du Drive. She spoke to the CP issue of “neighborhood” that keeps coming up, echoing Mr. Metzger’s statement that the reference was included to tell the next big developer that land must be reserved for “local” schools, whether or not a building is ever built on it. She asserted that “no one wants to see large- scale development on Burg Street” since it’s the rural character that has drawn a lot of residents to Granville. She continued by saying that there is a limited choice of land, especially since the 22 acres needed now won’t last very long and the strategic- and facility-planning committees have ascertained that “one identity” be maintained without satellites.

Scott Schulten, 120 Trem Pell. He stated that he was thrilled with level of education here and said he didn’t just give his vote to members of the School Board, he gave them his trust to make decisions in the best interests of the Village and/or the School Board, the Township and/or the Village, and all the students. He said he would hope that Council would trust that the School Board has done its homework and realize that no matter what location is chosen, it won’t get 100% approval.

Jackie O’Keefe, 4 Samson Place. She asked about the possibility of some other public-service entity coming into the Township and saying, “We want W&S. You gave it to the School Board and now you have to give it to us.”

Jim King, 2276 Hankinson Road. He said Council was “between a dog and a fire hydrant.” He echoed Mr. Schulten’s sense of trust and high opinion of the way in which the School Board handles its fiduciary responsibility. He also echoed the earlier observation that the CP’s conditional use in Township agricultural districts includes school buildings. He urged Council to join the School Board is taking the long view (i.e., by buying more land than 22 acres).

Nellie Pallagi, 80 Glen Carin Lane. She supported the comments made by Mr. Kaplan, cited an Advocate article on the development dilemma, and cautioned against potential loopholes that might result in Granville becoming another Pataskala.

Carol Goland, 843 Burg Street. She stated that while she appreciates the fact that the School Board is under pressure to respond to the growing school population, she worries about a crisis mentality (i.e., stick to the timeline, make the deal, break ground). She urged everyone to take the time to do it right, to sort out the contradictory information (e.g., traffic impacts and transportation considerations). She expressed distaste at the idea that her children, who are intermediate students, might be on the same bus as high school students. She thought clustered bus runs would also work with the Reese site, which she asked Council to reconsider

Kathy Smith, 44 Trinity Court. She stated she was comfortable with the School Board’s decision. The upper end of the Reese property backs up to her property, meaning the school traffic would be using the same roads she uses. The site is simply unsuitable topography for a school. She said she is careful to avoid Jones Road during bad weather. Having the school(s) up there would mean having children walking to and from the area—another dangerous situation. She thought putting the schools in close proximity to one another is a wise idea. She also trusts her elected officials. Peak-time traffic is inevitable, regardless of the site, and having land available for future use is a wise move.

Tom Harvey, 804 Burg Street. He said he has faith in the School Board to make tough decisions, feels they’ve done their homework, and echoed Mr. Schulten’s remarks. Larry Sargent, 907 Newark Road. He agrees with Mr. Harvey, and said the School Board had asked for and received a lot of information from townspeople, had addressed the issues about which most of us are concerned, and has done a reasonable job of investigating sites.

Gary Yaekle, 65 Denison Drive. He agreed that the School Board had been elected to make hard decisions, said they now have an opportunity to buy a major piece of land and take it out of circulation, and that the Watts farm is not a good site due to poor ingress and egress considerations. Rochelle Steinberg, 425 E. College Street. She said she had no idea whether board has done its homework or whose information is correct. She said she wanted to remind Council that neighbors had asked for help when the School Board dealing with the old middle-school issue because they felt the School Board was being disingenuous in their communications those neighbors. She challenged the Council to listen, research, talk to their attorneys, and do their homework to see if information is accurate before they make any decisions.

Richard Salvage, 73 Berline Court. He spoke in support of the School Board, especially in the matter of trust. The Board members “worked hard, were passionate, and finished with an answer they could all support.” Even so, they cannot resolve how to keep this out of somebody’s back yard. He added that he is convinced that the Village can provide W&S without sacrificing security. He stated that everyone in the room has benefited from our schools. “The only question here tonight is, “Are the schools going to get the support from Village Council?” He added that Council has an obligation to support the schools and should do it soon.

Jim Havens, chair of Granville Township Trustees. He said the Trustees have had a close working relationship with the School District and had a high degree of trust and confidence in their decision-making process. He felt the W&S decision was an opportunity to develop a policy and should be a community-interest debate, not a “zip code” debate. He added that the Township Trustees were prepared to be cooperative and were willing to grant easements to facilitate the extension of W&S, assuming that the School District sticks with this site. They have already filed a Scenic Byways application because they see an opportunity to take the bike path over the W&S excavation area, linking these things together. Such an open-space preservation project could also be a barrier to future expansion. [Mayor Robertson asked for a copy of the application.]

Lori Green, 445 Burg Street. She asked how much the W&S extension would cost and where the money would come from? [Mr. Smith reiterated that the School Board would pay.]

Mayor Robertson closed this portion of Citizens’ Comments at 8:42pm, then asked for comments from members of Council.

Council questions: Councilmember Crais said, given that past estimates of enrollment growth have been less than accurate, he has concerns about tonight’s numbers. He asked how the Board had arrived at those figures and what was the worst-case scenario. [Ms. Lowery acknowledged that projections (showing declining enrollments and not including Keny) had been wrong before she got here). She hired national experts, who have been accurate almost 90% of the time, to produce low, moderate, and high estimates for enrollment projections. The figures being used tonight are based on the moderate estimates and go out ten years. She offered to leave copies with Council.] Mayor Robertson asked for projections showing all three levels. [Ron Sheldon, 278 Llanberis Drive - School Board. He added that the earlier projections showed declining enrollments because they were based on solely on live-birth presentation scenarios. Mr. Harf said that 95% of new kids last year moved into existing houses. Ms. Lowery noted that projections nationwide are usually based on .82 children per household; Granville has to use a much higher figure.] Councilmember Crais asked if the Board had discussed possible limits on built space on proposed site to avoid “educational sprawl.” If not, would they entertain that idea? [Ms. Lowery responded that their enrollment projections indicate the need for an intermediate school. Since they don’t want “competing” schools—one on the south, one on the north— they intended to build an intermediate school for 600 students, with capacity to add another 200 students without altering the building. Mr. Sheldon added that research shows their optimal number in any given building to be in the range of 500-600 students. He said that what Councilmember Crais is asking, in terms of limits on built space, may run counter to that especially since the aim is to keep class size at 25 maximum.]

Vice Mayor Wernet asked what might be the maximum population on that piece of land, in order to help “size” water needs. [Mr. Sheldon said it would be about 1000, if a second building were built In 6-8 years. Melissa Obenauf said they don’t really know what actual enrollments will be or what “the face of education” will look like (e.g., distance learning). We therefore have to think outside the box.]

Councilmember McGowan urged that we look at the big picture, 2-to-25 years out. He hoped that the School Board has looked at issues from the viewpoint of having one high school, one middle school, etc. Council would address the process issues for a W&S extension if they have some assurance that the site won’t change.

Councilmember Crais asked for more information, in writing, re the various models for splitting into multiple schools. He wondered when that might happen and asked if the possible growth indicated for that land might have any impact on the legal-agreement issues that had been discussed earlier. [Mr. Smith said he would prepare a plan for Council’s Counsel and discuss it with him.] Mayor Robertson said the more information Council could have in writing, the better. [Mr. Smith asked if Council would prepare a first reading.] Mayor Robertson responded that Council had not yet decided how to proceed.

Councilmember Bellman asked the architect what square- footage was being considered. [He responded that it was a total of approximately 77,000 square feet at this point, though that is still subject to change.] Councilmember Bellman asked if that was the square footage of impervious surfaces. [The architect said that parking and roads were not yet laid out and therefore he was unable to answer.] Councilmember Crais noted that information like this is very important to this community. [The architect did say that they were working with a single-story building.]

Bob Pell, 80 Glen Carin Lane. He stated that the Burg/New Burg intersection is a disaster and will have to be rebuilt, and wondered who would pay?

Mayor Robertson spoke on behalf of a number of citizens who had expressed concerns to her that the School Board is “in cahoots” with Kendal. [Mr. Harf said that was not true and that the W&S decision is the Village’s to make since they still control the water.

Bob Pell, 80 Glen Carin Lane. He stated the mile between Burg and Loudon Streets would become a drag strip and asked how that might be controlled. [Mr. Harf suggested a winding road with bumper strips, controlled access, etc.] Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. He urged Council to exercise great caution in any extension of water due to challenges that will inevitably occur. Also wondered who might buy the property that had been considered by Kendal and asked if we would rather have a school, a retirement community, or several hundred houses.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments on this issue at 10:47pm and requested that all promised materials be forwarded promptly. [Council took a brief break at this point, during which Councilmember Bellman excused himself.]

PUBLIC HEARINGS (10:58pm) A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 24-00, An Ordinance Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing for Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. No one appeared to speak for or against the Ordinance. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 10:58pm.

(10:58pm) A public hearing was held on the 2001 Budget. No one appeared to speak for or against the 2001 Budget. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 10:59pm.

OLD BUSINESS (10:59pm) 2001 Budget, Staff Presentation Seth Dorman, Molly Roberts, and Manager Hickman presented a Power Point presentation on the proposed budget. Members of Council asked questions of all three presenters, then expressed their appreciation for the presentation itself and the work that had gone into its presentation. 

 NEW BUSINESS ( 11:31pm) Ordinance No. 25-00, An Ordinance To Make Appropriations For Current Expenses And Other Expenditures Of The Village Of Granville, State Of Ohio, During The Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2000, was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for December 20, 2000.

(11:32pm) Resolution No. 00-44, To Award The Bid For The Purchase Of Water Treatment Chemicals was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember McGowan. A voice vote on the resolution yielded six (6) affirmative votes. The motion passed.

(11:33pm) Resolution No. 00-46, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Submit An Application For Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) Funds, was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Manager Hickman clarified that this was for an extension of the bike lane from Cherry Valley Road east to the Welsh Hills School, along the north side of Newark- Granville Road. A voice vote yielded six (6) affirmative votes. The motion passed.

OLD BUSINESS (11:35pm) Ordinance No. 24-00, An Ordinance Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing for Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was re-introduced by Councilmember Crais. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. There was no discussion. A roll-call vote yielded six (6) ayes: Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. Ordinance No. 24-00 is adopted. 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (11:37pm) The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2000, were presented for review. The following amendments were requested: 1) Councilmember Lucier, p. 2 – change “six ago” to “six months ago.” 2) Vice Mayor Wernet, p.2 – change “Mr. Erhard said we could.” To “Mr. Erhard said we would.” 3) Mayor Robertson, p. 4 – change “Charged Manager Hickman to proceed…” to “Recommended Manager Hickman proceed….” Vice Mayor Wernet moved to approve the Minutes as amended; second by Councilmember Crais. Motion passed. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS (11:40pm) All reports, save the Planning Commission, were postponed to the next meeting due to the lateness of the hour.

Economic Development Committee (Councilmembers Crais, Moore; Mayor Robertson). Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Councilmember Bellman, Mayor Robertson). Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Councilmembers Bellman, Crais; Vice Mayor Wernet). Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore) Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier). 

No reports.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). Reported that the Commission had heard a new application from the Presbyterian Church contractor, asking that the Commission approve the alley as built. The Commission declined to do so. The construction firm will submit a new application.

OTHER: None.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – December 20, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Moore made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:45pm. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Meeting adjourned. 

Council Minutes 11/15/00

 VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 15, 2000 

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:32pm)

ROLL CALL (7:32pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, and McGowan; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Manager Hickman, and Robert Erhard (sitting in for Law Director Rufus Hurst). Councilmember Crais made a motion to excuse Councilmembers Bellman and Moore; second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Motion passed. 

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:33pm) Jerry Martin, 15 Briarwood Drive (representing Brew’s Café). Informed Council that Brew’s would like to be able to serve wine. Since there are no available permits in the Village, one would have to transferred in. Since such transfers only happen if there is a compelling economic reason behind the request, Mr. Martin asked for a letter of support signed by the Mayor and the Village Manager, stating that it would be advantageous to the Village in terms of increased revenues and possible increased employment. Councilmember Lucier stated she had no objection to the request but felt Mr. Martin should build the economic-justification case, not Council. Mayor Robertson asked Mr. Martin to work up some numbers and come back to the next Council meeting. In order to ensure Council’s being able to vote on the request at it next meeting, Councilmember Lucier asked Mr. Martin submit his proposal in advance. Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 7:42pm. NEW BUSINESS (7:42pm) Ordinance No. 24-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was introduced by title only by Vice Mayor Wernet; second by Councilmember Crais. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 24-00 for December 6, 2000. (7:43pm) Resolution No. 00-39, A Resolution To Award The Bid For Cedar Street Sidewalk Plans, As Per Specifications, And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet; second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Councilmember Lucier asked for confirmation that there was no relationship between Robertson Construction and Mayor Robertson; there is not. Councilmember McGowan asked if the new sidewalk would be handicapped accessible. Manager Hickman said the contractor was expected to meet code at the two intersections (Cedar/North Pearl and Cedar/Granger).

A voice vote on Resolution No. 00-39 yielded five (5) ayes. Resolution No. 00-39 is adopted.

(7:45pm) Resolution No. 00-41, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise For Bids Fro The Purchase Of Water And Sewage Treatment Chemicals, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet; second by Councilmember Crais. There was no discussion. A voice vote on Resolution No. 00-41 yielded five (5) ayes. Resolution No. 00-41 is adopted.

(7:46pm) Resolution No. 00-42, A Resolution To Establish The Time And Place Of A Public Hearing For The 2001 Municipal Budget As Proposed By The Village Manager, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet; second by Councilmember Crais. 

Discussion: Councilmember McGowan asked for assurance that the proposed budget would be available in the Library. Manager Hickman responded that it would.

A voice vote on Resolution No. 00-42 yielded five (5) ayes. Resolution No. 00-42 is adopted. 

OLD BUSINESS (7:48pm) Councilmember Lucier reminded Council that she had asked (about six ago) whether the Village could annex Village property situated in the Township (e.g., Fanchion Lewis Park and the Service Building on South Main Street) into the Village proper. At the time, the answer was “no” due to the pending merger study. Her question now is whether we could proceed with that process since the study was defeated. Manager Hickman and Mr. Erhard said we could.

Councilmember McGowan, citing the GBPA’s announcement that they would not be sponsoring anything next Halloween, asked if the Village could resolve the problems stemming from this year’s event before next year, in the hopes that GBPA would reconsider their decision. He also emphasized that coverage of the downtown area should be a first priority with the Police Department (i.e., other entities requesting Police assistance for that evening need to pay for a special-duty officer). Vice Mayor Wernet strongly agreed, adding that he also had concerns about constitutional issues given that an employee on the Village payroll at the time had been working for a church. There was general concern that the Police Department Monthly Report Supplement, showing that a special-duty officer had been at Spring Hills, conflicted with Chief Cartnal’s statement at the last Council meeting that Spring Hills’ request for service had been met by a regular-duty officer. [Manager Hickman left the table momentarily to ask the dispatcher on duty in the Police Department to check the records on this issue.] He gave his word to Council that “we can do better and intend to” for next year, starting with having more officers on duty. Mayor Robertson emphasized that requests for special-duty officers elsewhere should not take precedence over downtown needs. Councilmember McGowan stated that scheduling adjustments may need to be made during large public occasions and that Manager Hickman should convey this Council directive to Chief Cartnal. Manager Hickman noted that he was attending a GBPA lunch the next day and invited any available Council members to join him in discussing the Halloween concerns. Councilmember Lucier will attend.

MAYOR'S REPORT (7:56pm) The Mayor's Court Report for the month of October was presented for review. Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to accept the report; second by Councilmember Crais. Motion carried. Mayor Robertson directed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

MANAGER'S REPORT (7:56pm) The Manager's Report for the month of October was presented for review. Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to accept the report; second by Councilmember Crais. [Councilmember Crais asked about variances in the leaf-pickup schedule. Manager Hickman cited machine breakdowns and weather problems. He added that they are on double shirts now and plan to run at least through Thanksgiving.] Motion carried. Mayor Robertson directed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:57pm) Councilmember Crais made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted; second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (7:58pm) Development Committee (Councilmember Crais). No report.

Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). No report. Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Mayor Robertson). No report.

Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). No report.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). Among the applications considered at the most recent meeting was one from Denison University re another dorm and parking lot. Minutes from the special meeting, containing the resolution regarding the heritage overlay replacing the transportation corridor, are still unavailable.

Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Still in the planning stages for the construction of an activity structure between the ball fields. Winter programs are in order. Last year was a great year and participation continues to rise.

Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Will be presenting a budget for additional replacement lights (possibly the last group!).

Streets & Sidewalks & Utilities Committee (Vice Mayor Wernet). Charged Manager Hickman to proceed with the South Main Street/bike-path crosswalk (with lights and brick). Discussed options re the College/Pearl intersection. Endorsed the proposed scanning project, feeling it makes good sense to give an advance “virtual reality” look at streetscapes with improvements. Scans will be done on an as- is basis, with proposed projects layered in as needed. Manager Hickman will bring forward an appropriation request. The total expenditure would be $33,000 if the “base map” scan and engineering are done as a unit, $36,000 if they are done separately ($16,000 for the “base map” scan and $$20,000 for the engineering). Manager Hickman expressed a preference to move quickly on this matter and suggested amending Ordinance 24-00 (previously introduced at this meeting and set for public hearing on December 6, 2000). Vice Mayor Wernet moved to amend Ordinance 24-00 to create line item A1-6B-230, in the amount of $33,000, for “Contract Services.” Second by Councilmember Crais. A voice vote yielded four (4) ayes and one (1) abstention. Motion-to-amend passed.

Manager Hickman reported that the grant money to do the bike path section under the Raccoon Creek bridge will be received shortly. Councilmember Crais wondered if that alternate route meant we might be able to save approximately $30,000 on the South Main Street crossing by eliminating the proposed speed table and installing only the brick paving and lights. Councilmember McGowan asked about the status of the Broadway crosswalk. Manager Hickman responded that the upcoming scan will enable finalization of the design work for the crossing, but we still have to wait for the final elevation of the pavement to be determined. Councilmember McGowan noted that this crossing is “the prime concern of the businesses” on Broadway. Councilmember Crais felt the two proposed crosswalks were a package and we should wait for the scan before finalizing either one. Vice Mayor Wernet said he shared Councilmember McGowan’s frustration at the “glacial pace of change” but also agreed that the two crosswalks are on parallel paths. He also felt that access to the scan would go a long way toward resolving the many differences of opinion about what downtown should look like.

Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore). No report.

Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier). No report.

OTHER: (8:17pm) Mayor Robertson. Reported that Abram Kaplan, Director of Environmental Studies at Denison, is teaching a course on environmental issues in relation to planning.

Councilmember Crais. Asked why there still were no trees on South Main Street. Manager Hickman reported they should be going in any time now. He also said some trees had been planted last week on the Broadway Boulevard.

Councilmember Lucier asked if there were any news on the Law Director search. There is not.

Vice Mayor Wernet asked if we still needed a new Planning Commission member. We do and Manager Hickman will check to see about an ad in the paper and notice on the Village web site.

Manager Hickman reported that the officer on duty at Spring Hills Church the night of October 30 was paid by the Village for two hours of overtime. Councilmember Lucier asked Manager Hickman to clarify why the Police Report says “Special Duty” since this was obviously not a freelance situation. He will check and report back. Council expressed general concern about the constitutional issues involved when the Village pays time-and-a-half for an employee to work for a church. Councilmember McGowan reiterated Council’s agreement that any extra duty anywhere should be paid for by the event sponsor, not the Village. Manager Hickman said this instance would be straightened out and would not be repeated. MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Special Meeting for Council – December 2, 2000 (8:00- 10:00am) Next Village Council meeting – December 6, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McGowan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:37pm. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Meeting adjourned.

Council Minutes 11/1/00

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:30pm)

ROLL CALL (7:31pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson, Manager Hickman. Attorney Robert Erhard was present to sit in for Law Director Hurst. Councilmember Crais moved to excuse Vice Mayor Wernet; second by Councilmember Bellman. Motion passed.

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:32pm) None.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments at 7:32pm

PROCLAMATION PRESENTATION Mayor Robertson presented a Proclamation of Appreciation to the representatives of the Granville Federation for the Appreciation of the Blues, Inc., recognizing both the success of the Festival and their donation of the proceeds to community enhancement efforts.

PUBLIC HEARINGS (7:35pm) A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 21-00, An Ordinance To Create A Broadway Bed Fund. No one appeared to speak for or against the Ordinance. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 7:35pm.

(7:35pm) A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 23-00, An Ordinance To Establish The Granville Village Manager’s Salary For 2001. No one appeared to speak for or against the Ordinance. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 7:35pm.

NEW BUSINESS (7:35pm) Resolution No. 00-39, A Resolution To Award The Bid For Cedar Street Sidewalk Plans, And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore, was delayed at the request of Manager Hickman due to the need to clarify a math error in one of the bids. OLD BUSINESS (7:36pm) Ordinance No. 21-00, An Ordinance To Create A Broadway Bed Fund, was reintroduced by Councilmember Bellman. Second by Councilmember McGowan. A Roll Call vote on the Ordinance yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, Moore; Mayor Robertson. Ordinance No. 21-00 is adopted. (7:37pm) Ordinance No. 23-00, An Ordinance To Establish The Granville Village Manager’s Salary for 2001, was reintroduced by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Re Section 12 of the Employment Agreement, Councilmember Lucier voiced her concern about having only a 30-day notice period on the part of the Manager. All agreed this was a potential problem. Manager Hickman stated that, at the time of his annual July review, he would know what his plans for September would be, effectively creating a notification period of between 60 and 90 days depending on when in July the review was conducted.

Councilmembers Bellman and Lucier pointed out a discrepancy in the employment dates cited in Section 4—“12-month period” should read “24-month period” and “September 30, 2001” should read “September 30, 2002.” Further discussion clarified that the signing bonus was payable in two installments, one for each year.

Attorney Erhard proposed the following language to amend the agreement: 4. Compensation. “…established by the Village. In addition, in consideration of Employee agreeing to work for the 12- month period ending September 30, 2001, Employee shall receive a signing bonus of $7,500 payable in December 2000; and for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2002, $7,500 payable in December 2001.”

12. Termination. “…Section 4.06 of the Village Charter; furthermore Employee shall notify the Village at the time of his annual review of his intention to remain for the next year commencing October 1st.”

A Roll Call vote on the proposed amendments to Ordinance 20- 00 yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, Moore; Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 20-00 is amended.

A Roll Call vote on Amended Ordinance 20-00 yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, Moore; Mayor Robertson. Amended Ordinance No. 23- 00 is adopted.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:57pm) The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of October 18, 2000, were presented for review. Councilmember McGowan asked for an amendment to the discussion re employee salaries, as follows: On Page 3, in the Discussion of the motion to amend – change “…Village salaries…” to “… Village salary increases….” Councilmember McGowan moved to approve the Minutes as amended; second by Councilmember Crais. Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS (8:00m) Economic Development Committee (Councilmembers Crais, Moore; Mayor Robertson). Met two weeks ago and finalized the brochure for prospective businesses. Began discussions on whether or not the Village should form an Economic Council whose intent would be to proactively try to attract appropriate businesses into existing commercial space. (Councilmember Crais said the Township Trustees have some concerns with this issue and have declined to participate at this point.) The Committee thinks it would also be helpful to have a twice-yearly “round table” to bring business owners, community members, and Village Council together to discuss the “economic landscape” of the Village and try to anticipate emerging issues. If an Economic Council were formed, the Committee feels it would be important to have broad representation (e.g., from Denison, and from the portions of the citizens who neither own businesses nor are elected officials). The basic issue at this point is to determine if this is a good idea and, if so, how proactive we want to be. Mayor Robertson noted that the Committee has been discussing small towns and retail businesses in general, focusing on how viable the two are at this point. Councilmember Crais added that a proposed budget will be part of the report on this issue so Council can make an informed decision about whether or not to fund it. Councilmember Bellman urged that this issue be considered in the larger context of the Comprehensive Plan to forestall historical-district retailers being “bled off” into outlying commercial areas. Council gave Councilmember Crais the go-ahead to pursue the idea. There was general disappointment in the Township’s decision not to participate.

Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). No report. Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Councilmember Bellman, Mayor Robertson). Councilmember Bellman reported on the recent session with State Senator Hottinger and State Representative Evans to discuss north-south route. He appreciated Mr. Hottinger’s honesty in saying that this was a long-term project and felt we now had a good “road map” for how to get the project moving (e.g., get a lot more people on board, for starters). Mr. Hottinger warned against getting too specific too early, suggesting we promote the concept and let the details fall into place later. He also stated frankly that economic development would be the compelling argument behind the project, taking far more precedence that either safety concerns or the desire of Granville and/or Newark to eliminate certain traffic along our residential streets. Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). No report.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). Met this morning. Report to be presented in two weeks.

Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Meets next Tuesday.

Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). All new lights scheduled for installation this year are in. Council will be asked to appropriate more money for next year’s additions/replacements.

Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Councilmembers Bellman, Crais; Vice Mayor Wernet). Councilmember Crais reported on a detailed presentation by Jobes Henderson Associates that illustrated sophisticated ways of surveying/modeling of the Broadway area that would allow us to create a virtual reality and see what projects would look like before any actual work is done. He felt the concept seems promising and stated it would go a long way toward allaying citizens’ concerns up front. The procedure is, obviously, more expensive but would seem to be warranted, especially for Broadway proposals. Councilmember Lucier pointed out that even though it may be more expensive when added on to engineering costs for a particular project, the initial scanning would then be available for future use.

Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore) No report.

Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier). No report, except to say that the annual Halloween party— with volunteers patrolling the cemetery and answering questions—was held.

OTHER: Manager Hickman·Stated that he would be bringing a department head to every other Council meeting so Council could both ask questions and hear concerns. Tonight’s guest was Chief Cartnal. Council and Chief Cartnal discussed Beggar’s Night, noting especially the helpful presence of Denison students with safety vests in the major crosswalks. Chief Cartnal hopes to expand their presence next year. Councilmember Moore asked why there hadn’t been more of an officer presence in the downtown area, both on foot and in cruisers, to keep the kids calmed down. Chief Cartnal stated that there were three officers on duty that night, one at Spring Hills (at their request) and two in town—one of whom was dressed in the Safety Pup costume and riding the “gator.” There were no special-duty officers that evening. Manager Hickman stated that the procedure would be different next Halloween. Councilmember Crais noted that the speeds on Pearl Street were getting out of hand again and urged a little more stealth in the placement of the speed gun unit.

Mayor Robertson Displayed a certificate of award from the DAR Constitution Week Committee, presented to the Village of Granville Mayor’s Office “in Recognition of Outstanding Work in Upholding and Promoting the Ideals of the Constitution of the United States.”

Reported that the Township Trustees had proposed Wednesday, November 22nd, as the date for the joint meeting. Asked Manager Hickman to find an alternate time since that was the night before Thanksgiving.

Reminded Council that their special Saturday meeting would be December 2nd, from 8:00-10:00am.

Councilmember Bellman Reminded Council that we had spent money last year on a series of four public service radon ads and asked if we should do it again. He suggested inviting people to pass along names of contractors they’ve used so others might know where to turn. Council agreed to fund the ads. Councilmember Bellman will develop the idea with Manager Hickman.

Councilmember Crais Reported having seen the speed tables in Burlington, Vermont. He was impressed by their appearance and effectiveness and suggested Manager Hickman contact the Burlington Village Manager.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – November 15, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McGowan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:31pm. Second by Councilmember Crais. Meeting adjourned.

Council Minutes 10/18/00

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:34pm)

ROLL CALL (7:34pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson, and Manager Hickman. Councilmember Lucier moved to excuse Vice Mayor Wernet, due to the death of his mother; second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried. 

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:35pm) Robert Birch, 196 North Buena Vista Street, Newark (representing the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast). Invited Council to attend this year’s event (6:00am, Friday October 3, Adena Hall on the OSU-N campus). The sponsors are asking community leaders to join them in trying to draw the county together and using the spiritual component of this event to foster cooperation.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 7:37pm.

PUBLIC HEARING (7:37pm) A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 20-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. No one appeared to speak for or against the Ordinance. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 7:37pm.

NEW BUSINESS (7:38pm) Ordinance No. 21-00, An Ordinance To Create A Broadway Bed Fund, was introduced by title only by Councilmember Bellman; second by Councilmember Crais. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 21-00 for November 1, 2000. (7:39pm) Ordinance No. 22-00, An Ordinance Providing For The Issuance Of $960,000 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 Refunding The Village’s Outstanding Sewer System Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds Dated As Of May 1, 1991, and Constructing Improvements To The Municipal Sanitary Sewer System, And Matters Related Thereto, And Declaring An Emergency, was introduced by title only by Councilmember Moore; second by Councilmember Bellman.

Discussion: Molly Roberts reported that the 1-year renewal note went out for bid. Five bids were received; the low bid specifies a net interest rate of 4.52%. Part of the proceeds will be used to retire sanitary sewer bonds at a lower interest rate and to reduce the years of the debt. The impact on sewer debt charge on water bills is not yet clear.

Councilmember Moore moved the emergency clause of the Ordinance. Second by Councilmember Bellman. A Roll Call vote yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. The Emergency is declared.

A Roll Call vote on Ordinance 22-00 yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 22-00 is adopted.

(7:45pm) Ordinance No. 23-00, An Ordinance To Establish The Granville Village Manager’s Salary For 2001, was introduced by title only by Councilmember Lucier; second by Councilmember Crais. Mayor Robertson corrected the dates on the 7th and 9th lines of Page 2 to read: 9/15/2001 and 9/15/2002, respectively. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 21-00 for November 1, 2000

OLD BUSINESS (7:47pm) Wage and Salary Discussion: Councilmember Moore stated she believed there had been a misunderstanding of the second proposal, making all the related charts incorrect (i.e., there are some two-step increases where the intent was for everyone below the “J” level to get normal one-step increases). She cited the attachment to the 9/26/00 memo, page 1, “Estimated Projected Wages for 2001-2003,” showing the 4% adjustment.

Mr. McGowan moved that Council adopt the original 2000 proposal without re-lettering the steps or changing anything except for the addition of “J” at 4% above “I”; second by Councilmember Moore.

Discussion: The discussion focused on both long-term and short-term concerns re the salary decisions to be made. Councilmember Bellman asked if adding a step this year would mean we would have to add a new one every year, wondered if the step system accurately reflects the work of the employees and the value we place on it, and cautioned that care needs to be taken not to undermine employee morale by precipitously changing an entrenched pay system. Councilmember McGowan reiterated the need to deal with the top end of the scale in the current decision and stated he felt that awarding a step increase plus an across-the-board increase seemed excessive. Mayor Robertson requested that someone move an amendment to provide a cost-of-living (“COL”) increase, the amount to be determined by an independent index.

Councilmember Crais moved to amend the motion by adding a COL increase of 3.5% to every step. No second. Councilmember Moore stated she had not supported the motion because combining a COL with a step increase makes the steps as stated too large.

Councilmember McGowan moved to amend the motion by giving $500 per employee so that, in case the employee did not get a step increase, he/she would get at least $500. No second.

Councilmember Bellman moved to amend the motion by giving an across-the-board 2% increase; second by Councilmember Crais. Discussion of the motion to amend: Councilmember Crais reiterated that he was troubled by the ways in which COL and merit issues have been completely muddled, and felt that the proposal on the floor distinguished between the two. He is also increasingly troubled by this being a community of increasing affluence that has contributing workers who are unable to live here, and feels it is time to put things right. He suggested we also need to take a detailed look at the step system itself, since what appears to have begun as a merit system now seems to be an entitlement system. Councilmember McGowan put forward the concept of a Greater Granville, stating that the Village needed to keep Granville Township practices in mind so Village salaries don’t end up almost doubling Township ones. He is also troubled by the interplay of wage levels, the respect accorded to workers, and increasingly high expectations. Mayor Robertson agreed with the concern about high expectations. She reiterated her concern that we are having trouble keeping employees in several categories and that our goal should be for Granville to be known as a wonderful place to live and work. She asked Manager Hickman about the criteria for moving up a step (i.e., was it always expected or was there a merit component?). Manager Hickman responded that it had, in fact, come to have a feeling of entitlement but that efforts were under way to revert to a merit system (i.e., an evaluation system that tracks improvements in performance, with written reports that go into an employee’s permanent record). Councilmember Moore asked how many of the 41 or so employees did not get a step increase last year; Manager Hickman reported that “one or two” did not. Councilmember Moore asked what the standard was for a step increase; Manager Hickman said an employee had to be “at least above average.” Councilmember Bellman reiterated his feeling that Council needed to confine itself to “tweaking” the system for this year and schedule a major rewrite for next year so employees have adequate warning of an impending change. He also said it might be too lofty a goal to have workers live in the Village, given the rapid inflation of property values and attendant taxes. Councilmember Lucier suggested we make an effort, whenever possible, to hire people who already live here. A show-of-hands vote on the motion to amend yielded a 3-3 tie; the motion-to-amend is not carried. Councilmember Crais called the question on the motion. A show-of-hands vote on the motion yielded a 3-3 tie. The motion is not carried. Councilmember Lucier moved that Council change the schedule by adding step “J” at 4% above step “I”, and do an across- the-board adjustment of 1% for each step except “J”. Second by Councilmember Moore. A voice vote on the motion yielded two (2) ayes and four (4) nays. The motion is not carried.

Councilmember Bellman moved to give an across-the-board 2% increase plus a 1.5% bonus paid out in December. Second by Councilmember Crais. Discussion: Councilmember Moore asked if Councilmember Bellman intended to bump up every step; he said he did and that the 2% increase would be permanent. Councilmember McGowan pointed out that, with the increases of 4-6% already built in to the system, the 2% increase would mean net increases of 6-9%. Councilmember Moore called the question. A voice vote yielded two (2) ayes, three (3) nays, and one (1) abstention. The motion is not carried.

Councilmember Moore moved to add “J” at 4% above “I”, to increase the scale across-the-board by 1% except for “J”, and to provide a 1% bonus. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Councilmember Moore explained that her plan gives a modest adjustment to the scale itself to acknowledge changes in the market place, gives a 2% increase (only 1% of which carries over) and does not affect the step increases. Councilmember McGowan pointed out that the least anyone would get if they don’t move a step is 1% + 1%; the maximum, if they do move up a step, would be 8.25%. Councilmember Bellman moved to amend the motion by changing the 1% across-the-board increase to 1.5%. Second by Councilmember Crais. Councilmember Bellman stated the extra .5% would have a huge psychological impact, added to the step increase as opposed to the bonus. Councilmember Moore felt that an employee who didn’t get a step increase may not be an employee we want to keep. Councilmember Bellman responded that he was more concerned about the level of employees’ expectations. Councilmember McGowan pointed out that this amendment could result in a 9% overall adjustment. A voice vote on the motion-to-amend yielded a 3-3 tie. The motion-to-amend is not carried. A voice vote on the motion yielded a 3-3 tie. The motion is not carried.

Councilmember Lucier moved that Council add step “J” at 4% above step “I”, do an across-the-board adjustment of 1.5% not including “J”, and give a 1% bonus including “J”, to be paid in January 2001, based on 2001 wages. Second by Councilmember Crais. A voice vote on the motion yielded five (5) ayes and one (1) nay. The motion is carried.

Manager Hickman then asked about his proposal to change the payment for an insurance waiver from $600/year to $1,000/year. Nine employees now participate in this program and he is hoping to secure more. Councilmember Lucier asked if we require proof that employees are otherwise insured before they may participate in this program. Molly Roberts said we do. Councilmember Moore asked if there were any concrete evidence that more employees would participate if the waiver fee were raised. Manager Hickman said he and Ms. Roberts would gather data and bring the issue back at a subsequent meeting if it proved worth pursuing. (9:08pm) Ordinance No. 20-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses.

Discussion: Joe clarified that the second line item ($3,500 for the Broadway Bed) is meant to be part of a $5,000 total expenditure, the other $1,500 of which comes from Ordinance 21-00. Since Ordinance 21-00 cannot be voted on until the next Council meeting, the appropriation is being done this way to allow the community volunteers to start work immediately.

A Roll Call vote on Ordinance 20-00 yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. Ordinance No. 20-00 is adopted. 

NEW BUSINESS (9:12pm) Resolution No. 00-40, A Resolution To Adopt The Findings Of Fact By Council Relative To The Appeal Hearing Of Robert Seith, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Bellman; second by Councilmember Lucier. Councilmember Lucier commended Mr. Erhard for a well- written Finding of Fact. Manager Hickman reported that the paving proposal from Roberts Construction would come before the Planning Commission at its next meeting.

A voice vote yielded six (6) affirmative votes. Resolution 00-40 is adopted.

MAYOR'S REPORT (9:15pm) The Mayor's Court Report for the month of September was presented for review. Councilmember Crais made a motion to accept the report; second by Councilmember Moore. Motion carried. Mayor Robertson directed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

MANAGER'S REPORT (9:16pm) The Manager's Report for the month of September was presented for review. Councilmember Crais made a motion to accept the report; second by Councilmember McGowan. Mayor Robertson directed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (9:17pm) Councilmember Lucier made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted; second by Councilmember Crais. The motion carried.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (9:17pm) Development Committee (Councilmember Crais). The next meeting will include the finalization of new- business brochure and a rough draft re the possible formation of economic council.

Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). The report was covered in the discussion of Ordinance 22-00. Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Mayor Robertson). The next meeting is Friday at 3:30, with our State Senator and State Representative joining members of the committee and council members from both communities.

Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Have not met since last Council meeting.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). Met with members of the GPBA Beautification Committee to discuss signs. There are many different opinions, particularly with respect to color. There will have a special meeting next Wednesday at 7:30am to discuss the traffic corridor overlay district being replaced by the historic district.

Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Meets first Tuesday. No report since last meeting.

Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Lights are almost all installed; will replace more old lights next year.

Streets & Sidewalks Committee (for Vice Mayor Wernet). No meeting.

Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore). No quorum. Manager Hickman reported that tree planting on South Main Street will begin shortly. Flowering trees on the Broadway Beds will also be planted. Councilmember McGowan asked about the stump-removal policy. Manager Hickman responded that he is now convinced that we need to make stump removal more of a continuous operation (i.e., get the tree down, get the stump out, and plant the new tree all in one contained time frame). The procedure will be changed.

Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier). Will meet next Monday. Had a successful meeting to resolve the property-line dispute with the Michaels. The proposed new line has been staked and surveyors will be doing a review.

OTHER: Mayor Robertson: · Asked if Manager Hickman had an update from Jerry Brems of LCATS. He reported he had attended their last meeting. Councilmember Moore asked if they had appropriated the money for the north-south study. Manager Hickman said they have to come up with new language in order to do so, but did agree to spending money for the feasibility study. They also gave him a copy of an engineering proposal and said they would make their aerial available as well; he hopes to have it for Mayor Robertson’s Friday meeting of the joint committee. Everything should fall into place with the next fiscal year. · Asked if anyone would be handing out candy at the Village Office on Beggar’s Night. Councilmembers Moore and McGowan have volunteered to do so. · Asked again about shielding the lights at the Elementary School. Manager Hickman said he has an appointment with the appropriate person early next week. Mayor Robertson asked him to check back copies of minutes from the Planning Commission to verify that this was promised at the outset. · Asked if a date for a planning session for Council had been set. Manager Hickman will e-mail everyone tomorrow and coordinate the responses. He added that he also has an invitation out to Norm Kennedy re the joint Township Trustees/Village Council meeting. · Asked about a date for the volunteer-recognition event. Manager Hickman said it will be October 27th, 11:00am-12:30pm, at Fanchion Lewis Park, for employees. He is still searching for a suitable date for the volunteer get-together.

Councilmember Moore: · Asked if Council would like to offer condolences to Vice Mayor Wernet on the death of his mother. Everyone decided to give a joint donation to the Sugar Loaf Fund, via McPeek Funeral Home. Manager Hickman: · Re Sugar Loaf Park – reported that the Sugar Loaf Foundation has a considerable amount of money. The trustees want to dissolve the Foundation, however, and turn the money over to the Village to be used for a Sugar Loaf Reserve Fund. He and Linda Sandin did a walk-through of the park. Mrs. Sandin wants to stay involved as a volunteer, as does Ben Barton. Manager Hickman feels we could use the Foundation funds to hire someone to clear trees, etc., if something needs to be done and Village workers are tied up elsewhere. He will also coordinate getting volunteers from local Scout troops. The Park looks good now; the benches were brought back up to the top of the hill the same day Ben Barton came to Council’s last meeting. In an interesting twist, Mrs. Sandin proposed dealing with the overgrown areas by using temporary, movable fencing to confine a pair of goats whose grazing habits would take care of the problem in no time.

Councilmember Bellman: · Asked that discussing the Comprehensive Plan be added to the agenda for the joint meeting of Township Trustees and Village Council.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – November 1, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:37pm. Second by Councilmember Moore. Meeting adjourned. 

Council Minutes 10/4/00

 VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 4, 2000 

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:33pm)

ROLL CALL (7:33pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, and Manager Hickman. Attorney Robert Erhard was present to sit in for Law Director Hurst. Vice Mayor Wernet moved to excuse Councilmember Bellman; second by Councilmember Crais. Motion carried.

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:35pm) Mayor Robertson welcomed the members of Boy Scout Troop 51.

Bike Path Arie Janssens, 764 Newark Granville Road. Noted that the crossing at West Broadway is badly in need of yellow paint. [Manager Hickman stated that though that crossing is probably on township land, he will work on it.] Mr. Janssens asked if the path could be plowed in the winter. [Manager Hickman said the Village is investigating a rolling-brush attachment for a small tractor but cautioned that any work on the bike path would have to wait until other plowing is accomplished.]

Susan Murr, 279 Potters Lane. Thanked Manager Hickman for removing trash behind the township land east of the cemetery and asked for a trash receptacle somewhere along the path behind Wildwood Park. [Manager Hickman said he would see that one was placed within the Village limits.]

Sugar Loaf Ben Barton, speaking for the Sugar Loaf Park Foundation. Reported the park is in “deplorable condition,” with trees down across pathways, benches rolled down over the hill, poison ivy everywhere, and the kind of trash that indicated “hangout-type activities.” Reminded Council that, two years ago, the Village committed to taking a more proactive stance about the park’s maintenance and urged Council to take care of its property. [Councilmember Lucier stated that Council needs a planned approach to maintaining all our public property and suggested a comprehensive look at the issue.] Responding to a question from Mayor Robertson about the Foundation, Mr. Barton said he and Linda Sandin are the only two members at this time. [Mayor Robertson suggested that the management of Sugar Loaf might parallel that of Fanchion Lewis Park, with an advisory committee. Councilmember Moore asked Manager Hickman if anyone did regular maintenance in the parks; Manager Hickman responded that trash pick-up was the main Village activity. Councilmember Crais suggested an “urban forester” position, with someone assigned to look at greenspaces in a coordinated way. There was general consensus that this is also a coordination issue—a problem with no niche and therefore no committee assigned to oversee it. Mayor Robertson asked Mr. Barton to prepare a list of the problems and give it to Manager Hickman. Council, meanwhile, will direct one of the standing committees (e.g., Streets and Sidewalks or Tree and Landscape) to take up the matter. Vice Mayor Wernet added that we need a long- term focus as well and suggested the two named committees have a joint meeting; Councilmember Moore suggested adding Parks and Recreation. Councilmember McGowan, recalling that the Village had done some work on Sugar Loaf after Mr. Barton’s last appearance at a Council meeting, asked Manager Hickman if some preliminary work could be done now. Manager Hickman said he and Mr. Barton would work together to do what they can before leaf pick-up season starts. He also asked Mr. Barton to make more regular reports of the park’s condition rather than waiting until the situation is so serious. Several Councilmembers asked if the police made, or could make, regular visits to the park. Manager Hickman reported that they do so with Wildwood and Fanchion Lewis; he will check on the status of Sugar Loaf. Councilmember Moore stated that Village parkland should be treated like Village streets and sidewalks, with regularly scheduled maintenance procedures. The Village has relied on volunteer help for much of this in the past, but needs to coordinate the efforts better and be more diligent about finding out what the needs are.] Boy Scouts Darryl Dickerson, Scoutmaster of Troop 51. Informed Council that the scouts, as part of their rank requirements, they must complete service projects. He suggested that Council communicate any needs for help with such projects (e.g., Sugar Loaf) to Steve Hoar, the District Representative of the Licking District, so that every scout troop in the area would know.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments at 8:01pm

PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings.

NEW BUSINESS (8:01 pm) Cherry Valley Road/ODOT Review (Jerry Brems) [Background: The current ODOT study proposes widening S.R. 161 from New Albany to Granville into a 4- lane/divided/limited-access road, ending at southbound S.R. 37. While the proposal may be amended to include the River Road/S.R. 16 crossing, there are no current plans to include the Cherry Valley Road/S.R. 16 crossing.] Mr. Brems appeared to ask Council to add their endorsement to a request being submitted to ODOT to include Cherry Valley Road in the pending study. The County Commissioners, the cities of Newark and Heath, and the Granville Township Trustees have all already expressed their concern that the expected increase in traffic resulting from the widening would be a very serious problem at that intersection. Council was virtually unanimous in its insistence that any study of east-west routes would be seriously deficient unless it also included a simultaneous study of the interdependent north-south routes, since increased east- west traffic would only exacerbate the existing north-south problems. Mr. Brems indicated that he expected ODOT would fund the River Road study; if that happens, LCATS would be willing to transfer funds it had set aside for the River Road study to a study of north-south routes. If the River Road study is not funded by ODOT, for whatever reason, Council agreed that Cherry Valley Road should not be included at the expense of River Road. Vice Mayor Wernet challenged Mr. Brems' recollection of what had transpired during his previous discussions with Council on this issue about four years ago, and asked why Council should have any confidence in ODOT and/or LCATS doing what they said they would do. Councilmember Moore asked what information would be produced by the study. Mr. Brems responded that the study would look at traffic volumes, origins and destinations, delays at intersection, projected traffic volumes over a 20-year period, alternative interchange locations, environmental concerns, cultural issues, and public input. Councilmember Moore stated it was “incredulous’ that ODOT wouldn’t include Cherry Valley Road without prompting. Councilmember Crais reiterated Vice Mayor Wernet’s concern that the north-south issue consistently fails to enter into the public discourse. Studies, even though they may be frustrating, have a way of profoundly shaping what comes out in the end and the fears are that this study will lead to an interchange at Cherry Valley Road while having failed to address the north-south issue. Councilmember Crais said he felt it was “quite wise” to refuse the extension of the currently proposed study until people have a clear and concrete solution to the north-south problems (“If we do otherwise, we risk exacerbating the situation.”) Mr. Brems noted that there is no guarantee that funding will follow the study but nothing can happen unless we take the first step; not addressing the Cherry Valley intersection now would be a terrible mistake. Mayor Robertson asked if the entities that had already signed on to this proposal had put any conditions on their support. Mr. Brems replied that they had: they would not let the project go forward if Cherry Valley Road were not included. Vice Mayor Wernet asked if Mr. Brems and the others would take the same stand re the north-south element. Mr. Brems asked if Vice Mayor Wernet meant tying construction dollars to the project. Vice Mayor Wernet said, no, he meant would the group refuse to facilitate more traffic coming in without creating a way for it to go north-south. Mr. Brems' answer was non-responsive in that he said he could not make such a commitment, that anything north-south would not be a state route and therefore not eligible for dollars, and that he could not speak for the County or Newark or Heath on this issue without their agreement. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Brems why he was just now coming to Council. He responded that he had tried a week or so ago to contact the Village and noted that the letters he had distributed to Council at this meeting (dated in August) had been done independent of meeting with any other entities or communities. Councilmember Lucier asked Mr. Brems how much LCATS even needed Council’s support and whether affected rights-of-way around the Cherry Valley Road intersection were even in the Village. Mr. Brems responded that only the north-side rights-of-way were in the Village and that, in all reality, LCATS didn’t need Council’s support at all; they would just like to be “neighborly and together on this issue with other communities.” Councilmember Moore re-emphasized the strong tie between how a study is conducted and what projects we end up with, stated that it’s therefore vital that Council be involved, and asked Mr. Brems just how involved we could be. Mr. Brems stated the Village could be as involved as any other political entity; it was simply a matter of having names put on ODOT’s mailing list to be notified of meetings, etc. He also said he could Manager Hickman’s name on the LCATS list so he would be notified of LCATS staff meetings with contractors. Vice Mayor Wernet asked about the total dollar amount of the study. Mr. Brems responded that the environmental study to date has spent $3 million; ODOT has asked for another $1 million to study the area from S.R. 310 to Granville. There will be a new right-of- way from the Franklin County line to S.R. 310; they have yet to decide on the right-of-way east of S.R. 310. The overall budget for the project is $157 million. He stated that he was “pretty confident “that LCATS will insist on including River Road, then added they won’t sacrifice one for the other (i.e., both River Road and Cherry Valley Road must be included). Vice Mayor Wernet asked if $75,000 would be enough for both studie; Mr. Brems said it would cover both feasibility studies. He also said that LCATS has already okayed another $10-15,000 “if that’s what it takes.” Councilmember Crais asked if 2% of the $4 million earmarked for the environmental study of S.R. 16 could be dedicated to the north-south issue. Mr. Brems said not, given that the north-south route is a “different level of study” with a different funding source. Councilmember Crais asked if there was any ODOT interest in including the north- south issue in this study. Mr. Brems said there was none at this time. Councilmember Moore asked if the 4-lane highway was a “done deal” irrespective of what the study says. Mr. Brems said it was, from the Franklin County line to S.R. 310. He then asked for an indication of Council’s level of support. Councilmember Lucier asked if Council LCATS would make a separate commitment to do the north-south study. Mr. Brems said he would put an item to appropriate the funds on the next LCATS agenda and assured Council that, if the LCATS vote supporting the north-south study isn’t unanimous, he will not report Granville as being supportive of the inclusion of Cherry Valley Road in the study. Manager Hickman will attend the LCATS meeting tomorrow and will report back to Council.

(8:47pm) Ordinance No. 20-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was introduced by title only by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Councilmember Crais. A hearing was set for October 18.

(8:48pm) Resolution No. 00-34, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise For Bids For Crosswalk/Speed Table Improvements On South Main Street, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais. [Discussion: Councilmember Lucier asked for clarification of which crosswalks were included. Manager Hickman noted it was just the just bike pathway and said the crosswalk had been redesigned to include a catch basin to avoid ice pooling. Council reviewed the plans with Manager Hickman.] A voice vote on Resolution 00-34 yielded six (6) ayes. Resolution 00-34 is carried.

(8:53pm) Resolution No. 00-37, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise For Bids For Cedar Street Sidewalk Improvements, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais. [Discussion: Council reviewed the plans with Manager Hickman.] A voice vote on Resolution 00-34 yielded six (6) ayes. Resolution 00-37 is carried.

(9:00pm) Resolution No. 00-38, A Resolution Of Appreciation To Bernie Lukco For His Dedicated Service To The Granville Planning Commission, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. A voice vote on Resolution 00-34 yielded six (6) ayes. Resolution 00-38 is carried.

OLD BUSINESS (9:02) 2001 Salary/Wage Discussion After much discussion, it was apparent that five of the six council members present remained unwilling to move forward on this issue. Councilmember Crais summarized by saying that the way Council has deal with salaries over the years is “all over the place” – different increases, no increases, flat increases, and the like – and the entire process needs to be examined. Mayor Robertson stated that, rather than concentrating on the details of the “step” system now in place, Council’s first priority ought to be agreeing on a philosophical premise (i.e., what pay, and pay raises, represent). Another important issue – to determine what part pay and morale play in why we seem to be losing so many employees – will have to dealt with in the long run since it cannot be addressed fully before the November deadline for salary determinations. Councilmember Moore added that the new census might well move Granville to a “city” classification, meaning we would be subject to collective bargaining and should therefore be both conservative and cautious with our salary scale. Additional discussion on details led to the conclusion that more information was needed on market comparisons for our jobs as well as health-insurance premium increases. Manager Hickman said he could produce this information for the next meeting. Councilmember Crais asked if Manager Hickman would do a prose draft of Councilmember McGowan’s salary proposal, as well as a prose proposal for timing, action, percentage increases, etc. Mayor Robertson asked that the issue be the first agenda item at the next meeting.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (10:00pm) The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of September 20, 2000, were presented for review. The following amendment was requested by Council-member Moore: Page 2, Personnel Committee - rephrase the third sentence to read, “Attachment C showed a revised scale, eliminating Step A of the 2000 salary schedule as the lowest level of the scale and creating a new column for the highest level, 4% above the previous high.” Councilmember Crais moved to approved the minutes as amended; second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Motion passed.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (10:07pm) Economic Development Committee (Councilmembers Crais and Moore; Mayor Robertson). The committee continues to move toward the completion of the brochure to assist prospective businesses. Norm Kennedy, representing the Township Trustees, joined the meeting and the Committee indicated interest in enlarging its membership to include on a regular basis any Township Trustees who wished to attend. The Committee also initiated work on exploring the formation of an economic council. Councilmember Crais will draw up a proposal for their next scheduled meeting.

Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). Has not met since the last Council meeting. Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Councilmember Bellman, Mayor Robertson). Has not met since the last Council meeting.

Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). No report.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). No report. [NOTE: Mr. Erhard reported that the Planning Commission had approved a request to erect a temporary structure (i.e., a modular unit), per the covenants, to use as an off-road construction/sales office to keep cars from parking along the sides of Granville road. Mr. Erhard feels the definition of “structure” needs to be more adequately addressed in the zoning code itself. It is now defined as something permanently attached, or something attached to something that is permanently attached – a definition that means trailers may not be regulated at all. This usage (as a preview center, rather than the permitted construction shed) pushes the envelope. Vice Mayor Wernet: asked Mr. Erhard to draft a solution to meet these concerns. Mr. Erhard said he would try to find out what other communities have done and make some recommendations.

 Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). The fall brochures are out and are very nicely done. The Commission is considering a possible user fee for Union Township residents. The Kiwanis Club will install a flagpole at Raccoon Park to facilitate playing the national anthem before sporting events. The skateboard park will be used again for July 4th fireworks. Finally, survey results will be available in the near future.

Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). The lights have arrived and are being installed.

Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Councilmembers Bellman, Crais; Vice Mayor Wernet). Met with Seth Patton about Denison’s desire to reduce traffic on Burg Street by keeping campus traffic on the campus. The plan would require moving Burg Street slightly to the west. The Denison parking spots would be eliminated, leaving a slightly reduced number of municipal spots. The Committee asked Mr. Patton to come to a Council meeting present the general concepts. The consensus of the Committee was that, even though details remain to be worked out, this could well make good sense. The Committee also talked about the general tidiness of downtown. For example, they suggested better coordination on work in the Broadway Boulevard area (e.g., taking trees out and replacing them in the same general time frame). Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore) No report. Manager Hickman noted that the tree planting on South Main Street will begin shortly. Twelve trees will also be planted in the Broadway Boulevard.

Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier). Plans are under way to meet with the property owners disputing boundary lines on the east side of the cemetery.

OTHER (10:32pm) Mayor Robertson: · Asked for a proclamation to formally thank the BluesFest organizers. · Reminded Council of the need to schedule a planning meeting for priority-setting. · Invited council members to attend the October 20th public meeting of the Newark-Granville Joint Committee when Jay Hottinger and David Evans will be present. · Reported on her meeting with Manager Hickman, and Phil Watts about the truck scales. The terms Mr. Watts would require for use of his scales are not acceptable (i.e., too restrictive and not legal); the Village will now move on to install our own scales. · Sent the request from the woman in Kirkersville re holiday decorations to the Denison Community Association to see if students want to take it on as a project. · Asked for volunteer(s) to hand out candy at the Village office on Beggars Night. · Asked for a volunteer representative to the Farmland Preservation Task force. Councilmember Crais recommended Kitty Consolo; Manager Hickman will meet with her. · Asked if there had been any response to attempts to set up a meeting with the Township Trustees; Manager Hickman said there had not. Mayor Robertson will give Manager Hickman a copy of the proposed agenda she gave to Jim Havens. · Reported that Chief Cartnal had done an excellent job in meeting with members of the Denison community about substance-abuse problems on campus that spill over into the village. There have been few-to-no incidents this year. Members of Denison psychology and sociology classes are signing up to ride with officers in the cruisers. · Asked Manager Hickman to communicate with Marion Dunham in regard to her letter about the Pearl-College intersection. · Asked that the lights on the elementary school be shielded. · Asked about a resolution of agreement to Manager Hickman’s continued employment. Mr. Erhard will have a draft employment agreement ready for review at the next meeting.

Councilmember Crais: Expressed concern about the skateboard park - vandals’ activity, possible drug activity, and safety issues.

Vice Mayor Wernet: Asked if the leaf pick-up schedule could be restructured so that entire quadrants of town aren’t restricted at the same time. Manager Hickman will talk it over with the crews.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – October 18, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:55pm. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Meeting adjourned. 

Council MInutes 9/20/00

 VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 20, 2000 

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:31pm)

ROLL CALL (7:31pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Moore, and McGowan; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, and Manager Hickman. Attorney Robert Erhard was present to sit in for Law Director Hurst. Councilmember Crais moved to excuse Councilmembers Bellman and Lucier; second by Vice Mayor Wernet. The motion passed, with Councilmember McGowan abstaining. [Note: Councilmember Bellman arrived at 8:35pm.]

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:32pm) Blues Festival: Jerry Martin, 15 Briarwood Drive. Speaking for the Blues Festival organizing committee, he expressed appreciation for the Village’s help and presented a check for $1,000 to go toward landscaping expenses. Next year’s projected Festival date is September 8, 2001.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 7:35pm.

OLD BUSINESS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:35pm) None

NEW BUSINESS (7:36pm) Resolution No. 00-33, A Resolution Accepting The Amounts And Rates As Determined By The Budget Commission And Authorizing The Necessary Tax Levies and Certifying Them To The County Auditor, was introduced and the applicable portions read in full by Councilmember Crais. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. A Roll Call vote (required by the Resolution) yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, McGowan, Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. Resolution 00-33 is carried.

(7:42 pm) Resolution No. 00-35, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Submit A Grant Application For 2000- 2001 Capital Improvement Projects To District 17, Ohio Public Works Commission, For Funding, On Granville’s Behalf, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Moore. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. A voice vote on Resolution 00-34 yielded five (5) ayes. Resolution 00-34 is carried.

(7:43 pm) Resolution No. 00-36, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Accept And Sign An Escrow Agreement Between The Park National Bank, Newark, The Granville Golf Course Co., And The Village Of Granville For The Colony At Bryn Du, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Moore. A voice vote on Resolution 00-35 yielded five (5) ayes. Resolution 00-35 is carried.

Personnel Committee Councilmember McGowan presented the Committee’s 2001 salary- schedule proposals for Village employees. Attachment B showed a 3.5% CPI across-the-board adjustment, applied to the existing categories of the 2000 scale. Attachment C showed a revised scale, eliminating Step A of the 2000 salary schedule as the lowest level of the scale and creating a new column for the highest level, 4% above the previous high. Vice Mayor Wernet, asserting that our goal is to attract and retain good employees in a way that is economical for the community, listed two factors that help determine appropriate adjustments: 1) productivity—usually a result of longevity on the job, and 2) cost-of-living adjustments. Both factors affect employee retention. He suggested that we do the wage-and-salary study sooner rather than later to determine if any of our salaries are out of line with area benchmarks. He also noted that, if Attachment C were adopted, existing workers might end up making less than new ones brought in at Step A of the new scale. Mayor Robertson added that Attachment C, with the reclassified steps, could conceivably “demote” someone from Step B to Step A and create a perception of “punishment.” Responding to a question from Councilmember Crais, Manager Hickman stated that employees leave because of wages, morale, and lack of recognition. Council controls the wage issue; morale and recognition issues are addressed by the Village Manager. Councilmember Moore noted that people in general want the opportunity for advancement, they want to contribute, and they want recognition for doing a good job. In other words, money is not the only issue. Manager Hickman agreed, stating that morale concerns can stem from such diverse issues as an increase in insurance rates to the unease generated by employees’ knowledge that salaries are being discussed. Councilmember Crais, calling the system a bit “muddled,” asked that it be clarified for Council. Since members of Council felt fairly united on the philosophical issues behind the salary scale, Mayor Robertson requested Molly Roberts to prepare the information in percentage form rather than raw dollars, copy it to Council, and return to Council’s next meeting for the renewed discussion of how to best present the information. Vice Mayor Wernet agreed with Councilmember Moore’s preference for a set pool of money for increases, with performers getting more of an increase than non- performers. Councilmember Moore also suggested some sort of incentive payment (perhaps gift certificate or the like) for work above and beyond the call of duty. She also asked Molly Roberts to prepare a three-year runout on the projections contained in Attachment D. In addition to the salary study, Councilmember Crais asked to see some data on how our wage scale compares to communities with similar schools, incomes, quality of life, desirability (e.g., Hudson or Shaker Heights). He also wondered what percentage of village staff in those comparable communities is able to live where they work. Manager Hickman noted that 2% of Granville’s employees live in the Village; 4%, in the combined Village/Township area. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that there is a real benefit derived from some particular employees, especially police officers, living within the community.

MAYOR'S REPORT (8:30pm) The Mayor's Court Report for the month of August was presented for review. Several members of Council were struck by the increase in traffic citations; Manager Hickman will speak with Chief Cartnal to see if he can explain it. Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to accept the report. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried. Mayor Robertson directed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

MANAGER'S REPORT (8:32pm) The Manager's Report for the month of August was presented for review. Manager Hickman noted that, while there have been tickets issued under the parking permit system, no one has been ticketed twice or towed. Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to accept the report. Second by Councilmember Moore. Mayor Robertson directed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (8:35 pm) The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of September 6, 2000, were presented for review. The following additions/corrections were requested: 1) Page 6, “Minutes.” The Deputy Clerk reported that Councilmember McGowan’s remarks were not on the tape at the point in question. However, since many members of Council remembered a discussion that included the questions and answers indicated, it was decided that the reference may stay in the Minutes for September 6, 2000. 2) Page 7, Street & Sidewalks Committee. Vice Mayor Wernet asked that an extra phrase (“etc., Councilmember Crais, the mill,” be deleted). 3) Page 7, Tree and Landscape Committee. Councilmember Moore noted that it was Councilmember Crais who reported that Kirsten Pape was working on the South Main Street plan presented at a previous meeting. 4) Page 7, Truck Scales. Mayor Robertson clarified that Phil Watts had said he was willing “to speak with her” (not with “council members”) about the scale at the Mill. She also asked council members about the possibility of a delay until “she talks to Mr. Watts,” not until Mr. Watts “comes to a Council meeting.” 5) Page 7, Truck Scales. Councilmember McGowan asked that “He then stated that” be deleted as what follows what actually said by Manager Hickman himself. 6) Page 8, Truck Scales. Councilmember McGowan asked that his name be deleted from the phrase “Councilmembers Crais and McGowan both prefer…:” it will now read “Councilmember Crais prefers….” Councilmember Crais made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Second by Councilmember McGowan. The motion carried

COMMITTEE REPORTS (8:45pm) Development Committee (Councilmember Crais). Has not met but he reported that the brochure is approaching final form. Hopes to meet September 28 to continue review of the brochure and begin conversations about the formation, feasibility, and/or /wisdom of putting together an economic council. Cited a letter from Kitty Consolo about farmland in the township and noted the committee would also be opening discussions re the farming community, reacting also to an upswell of interest in both the township and the village about preserving these lands.

Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). Met with Molly Roberts. Going ahead with calling early all the outstanding Sewer System Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds. A total of $150,000 will be retired completely with reserve-fund money and the principal due ($85,000) will be paid off, in addition to interest. They also reviewed finances and report that revenues are increasing. Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Mayor Robertson). Was unable to meet last Friday, but will do so on October 20, 2000. 

Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). See the discussion on Page 2.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). No report.

Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Meets the first week of the month.

Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Installations to begin this week.

Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Vice Mayor Wernet). Beautification Committee: met with Connie Barsky, representing the Beautification Committee, to discuss where the plan stands in re different constituencies. The Committee suggested a dual process in which both the Village and the Beautification Committee/GPBA should bring their plans through the Village government process (i.e., the Planning Commission) to provide ample opportunity for everyone to voice opinions. The goal is to have both groups’ plans presented there sometime in October—the visual and safety aspects of the redesign of the Broadway crosswalk; ideas about changing the look of the street signs; the redesign of intersections to minimize the distance pedestrians must travel without impeding traffic flow at Broadway-Main and Elm-Main; and the recommendation, based on the South Main Street test, on whether or not to use flashing yellow lights at the Broadway crossing. The issues would then come to Council in December, go out for design in January and bids in February/March. July 4th: the Committee also approved all the current proposals by the Fire Department so as not to impinge on any July 4th celebrations. Ms. Barsky is investigating how to provide safety at the Broadway crosswalk without disturbing the usual arrangement of rides, food booths, etc.; she will report back. The Committee is working with Ruth Owen and the GBPA to ensure the full support of the downtown business community. Specific concerns to be worked out with Kiwanis include how to meet all the applicable fire and safety regulations about entry/exit points without losing any rides. Golf-Course Sidewalk: the Committee is still considering how to deal with the safety issues of the golf- course sidewalk. Discussion: Councilmember Crais, noting that he had been struck by how carefully the Beautification Committee had worked for consensus, suggested it might be profitable for Council to do a review of all ideas from the Beautification Committee to make sure they had all gotten a full hearing. He also suggested that Council meet on a Saturday to review and prioritize the overall list of projects. Other members agreed that would serve us well; Mayor Robertson asked that a date be set. Councilmember Bellman gave high marks to the bike-path improvements around the mill and the railroad station, and suggested erecting a sign that might read, “Improvements Made by the Village of Granville.” Council’s consensus was for Manager Hickman to mention the improvements in his column rather than erecting a sign.

Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore). No report.

Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier). No report

Meeting with Phil Watts (Mayor Robertson): Reported a “fruitful” discussion and said there’s a possibility we could get something to happen here if she and Manager Hickman could meet with Mr. Watts one more time. Councilmember Crais asked Mr. Erhard if there were any legal implications of a law enforcement agency using private scales (i.e., what would happen if there were an accident in the process?). Mr. Erhard stated he was not aware of anything unusual in such an arrangement (e.g., officers could issue tickets for offenses in the IGA parking lot). He could see, however, that somebody might raise an issue about certification of the scales or how often they are tested, since the Village has no way of knowing if they are accurate. Vice Mayor Wernet pointed out that what we need is a scale that weighs by maximum pairs of axles, which is what we’ve ordered. The mill scale weighs the entire truck, full and empty, to determine the weight of the grain, a process that might not be applicable to the Village’s purposes. Councilmember Crais, while still opposed to dragging the process out any further, said he would be willing for Mayor Robertson to proceed with another meeting with Mr. Watts. Vice Mayor Wernet expressed general concern about any time-of-use restrictions that might be imposed. Manager Hickman said the scales ordered by the Village should arrive soon. Vice Mayor Wernet stated that when they arrive they should be installed. Mayor Robertson cautioned that “sometimes peoples’ views evolve over time.” Councilmember Moore feels we are “beating a dead horse” and Vice Mayor Wernet feels it’s “time to cut bait.” Mayor Robertson reported that Mr. Watts is willing to consider a trial period. That idea was not acceptable to either Vice Mayor Wernet or Councilmember Crais. Mayor Robertson emphasized she is trying to help counter criticism of the scale location by visibly exhausting all the possibilities. If this doesn’t work, we can proceed with the scales as ordered and sited, and report to the public that using the Mill’s scales was not feasible. One way or the other, it will be settled in two weeks. Mr. Erhard noted that the mill cannot exempt their own customers from being weighed if we are using their scale. Vice Mayor Wernet wondered, if we were to use the Mill’s scale, what the Village would do with two “concrete paths to nowhere” and scales being shipped in “at some great expense.” He added that any agreement with the Mill would have to pass “constitutional muster” and that the Village’s own salt trucks would have to comply with legal-weight restrictions. Councilmembers Moore and McGowan were willing to have a trial period; Councilmembers Crais and Bellman, along with Vice Mayor Wernet, were not. Mayor Robertson stated again that she wants to make sure the press reports that Council has tried to work this issue out in all kinds of ways. OTHER: Manager Hickman distributed a memo from the volunteers who, prior to this year, had been maintaining the Broadway boulevard beds and end caps. They are especially disappointed at the current condition of the end caps, noting the evidence of “weeds, overgrown shrubbery, and declining plants.” The volunteers are offering their help and asking for Village assistance in the purchase of new shrubbery as well as some cleanup. Manager Hickman said they were asking for approximately $3,500 to restore the end caps to their former condition; after that, they would take care of it themselves. Councilmember Bellman suggested allocating $5,000 at this time, putting the excess in a reserve account for them to use; Council agreed. Manager Hickman will see to the paperwork for a special appropriation and ordinance, as well as the creation of the new fund. He also reported that the group would like to have some kind of plaque or stone that would recognize members of the community for their contributions. Mayor Robertson asked Manager Hickman to let the volunteers know how much Council and the community at large appreciate their work. Manager Hickman said he would try to set an “Appreciation Day” in October. MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – October 4, 2000

EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:17pm, Councilmember Crais moved that Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. Second by Councilmember Bellman. A Roll Call vote yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. All not involved in the executive session left the chamber. At 9:28pm, Councilmember Crais moved to close the executive session; second by Councilmember Bellman. A Roll Call vote yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. The Executive Session was closed. SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Council reached a mutually acceptable agreement with Manager Hickman, who will remain in his post as Village Manager.

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McGowan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00pm. Second by Councilmember Crais. Meeting adjourned. 

 

Council Minutes 9/6/00

 VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 6, 2000 

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:36pm)

ROLL CALL (7:36pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Moore, McGowan, and Lucier; and Mayor Robertson. Attorney Robert Erhard was present to sit in for Law Director Hurst. Councilmember Crais moved to excuse Councilmember Bellman and Vice Mayor Wernet; second by Councilmember Lucier. The motion passed. [Note that Manager Hickman arrived at 8:17pm, Councilmember Bellman at 8:45pm, and Vice Mayor Wernet at 8:47pm.]

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:37pm) Miscellaneous: Jeff Oster, 4049 Goose Lane. [Note: Councilmember Crais excused himself from his seat at the Council table when Mr. Oster rose to speak.] Mr. Oster complimented Council on recent improvements on South Main Street, and thanked Council for facilitating the Blues Festival. He then spoke on behalf of the “shoestore project” on Cherry Valley Road. As the lone commercial entity on that stretch of Cherry Valley Road, Rambling Rose is experiencing problems with its neighbors on both sides (one is a virtual car lot, the other has a “derelict appearance”). Mr. Oster stated asked Council to keep that area in the forefront of its development/beautification plans since it’s the “single most traveled artery from Newark to Granville.” He also wondered if it were possible to change the zip code to “43023” on the Granville section of Cherry Valley Road and felt all of his suggestions would increase the likelihood of having businesses on that stretch that would be positive additions to the community. [Councilmember Crais returned to his seat once Mr. Oster had concluded his remarks.]

Kendal: Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson place. Formally presented Council with a petition containing 455 signatures from Township and Village residents who object to the proposed Burg Street site for Kendal, not to the concept itself. Asked that the petition be kept on file. She also conveyed the group’s opposition to any change in zoning, especially one that might contradict the master plan and include extension of water and sewer. Ed Vance, 248 Thornwood Drive. Spoke in favor of Kendal using the Burg Street site. Also asked that the Village Manager be vigilant about the painting of curbs.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 7:50pm.

[NOTE: Items 4 (Public Hearings) and 5 (Old Business), as well as Item 6.B under New Business were delayed until later in the meeting to await the arrival of Councilmember Bellman and Vice Mayor Wernet. The other business on the agenda was conducted in the interim. The delayed agenda items began to be addressed at 8:37pm.]

PUBLIC HEARINGS (8:37pm) A public hearing was held for Ordinance No. 17-00 (Heritage Overlay District, Architectural Review Overlay District) No one appeared to speak for or against the hearing. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:37pm.

(8:38pm) A public hearing was held for Ordinance No. 18-00 (Appropriation Ordinance). No one appeared to speak for or against the issue. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:38pm.

OLD BUSINESS (8:38pm) Ordinance No. 18-00, An Ordinance To amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was reintroduced by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Broadway Island Irrigation System: Councilmember Moore asked for clarification of the request. Manager Hickman stated that the $7,600 was for labor, materials, and power to automatically turn the sprinklers on and off and to synchronize the watering (currently done by garden-club members on a rather inconsistent schedule). Councilmembers Moore, Crais, and Lucier all questioned whether a Village employee (perhaps even a part-time person paid for by the funds being requested) could turn the sprinklers on and off. Manager Hickman said it might work in theory but that operating the sprinklers would not be a priority for the water department. He also said he would check on why the part-time employee already assigned to that job is obviously not doing it. Mayor Robertson asked for more details before Council could consider approving this request.

Asphalt for Mt. Parnassus Condominiums: Councilmember Moore asked for clarification. Manager Hickman explained that the request for funds is the result of a compromise between the condo association and the Village wherein it was agreed that if the condo association paid for a new lift station ($45,000), the Village would agree to pay for the paving.

Jones Road Improvements: Councilmember Moore stated she had concerns about too few bids being received. Manager Hickman noted that this issue had been discussed at Council’s most recent meeting, then reiterated that a number of factors might be responsible (e.g., the time of the year, etc.). Vice Mayor Wernet felt it might also be that the economy is too good and contractors are not looking aggressively for jobs. Manager Hickman reviewed the Village’s advertising strategies (i.e., ads in The Advocate for three consecutive weeks, as well as notices in the Dodge Report).

Lewis Park: Councilmember Bellman asked if the bigger barn could be redone to make it look more natural (i.e., siding and a higher- pitched roof) so kids who might want to have overnights could do so. He also suggested possibly insulating the concrete floor if there were plans to eventually provide heat in the barn. [Maxine Montgomery, a member of the Park Board, was at the meeting at the request of Councilmember Bellman to answer questions. She stated that the committee had discussed the pros and cons of waiting to pour concrete floors until they had a more complete plan for the buildings, or going ahead with floors and prioritizing afterwards. Their consensus was to go ahead and pour the floors.] Councilmember Bellman was concerned that work done now would have to be undone if later planning called for insulation, plumbing, etc. Councilmember Crais agreed that more planning up front would serve everyone well in the long run and suggested that this portion of Ordinance 18-00 be deleted. [Mrs. Montgomery noted that the committee is trying for some grant money and a more specific plan would be very helpful in that process.] Councilmember Moore suggested that Mrs. Montgomery investigate NatureWorks for grant possibilities. Mayor Robertson invited someone from the committee to come to the next Council meeting; Mrs. Montgomery, in turn, invited Council members to attend their next meeting. Vice Mayor Wernet moved to remove A3-4f-250 from Ordinance 18- 00; second by Councilmember Crais. A Roll Call vote yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. The amendment passed. Councilmember Moore moved to remove A1-4f-250 from Ordinance 18-00; second by Councilmember McGowan. A Roll Call vote yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. The amendment passed. A Roll Call vote on Ordinance 18-00 as amended yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 18-00, as amended, is adopted.

(9:13pm) Presbyterian Church Alley Appeal – Discussion/Decision

Discussion: Mayor Robertson asked Mr. Erhard to restate Council’s mandate. Mr. Erhard noted that the decision of the Planning Commission has been appealed and a public hearing was held August 16, 2000. Council is obligated to render a decision by the following council meeting (September 6, 2000) and to set forth in writing within 45 days thereafter both the decision and the findings of fact. Section 1137.01(j) of the Code gives Council the option to affirm, reverse, revoke, modify, or remand for further proceedings. Any decision should be supported by evidence from hearing and from planning commission.

Councilmember Crais noted that it was clear in the record that the alley was supposed to be 16 feet wide and it’s not. What is less clear and, therefore, the crux of the disagreement, is whether the error is substantial or not. Councilmember Crais remains unsympathetic to the argument that forcing the church (and thereby the construction company) to adhere to its initial agreement would adversely affect the church. He is more concerned about whether an alley less than 16 feet wide poses a serious problem to the residents, and feels it may well do so. As a point of information, Councilmember Lucier asked if the church would have had to request a variance if the Planning Commission had not ruled that the modification was “minor.” Mr. Erhard said if the modification had been ruled “substantial,” the church would have had to formally amend the plan by repeating the entire process. Councilmember Crais noted that the road had originally been wider at one end than the other and making it straight had had a more substantial impact than originally envisioned. Councilmember Bellman agreed and felt that since parking is a critical issue, he would support having the road finished per design. Mayor Robertson, saying she had looked at the site twice, suggested a compromise wherein the road could be widened (as originally specified) at the Broadway end to address the need for the three parking places, but left alone adjacent to the vestibule (even though that does not correct the error). She also noted that she had been on the Planning Commission at the time the church’s plans were approved and could verify that Mr. Seith has been through a great deal in the course of this project. The bottom line is that, though he was given assurances that he would be getting what he needed; he did not. Councilmember Bellman stated he would feel comfortable remanding this to the Planning Commission to discuss widening. Councilmember Moore said she attended a meeting during which they had that discussion and concluded widening wasn’t necessary (though their reasons are not apparent from the minutes of that meeting). Mayor Robertson asked for opinions re the contractor’s contention that opening a “wound” in the pavement was a reason not to widen the road. Vice Mayor Wernet felt the entire width of the alley could be repaved if the widening would serious weaken the surface. Manager Hickman noted it’s a positive that this alley is not heavily traveled and assured Council that the Village would take care to keep the seam sealed. Councilmember McGowan asked for verification this was would be at the contractor’s cost. Vice Mayor Wernet stated that if Council were to decide that 16 feet is the proper width, the contractor would bear the burden. He could elect to give the church back some money, give the Village money to seal the joint whenever necessary, or even agree to come back and do it himself. Mr. Erhard cautioned Council that their role is only to decide if the “minor” deviation is actually “major.” Council may not dictate a solution; the Planning Commission will decide on its own how to rectify the situation. [Mr. Erhard questioned whether Locust Place was ever really a dedicated road. Mr. Seith reported he had researched the issue and discovered that there was a naming ordinance passed in 1906 that also defined where Locust Place lies. No width is specified but it is designated as a street marking the western and northern boundaries of the northwest corner of the Village Square. Mr. Seith suggested the Village update the description since the current records now show Locust Place running straight through a building.] Councilmember Crais, citing Page 7 of the transcript re the standard for review, moved to reverse and remand the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter since it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Second by Councilmember Moore. Councilmember Lucier moved to amend Councilmember Crais’ motion to specify that the narrowing of the area of the parking spaces was not a minor modification. Councilmember Bellman seconded the motion to amend. A Roll Call vote on the motion to amend yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. The motion is amended. A Roll Call vote on the amended motion yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. The motion passed. Mr. Erhard noted that Council does not have to wait the full 45 days to issue their finding of fact.

NEW BUSINESS (7:50pm) Ordinance No. 19-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 13-00, Chapter 351.16 Sections (a) and (c ) Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, And Declaring An Emergency, was introduced by title only by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: The amendment is sought to include the 200 block of Summit Street and all of North Plum Street in the permit-parking ordinance. Councilmember Crais moved to replace “continguous” with “adjacent” so that eligible properties do not have to touch the street in question. Second by Councilmember Moore. A Roll Call vote yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. The motion passed. A Roll Call Vote to declare an emergency yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. The emergency is declared. A Roll Call vote on Ordinance 19-00 yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 19-00 is adopted. [Note: Mayor Robertson is to convey the result of this vote to Manager Hickman and ask him to inform the affected residents.]

(9:12pm) Resolution No. 00-31, A Resolution To Award The Bid For Jones Road And Culvert Improvements, As Per Specifications, To Layton Excavating, Inc. And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Lucier at 9:12pm. Second by Councilmember Bellman. A voice vote on Resolution 00-31 yielded seven (7) ayes. Resolution 00-31 is carried.

(7:53pm) Resolution No. 00-32, A Resolution Dismissing The Citizen Appeal Related To The Site Plan Approval For The Colony At Bryn Du, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Moore. Second by Councilmember Crais. A voice vote on Resolution 00-32 yielded 5 ayes. Resolution 00-32 is carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:54pm) The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of August 16, 2000, were presented for review. Councilmember McGowan requested the following additions to the record of the discussion re Resolution No. 00-30: “Councilmember McGowan asked if savings would result from installing the sewer on the west side of the road; Mr. Turner and Mr. Zarbaugh said not. Mr. McGowan asked if there were any savings to blacktop curbing vs. concrete; Mr. Turner and Mr. Zarbaugh said not. Mr. McGowan asked if the Village would incur any additional cost to repair the incorrect crown; Mr. Turner and Mr. Zarbaugh said not. Councilmember Lucier moved to approve the minutes as amended, pending a review of the tape. The motion carried. [Note: re Mr. McGowan’s requested additions, Council instructed the Deputy Clerk to review the tape of the meeting in question and report to Council at the next meeting. Second by Councilmember Crais.] [Note from Council meeting on September 20, 2000: “The Deputy Clerk reported that Councilmember McGowan’s remarks were not on the tape at the point in question. However, since many members of Council remembered a discussion that included the questions and answers indicated, it was decided that the reference may stay in the Minutes for September 6, 2000.”]

COMMITTEE REPORTS (7:55pm) Development Committee (Councilmember Crais). Has not met. The Township Trustees have submitted language for the brochure and the two groups will meet fairly soon to finalize the brochure as well as to discuss the revised Granville web page.

Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). Will meet Friday. Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Mayor Robertson). Plans to meet once in September. October meeting will include Jay Hottinger and David Evans to discuss the north-south road.

Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Met August 30; will again September 12 to discuss salaries and the high rate of police turnover.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier. She has not attended a Planning Committee meeting since the last council meeting but is aware that the Commission is reviewing the Heritage Overlay District proposal.

Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Met last night; still reviewing surveys, especially looking at ideas about pay-to-play procedures for folks outside Granville Village/Township, space concerns related to all activities, and a possible user fee. Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). The lights are on their way (per Manager Hickman).

Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Councilmember Crais). Set out a schedule of discussion on proposals from the Beautification Committee (2nd and 4th Mondays of each month) and hope to have members of the Beautification Committee at these meetings. Continued discussions of the South Main Street bike-path crossing (i.e., the pros and cons of a speed-table installation) and expect designs to be finalized in September. Discussed Sunrise Alley and asked Manager Hickman to speak with the residents about the best and most cost-effective method of improvement. (Note: the alley is being improved at the request of a homeowner to provide for entrance off of Sunrise Street rather than Granger Street.) Re projects for 2001, Manager Hickman reviewed them for budget purposes and will work on the list through the next two months. Granger Street will be high on the list. Councilmember Lucier asked about the fencing she had seen on the bike path near the crossover. Manager Hickman explained that it had been put up to prevent shortcuts through the NAPA/Granville Milling area. Finally, Councilmember Crais noted that the committee had also discussed ways to minimize the dangers of the sidewalk along golf course (e.g., widen it, re-grade the precipitous drop-off to the green below, etc.).

Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore) Councilmember Crais reported that Kirsten Pape was working on the South Main Street plan presented at a previous meeting. Ms. Pape feels that the amount of work going into beautification has been steadily rising. She urges the village to look into employing someone to undertake many of these tasks.

Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier). Has not met.

OTHER (8:10pm) Truck Scales (Mayor Robertson). After reading Harold Attebery’s letter in The Sentinel, she phoned him to ask if he had talked with anyone from the Village about the Village using the Mill’s scales for a fee. Mr. Attebery referred Mayor Robertson to Phil Watts, who said he was willing to speak with her about it. Mayor Robertson asked council members for their reaction to the possibility of delaying an action that has already been voted on until she talks with Mr. Watts. Councilmember McGowan asked Manager Hickman if the scales had already been ordered; they have. Manager Hickman reported he had had previous conversations with Mr. Watts and “didn’t get a favorable response.” Even so, the consensus of Council was for Manager Hickman to check on the status of the order and keep close tabs on the scales while Council talks with Mr. Watts. Councilmember Crais felt that using scales belonging to the Mill might end up being messy, besides which the project has been delayed too many times and, in its unfinished state, is an eyesore. Councilmember McGowan felt the Mill location would be much safer and would rather wait an extra two weeks to see if this will work. Mayor Robertson suggested using the Mill scales as a trial to see if the theory works, and doesn’t mind “looking like we’re trying to exhaust every possibility.” Councilmember Crais objected to Council “bowing” to pressure; Mayor Robertson felt it was more like “bending.” Councilmember McGowan, stating that the majority of people in the community do not like the South Main Street location and also think it’s a safety concern, felt Council should listen to its constituents’ opinions. Councilmember Crais prefers to move forward on the plan already agreed to and funded. Vice Mayor Wernet was supportive of exploring what might be a better solution even though Council has already made a decision. Mayor Robertson said she would talk with Mr. Watts and then contact Manager Hickman before the next meeting. MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – September 20, 2000

EXECUTIVE SESSION (10:00pm) Councilmember Crais moved that Council go into executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. Second by Councilmember Lucier. A Roll Call vote yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. All not involved in the executive session left the chamber. At 11:27pm, Councilmember Crais moved to close the executive session; second by Councilmember Bellman. A Roll Call vote yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. The session was closed.

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:28pm. Second by Councilmember Moore. Meeting adjourned. 

Council mInutes 8/16/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:33 pm. 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais and Bellman; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, and Law Director Hurst.

Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to excuse Councilmembers Moore, McGowan and Lucier . Councilmember Bellman second. Motion carried. [NOTE: Councilmember McGowan arrived at 9:15 pm.; Manager Hickman arrived at 9:10pm.]

CITIZENS COMMENTS Re Manager Hickman David Woodyard, 543 Mt. Parnassus. After 44 years of watching Village management evolve, strongly suggested that any new village manager should embody the qualities that make Manager Hickman so effective, i.e., an incredible range of skills and knowledge; a finely-honed political adroitness, and uncommon trustworthiness. Also encouraged Council to make every effort to secure Manager Hickman’s services for a little more time. [There was general assent to this suggestion from Council.]

Keith Myers, 229 East College Street. Has had considerable experience dealing with village governments and feels Granville has one of the best managers he’s ever worked with. Cited Manager Hickman’s integrity, saying it was the most important attribute for a city manager. Urged Council to make Manager Hickman’s decision to leave “as difficult as possible.”

Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. Echoed previous sentiments about Manager Hickman, urged Council to “make him an offer he can’t refuse,” and, above all, to include him in the selection process and subsequent training for his successor.

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm Street. Also echoed everyone’s remarks about Manager Hickman.

Re 224 East College Street Keith Myers, 229 East College Street. Noted that the subject property has been a “constant source of problems and complaints in the neighborhood for almost five years.” There has been no visible improvement since the latest owner took possession. Stated that police calls and arrests are “common” for such matters as disturbing the peace, drug- related activity, domestic violence, etc., and read a litany of official complaints dating from January 1995. Asked Council for whatever assistance the Village can provide in monitoring the property and/or checking into violations of Village ordinances (e.g., an alleged “renegade apartment” built behind two of the garage doors). [Mayor Robertson noted the new ordinance may be of help. Councilmember Bellman suggested inviting all the property owners concerned to a council meeting to discuss the situation. Law Director Hurst noted that such a meeting would in no way impact the implementation of any legal rights the village would be able to pursue. He also noted that the effective change-of-ownership date is germane to whether or not the new ordinance would apply, i.e., it is not retroactive. Law Director Hurst suggested that one or two members of Council and one or two of the property owners should meet, sooner rather than later. Mayor Robertson asked Manager Hickman to arrange the meeting.

Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. Voiced a concern re Layton Excavating “getting an inordinate amount of work from the Village” and asked Council to direct staff to make sure the Village is getting enough responses to its RFPs to keep the bids honest.

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm Street. Not having seen any response to the GBPA recommendations re downtown Granville, asked about their status. [Mayor Robertson assured Ms. Barsky that Council would check with Manager Hickman and suggested that Ms. Barsky should feel free to contact him herself as well.]

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 7:59pm.

APPEAL HEARING (Robert G. Seith appealed the decision of the Planning Commission re the First Presbyterian Church and the width of Locust Place.) A Court Reporter (Marilyn Murphy Hauck) was present to take an official transcript of the Hearing. Mayor Robertson opened the hearing at 7:59 pm, noting that Council could hear the appeal at this time but, since there were only four members present, would study the transcript and render a decision by the next meeting, as prescribed.

Law Director Hurst gave notice that all required procedures and service have been completed and Council has been so advised. He specified who may and may not appear at an appeal hearing and explained the rights of those who do appear, noting that all witnesses will be placed under oath. He emphasized that the appeal hearing is open to the public but is not a public hearing. He informed Council that it may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the matter to the Planning Commission, noting that the decision is to be made not later than next regularly scheduled Council meeting and must be formalized in writing, including findings of fact and conclusions, within 45 days thereafter. The decision will be served on those who participate in the hearing, with the date of service commencing the time frame for further appeal. Finally, Law Director Hurst emphasized that the hearing is not a trial do novo; rather, the standard of review is whether or not the decision of the Planning Commission is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the record. If Council determines that the facts presented on appeal are inconsistent with the facts as reported in the decision of the Planning Commission, Council may reverse or remand for further proceedings.

The Deputy Clerk swore in all those who planned to testify. 

Bob Seith, Appellant, 116 Locust Place. Stated his contention that the Planning Commission’s finding of fact is not warranted, given that there is no dispute that the intent was to have a 16’ alley.

Christian Robertson, Robertson Construction, contractors for the addition/renovation to the Presbyterian Church. Agreed that the drawings did call for a 16’ alley and noted that the original alley ranged from 15’2” to 15’11”. After the paving and curbs were completed, it was discovered that the alley’s width had been adjusted to accommodate placement and design of the west entrance to the church gathering room, where a 16’ width would have left virtually no sidewalk. Felt that tearing out curb and widening the alley would not only disturb the new construction but would permanently compromise the integrity of the road as now paved.

Mr. Seith asked if the Village Zoning Inspector had verified the measurements. Mr. Robertson stated that there is usually a zoning inspection in a public right-of-way but this was a private job. There was therefore no zoning inspection even though part of the job incorporated a public thoroughfare. Mr. Seith asked about the expected useful life of the alley as constructed and how much that would be diminished by changing its width. Mr. Robertson felt that, as is, it would easily have ten years’ wearing surface; opening a “wound” in the asphalt might well decrease the life of the alley by 20%.

Councilmember Bellman asked for clarification of who owned the alley. [The Village does.] Councilmember Bellman felt the Village should get a deduct change order from Robertson Construction if the alley stays at 15’. Councilmember Crais asked several questions concerning the actual width of the alley, before and after construction. Mr. Robertson, citing measurements from 15’3” to 15’11”, felt that gaining a foot would not make a “monumental” difference. Councilmember Crais asked Mr. Seith if the error in width had reduced accessibility to his house. Mr. Seith responded that it not only diminished accessibility, but safety and the sense of space as well. He feels he bargained in good faith for something he didn’t get, and called the mistake “substantial,” in contrast to the Planning Commission’s characterization of it as minor. At Mayor Robertson’s request, Mr. Robertson summarized the options for change: 1) leave the alley alone, 2) alter it to the planned 16’ by taking out the east-face curb and adding a 1’ swath of asphalt, and 3) widen the alley where cars park. Mayor Robertson asked Mr. Seith if, in exchange for some kind of compensation, he would be willing to have changes made to the west side of the alley. He objected, citing the fact that the sidewalk is already not very wide, has a fence right up next to it at his house, and is no wider in front of the other houses. Vice Mayor Wernet asked how the church doorway came to be so close to the road. Mr. Robertson responded that his superintendent established his line and constructed the doorway using building drawings without simultaneously working with the site drawings. There is 4’ between the face of the vestibule and the alley.

Bill Acklin, chair of Capital Development Committee for the Presbyterian Church. Supported Robertson Construction and asked Council to reaffirm the Planning Commission’s decision. Maintained that widening the alley would adversely impact the air conditioning compressors and their four screening hemlocks as well as the church’s plans to fence in the compressor area. Also raised a safety concern, saying that a wider alley at the vestibule door would force people to walk in the street. Councilmember Bellman asked if the concerns about door spacing and the site for the air- conditioning compressors had been an issue when the alley was scheduled to be 16’. [They had not.]Mr. Robertson reiterated that the architectural plans and the civil drawings didn’t completely mesh together. Councilmember Crais asked Mr. Acklin if it would have an adverse affect on the church if Council held Mr. Robertson to the original plan; he said it would.

Law Director Hurst requested that Council officially identify for the record the three documents presented as part of the hearing: Exhibit A) the as-built pavement, including pencil markings added during the hearing; Exhibit B) the pavement prior to construction, and Exhibit C) the pavement as per plan. Mr. Seith encouraged members of Council to visit the site before they made their decision.

Mayor Robertson declared the hearing closed at 9:00pm. Law Director Hurst requested that Mrs. Hauck complete her transcript in time for it to be made available to members of Council prior to their next meeting on September 6, 2000. Vice Mayor Wernet asked one more question—whether drawings submitted to the Planning Commission had included the vestibule. Mr. Robertson said they did not but that he was sure they were given a complete set of drawings at the beginning of the process and that they discussed the vestibule on May 8th. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing for a second time at 9:03pm.

OTHER: Kirsten Pape, re South Main Street landscaping. Reported that $10,000 raised from GranFlora will be used for this project. Projected total cost is $14,000. Plans are to line the road with red maples and crabapples, to “naturalize” both sides of Raccoon Creek, and screen the back of the weigh station with evergreens and redbuds. There will be no plantings between the weigh station and the road. They wouldn’t make any aesthetic impact unless they were 4-5’ tall and that would require a fair amount of maintenance and trimming. Plantings will be done in October.

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held at 9:17pm for Ordinance No. 14-00 (Rezoning @ 130 N. Main St). Catherine Dunlap, 109 East College Street, appeared to speak for Mr. Fenstermacher. She felt the offices he proposed would be a lot less disturbing than student tenants. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 9:18pm.

A public hearing was held at 9:18pm for Ordinance No. 15-00 (Appropriation Ordinance). No one appeared to speak for or against the issue. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 9:18pm.

OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 14-00, An Ordinance Denying Application To Rezone Properties Located At 130 N. Main Street From The Zoning Classification Of Village Residential District (VRD) To The Zoning Classification Of Village Business District (VBD), was reintroduced by Councilmember Bellman. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Councilmember McGowan reminded Council that a similar request from a neighboring property had been denied a year ago and strongly suggested that consistency was needed until a firm decision was made on whether or not that entire area (rather than one house at a time) should be zoned commercial. Mayor Robertson also pointed out the need to preserve the smaller houses in town as residences. She and Vice Mayor Wernet agreed with looking at the whole area as a unit. Councilmember Crais agreed that zoning shouldn’t be done piecemeal, but noted that Council is also committed to maintaining the economic health of the village. Since this is two separate issues, Councilmember Crais suggested Council deny the current request but encourage Mr. Fenstermacher to resubmit once council finishes a broader look at the area. He stated that the conflicting principles at play here warrant and careful study and encouraged Council to commit to take a broader look and to give themselves a deadline so Mr. Fenstermacher will know when some clarity on the issue will emerge. Councilmember Bellman noted how diverse the different business areas are and suggested Council should adhere to the required yearly review that is part of the Comprehensive Plan. He also suggested continuing to involve the Township Trustees. [Manager Hickman is working with Trustee Jim Havens to find a mutually convenient date.] Councilmember Bellman felt Council should review the issue in September regardless of whether a joint meeting with the Township Trustees had been arranged by then. He also suggested inviting Kathryn Wimberger to return for the discussion. A Roll Call vote on Ordinance 14-00 as read yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Bellman, McGowan; Vice Mayor Wernet and Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 14-00, is adopted. 

Ordinance No. 15-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43- 99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was reintroduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Bellman.

Discussion: Councilmembers questioned Manager Hickman, Service Director Mark Zarbaugh and Jerry Turner, engineer with Bird & Bull, on each requested budget change. Discussion on the point made by Mark Parris re the scope of bidding elicited the information that appropriate measures had been taken to advertise the RFP in the Dodge Reports and area newspapers. It is usual to get only one or two responses, especially when a project is already under way in the area. In other words, other bidders know that Layton Construction is on a job here and it’s always cheaper if you’re already on site. In order to make sure all budget adjustments on change orders, etc., are reconciled before final payment is made, the contracts specify a 10% retainage with final payment based on final inspections by Mr. Turner and Mr. Zarbaugh. Councilmember Crais moved to amend the Ordinance to delete item A1-6A-250, Sunrise Street Alley Improvement. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. A Roll Call vote on the amendment yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Bellman, McGowan; Vice Mayor Wernet and Mayor Robertson. The Amendment is approved.

A Roll Call vote on Amended Ordinance 15-00 yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Bellman, McGowan; Vice Mayor Wernet and Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 15-00, is adopted.

NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. 00-30, A Resolution To Award The Bid For South Main Street Truck Scales, As Per Specifications, To Layton Excavating, Inc. And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Councilmember McGowan is in favor of enforcing all rules and regulations but still objects to placement of the scale. Vice Mayor Wernet feels there’s a net gain in terms of safety. Mayor Robertson asked if the majority of the stated expense was for the unit in the police cruiser or the permanent installation. Manager Hickman said the greater part of the money is for the concrete, not the scale, noting that since the permanent scale (none of which is movable) requires fewer personnel and fewer vehicles, it will be less expensive.

A Voice vote on Resolution 00-30 yielded four (4) ayes and one (1) nay. Resolution 00-30 is carried.

Ordinance No. 18-00, An Ordinance To Amend No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet.

Discussion: Manager Hickman clarified that he wishes to use the flashing crosswalk installation at Pearl and College Streets as a trial before doing the Broadway crosswalk. He would also prefer to see the South Main Street crosswalk be installed before Broadway. Several Council members were joined by Constance Barsky in suggesting that the bike path crossing be done first. Mayor Robertson scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 18-00 for September 6, 2000.

MAYOR'S REPORT The Mayor's Court Report for the month of July was presented for review. Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to accept the report. Second by Councilmember Crais. Motion carried. Mayor Robertson directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

MANAGER'S REPORT The Manager's Report for the month of July was presented for review. Mayor Robertson directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of August 2, 2000, were presented for review. Councilmember Crais moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried.

COMMITTEE REPORTS Streets and Sidewalks (Vice Mayor Wernet). A request from Seth Patton at Denison University that involves relocating a portion of Burg Street was tabled until the next meeting. The Committee is recommending the proposed milling-and- paving for Jones Road. They also agreed that Service Director Zarbaugh should look at places to add handicapped- accessible ramps downtown. Councilmember McGowan noted that includes adding additional handicapped parking spaces when Taylor’s relocates.

JEDD (Councilmember Bellman). Discussed (but decided not to send) a resolution to the Governor and ODOT imploring all jurisdictions to widen the scope of the S.R. 161 study to include the intersection at Cherry Valley Road. Economic Development Commission (Councilmember Crais). Have now included Jim Havens and Norm Kennedy in discussions on the brochure for new business owners. Will continue to discuss the web site at their next meeting, including the best ways to have people sign up for the e-mail service (e.g., pads-and-pencils around town, reminder in water bills, press release, sign-up at bottom of web home page, etc.). OTHER Web Page – see above

Vice Mayor Wernet: moved that Council go into Executive Session to discuss personnel issues. Second by Councilmember Crais. A Roll Call vote yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, McGowan; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. The Executive Session began at 10:10pm. [No business was conducted afterward.]

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – September 6, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:15. Second by Councilmember Bellman. Meeting adjourned.

Council Minutes 8/2/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:36pm. 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Moore, McGowan and Lucier; Mayor Robertson and Manager Hickman. Councilmember Crais made a motion to excuse Vice-Mayor Wernet. Councilmember McGowan seconded. Motion carried. 

CITIZENS COMMENTS General Congratulations! Jurgen Pape, 403 East Broadway. Explained his absence from Council meetings over the last two years by complimenting Council on the quality of their work during that time. Also praised the Council-appointed commissions and the Village management, all of whose work continues to make Granville “a great place to live and a tremendous investment.”

The Colony Rodger Asmus, 210 Bryn Du Drive. Hopes that The Colony issue can get resolved this time.

Dorothy Garrett, 45 Donald Ross Drive. Stated that the Village Council that passed The Colony covenants in 1993 “definitely intended” the area to be smaller homes

Jurgen Pape, 403 East Broadway. Confirmed Mrs. Garrett’s “take” on actions taken in 1993, adding that Council was concerned about creating housing that would encourage diversity.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 7:43pm. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS Ordinance No. 11-00. Councilmember Crais moved to remove Ordinance No. 11-00 from the table. Second by Councilmember Bellman. The motion was approved.

A public hearing was held for Ordinance No. 11-00, An Ordinance To Approve The Covenant Agreement For The Colony At Bryn Du. 

Public Discussion. Law Director Hurst stated that the appeal on this issue has not been withdrawn at this point. It is his understanding, however, that if a compromise is reached and Council adopts Ordinance 11-00, the appellants plan to withdraw their appeal.

Bob Kent, President-Granville Golf Course Company, deferred to Robert O’Neill, Southgate Corporation, to describe the mediation process. Mr. O’Neill distributed revised site renderings to Council, then thanked Mayor Robertson for having suggested mediation. The revised Covenant document reflects 1) a change in minimum square footage from 1,600 to 1,700 square feet; 2) more carefully defined materials specs (e.g., 6 brick selections, 12 siding-color selections, 3 dimension roof -shingle selections); 3) two- bedroom/two-and-a-half bath floor plans; and 4) a tree- planting plan for the west side of The Colony that will involve adjacent neighbors in decisions re size and placement of approximately 200 trees. Further, homeowners in The Colony will be part of the larger Bryn Du Woods Homeowners Association, as well as having a discrete Homeowners Association of their own to address issues of exteriors, landscaping, and common-area maintenance. Mrs. Douglas (113 Marywood Circle, President of Bryn Du Woods Homeowners Association) asked for an explanation of why The Colony had been incorporated into the existing Homeowners Association. Mark Parris (251 Bryn Du), speaking on behalf of the appellants, stated they wanted an all-inclusive group, especially since they would be sharing greenspace and the upkeep thereof. Mr. Parris also expressed his appreciation to Mayor Robertson, Rob O’Neill, and Bob Kent for persevering in this effort until a satisfactory compromise was reached. Catherine Smith (329 Summit Street) asked where the current prices had settled since the square footage had been increased. Mr. O’Neill stated that the houses would probably sell in the low $200,000s—higher than they had originally intended but still within reach of the intended market. Mr. Parris emphasized the appellants’ concerns for limiting the number of bedrooms, having architectural diversity, addressing landscaping concerns, and including residents of The Colony in the Bryn Du Woods Homeowners Association 

Once all members of Council had obtained satisfactory answers to their questions and/or concerns, Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:14pm. 

Ordinance No. 12-00. A public hearing was held for Ordinance No. 12-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 1139.05(g), 1139.06, 1141.05(e) & (f), 1141.06, and 1147.04(b) Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville.

Discussion: Manager Hickman explained that the requested amendments relate to costs for transcript fees. Law Director Hurst reported that the cost of a required transcript depends on its length and the speed with which it is required. Rates vary from $1/page at the low end to $3.75/page at the high end, resulting in a cost of $250-600 for a two-hour hearing or $4800 or so for a multiple-day proceeding. Mr. Hurst estimated that required transcripts for Village actions would range between $250 and $500. Mr. Hurst continued by differentiating the two types of appeals germane to this issue: 1) an appeal to Council where there was a transcription of the proceeding in question or 2) an appeal from Council to Common Pleas Court. In the first instance, rates would be in the lower end of the transcription cost range.

Mr. Hurst noted there are two primary reasons for having a transcript. First, an appeal that comes to Council is an appeal “on the record,” i.e., a question of whether or not the Board or Commission made a correct decision supported by evidentiary matters in the record, given the parameters of the codified ordinances. Such an appeal is not a trial de novo but rather a review of the record to determine if the finding was appropriate or not. In the absence of a record that lends some clarity to the discussion, it is extremely difficulty to avoid a trial de novo. Second, as to appeals from Council, they are to be determined by the Court of Common Pleas, on the transcript. If there is no transcript, the appellant is allowed to open discovery and supplement the record within whatever full parameters the Court allows. Transcripts, therefore, even though they may be expensive, will allow Council to avoid the expenditure of much larger sums of money on appeal to do essentially a new civil litigation.

Mr. Hurst emphasized that considerations of practicality, affordability, and philosophy all must be addressed. For example, Ordinance 12-00 is not intended to prevent citizens from exercising their right to appeal. It rather reflects common practice, wherein a citizen who wants to appeal a decision orders, and pays for, the requisite transcript. Council may adopt 12-00 as is, elect to stand the entire cost for every individual who chooses to appeal, or create a cost-sharing mechanism.

Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:29pm. 

Ordinance No. 13-00. A public hearing was held for Ordinance No. 13-00, An Ordinance To Amend Chapters 351 And 303 Of The Granville Codified Ordinances, Establishing Residential Parking Areas, Providing For The Issuance Of Parking Permits For Residential Parking Areas, And Providing For The Removal Of Vehicles Parked In Residential Areas Without A Valid Parking Permit.

Discussion: Speaking in support of the effort to straighten out the parking problems were Barclay Gano (527 Burg Street) and Sara Jean Wilhelm (202 Thresher Street).

Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:34pm. 

OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 11-00, An Ordinance To Approve The Covenant Agreement For The Colony At Bryn Du, was reintroduced by title only by Mayor Robertson. Second by Councilmember Lucier.

Discussion: Councilmember Moore commended Mayor Robertson for her part in bringing this matter to a resolution satisfactory to the parties involved. Mayor Robertson stated she felt the current plan, while it still represents the spirit of the 1994 plan, also now incorporates the concerns of the appellants.

A Roll Call vote on Ordinance 11-00 yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; and Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 11-00 is adopted. 

Ordinance No. 12-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 1139.05 (g), 1139.06, 1141.05(e) & (f), 1141.06, and 1147.04(b) Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, was reintroduced by title only by Councilmember Bellman. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Councilmember Crais felt the ordinance needed further discussion to address issues of undue financial burden on appellants so that citizen access is maximized, not hindered. Law Director Hurst stated he would get more exact information re transcript costs. At Councilmember Moore’s request, he also estimated that there might be, on average, five or so appeals to Council in a given year. There have been five appeals from Council to Common Pleas Court over the last ten years. Law Director Hurst also clarified that transcriptions from a tape recording (i.e., transcriptions not having been done by a trained, qualified court reporter from his or her own original transcript) do not stand up well to challenge and may be set aside. In any event, court reporters are reluctant to transcribe a tape-recorded session and always present them with a disclaimer as to accuracy. Councilmember Bellman reported that the BZBA had discussed this issue several years back, deciding in effect to have dual proceedings. In other words, the likelihood of any given issue being contentious enough to move to appeal should be fairly obvious; the more “official” procedures could be invoked when necessary, or when either the Village or the appellant elected to hire a court reporter. Law Director Hurst sees that as a good plan, saying he would hate to “lose the simplicity where the simplicity solves the problem.” 

Councilmember Crais moved to table Ordinance 12-00. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Motion carried. 

Ordinance No. 13-00, An Ordinance To Amend Chapters 351 And 303 Of The Granville Codified Ordinances, Establishing Residential Parking Areas, Providing For The Issuance Of Parking Permits For Residential Parking Areas, And Providing For The Removal Of Vehicles Parked In Residential Parking Areas Without A Valid Parking Permit, was reintroduced by Councilmember Crais. Second by Councilmember Bellman.

Discussion: Manager Hickman cautioned Council that this ordinance will be a “work in progress.” It will be difficult to enforce and officers will have to employ diplomacy and wisdom in doing so. Councilmember McGowan opposed instant towing, suggesting instead that illegally parked cars be ticketed first, then towed later. Manager Hickman noted that the stickers would not be street- specific at the beginning. He also noted that since there are some residents who are not enthusiastic at all about the prospect of this system, the Village intends to “tread lightly” at the beginning. The stickers will cost the Village $10 each.

Councilmember Crais moved to amend the effective dates in Section 1(a) to read “August 15th through May 15th.’ Second by Councilmember Moore. A Roll Call vote on the amendment yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, Moore; and Mayor Robertson. Motion carried.

Mayor Robertson asked for a clarification of the number of stickers per household. Manager Hickman stated each household would receive up to two (2) stickers, as well as two (2) visitor tags. The procedure in instances of multiple guests (i.e., a party) needs to be worked out. It was pointed out as well that possession of a sticker is not a guarantee of a parking place near one’s residence.

Mayor Robertson, in order to comply with the amended effective date, moved to modify Section 3 to provide emergency-clause language. Second by Councilmember Crais. A Roll Call vote on the motion to amend Section 3 to provide emergency-clause language yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, Moore; Mayor Robertson. Motion carried.

A Roll Call vote to declare this ordinance an emergency yielded six affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. Motion carried.

A Roll Call vote on Ordinance 13-00 as amended yielded five (5) affirmative votes (Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, and Moore; Mayor Robertson) and one (1) negative vote (Councilmember McGowan). Ordinance No. 13-00 is adopted.

At the request of Law Director Hurst, Councilmember Moore moved to adopt a resolution directing the administration to incorporate an amendment to the title of Ordinance 13-00 to reflect that it has been adopted as an emergency. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Motion carried. 

NEW BUSINESS Ordinance No. 15-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43- 99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was introduced by title only by Councilmember Bellman. A public hearing was set for August 16.

Ordinance No. 17-00, An Ordinance To Create A Heritage Overlay District To Replace The Current Transportation Corridor Overlay District, And to Amend The Architectural Review Overlay District, was introduced by title only by Councilmember Bellman. [Councilmember Bellman noted this was the result of a long-term effort to create more effective and clear design-review standards. Councilmember Moore asked that Council receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission prior to considering the ordinance.] A public hearing was set for September 6.

Resolution No. 00-29, A Resolution To Express Appreciation To William Ostermeyer, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Bellman. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Resolution No. 00-29 is adopted. 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of July 19, 2000, were presented for review. Councilmember McGowan requested two changes: p.4—change “Councilmember McGowan complimented…” to “Councilmember Moore complimented…”; p.5— Change “festivities would fall on the same days” to “festival would fall on the same calendar days….” Councilmember Lucier moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Had a 53% response to their survey sent out in the Village and the Township. The tabulated results will be used to determine future programs.

Re the Blues Festival, there are now three acts booked to date. The organizers are still working on a “national” act.

Re the Personnel Committee, a meeting will be scheduled soon now that the members of the committee are all back in town.

Economic Development Committee (Councilmember Crais). Has not met, but new web page is up. Reaction has been good, though there are still a few changes to be made. Councilmember Crais suggested that the Village post pen-and- paper at strategic locations and begin to collect e- ddresses so the response service offered on the web site can be implemented.

Streets and Sidewalks Committee (Councilmember Bellman). Discussed North Pearl Street and the advisability of doing traffic counts now that schools are out and the bridge at Dry Creek Road is closed. On South Main Street, the crown problem will be addressed shortly, at the contractor’s expense. The speed table on South Main Street at the bike path is still being considered. Also, the committee would like to try crosswalk lights at the bike-path crossing as a pilot program before installing them at the Broadway crosswalk. Councilmember McGowan noted that approximately $34,000 already has been appropriated for the Broadway crosswalk project.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). Approved plans for new Taylor’s Drug Store, as well as the renovation of one of Fred Abraham’s building next to NAPA. Councilmember Lucier asked for Council’s approval of the Planning Commission’s desire to give out awards to particularly commendable projects. Reaction was favorable.

JEDD (Jim Jump). Reported on the latest JEDD developments, i.e., that the Committee is virtually defunct. There is a proposal, however, to integrate the JEDD group as a sub- committee of an 18-month County master plan planning group currently being constituted. Council’s consensus was for JEDD to become part of the County group.

Clean-Up Day (Councilmember McGowan). Announced that he had scheduled a downtown Clean-Up Day for Saturday morning, August 5, and invited all Council members who could to join him from 9:00-10:00am. 

EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:25pm, Mayor Robertson announced that Council needed to go into Executive Session for the consideration of personnel matters. Motion by Councilmember Crais. Second by Councilmember Bellman. A Roll Call vote on the motion yielded six (6) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson. Motion carried. The Executive Session was concluded at 9:50pm.

 OTHER None 

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – August 16, 2000 

 ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15pm. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Meeting adjourned. 

Council Minutes 7/19/00

 CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Wernet convened the meeting at 7:30pm. 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Moore, McGowan and Lucier; Vice Mayor Wernet, and Manager Hickman. 

Councilmember Crais made a motion to excuse Mayor Robertson, Councilmember Lucier moved to excuse Councilmember Bellman. Councilmember McGowan second. Motion carried.

CITIZENS COMMENTS Bob Seith, 116 Locust Place – feels there was a lack of sufficient public communication regarding the recent bicycle race in the Village. He requested that future notification be more aggressive. Vice Mayor Wernet closed Citizens' Comments at 7:36pm.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing was held for Ordinance No. 10-00 (Home Occupation Permits). No on appeared to speak for or against the issue. Vice Mayor Wernet closed the public hearing at 7:39pm.

A public hearing for Ordinance No. 11-00 (Colony at Bryn Du Covenants) was tabled until August 2, 2000 at the request of the two parties involved in mediation.

A public hearing was held for Ordinance No. 12-00 (zoning modifications). No one appeared to speak for or against the issue. Vice Mayor Wernet closed the public hearing at 7:40pm.

OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 10-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 1181 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, was reintroduced by title only by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Lucier.

Discussion: Councilmember Crais brought up the question of who would determine “undue burden” as stated in 1181.01 (f). Manager Hickman assured Council that the Police Department, as well as neighbors would recognize these types of problems and therefore dealt with by the issuance of citations. This Ordinance makes home occupations more restrictive wherein if a homeowner is doing more than is typical for a residential neighborhood it will be noticed and corrected. Home occupations not causing traffic are typically not issues of concern related to this ordinance. Councilmember Moore moved to amend Ordinance No. 10-00. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet.

A Roll Call on Ordinance 10-00, as amended yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Moore, McGowan, Lucier, and Vice Mayor Wernet. The amendement for Ordinance 10-00, is adopted. 

A Roll Call on Ordinance 10-00, as yielded five (5) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Crais, Moore, McGowan, Lucier, and Vice Mayor Wernet. Ordinance 10-00, is adopted.

Councilmember Crais moved to table Ordinance No. 11-00 to until August 2, 2000. Councilmember Lucier second. 

Ordinance No. 12-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 1139.05 (g), 1139.06, 1141.05(e) & (f), and 1147.04(b) Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, was reintroduced by title only by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Councilmember Crais questioned how expensive a transcript would be. Depending on how long the meeting was Vice Mayor Wernet estimated the cost to be around $500- $800. Councilmember Crais feels this is laying an additional burden on the appellant. He wants to make sure that citizens do not feel burdened when pursuing their rights with local government. Manager Hickman suggested that Jim Jump and/or Law Director Hurst be asked to respond to the necessity of this language in this Ordinance. It was agreed that there is a need for further investigation into how to handle court reporter fees, what occasion would warrant a court reporter, and who would pay for this service. Councilmember Lucier made a motion to table Ordinance No. 12-00. Councilmember McGowan second. Motion carried.

 NEW BUSINESS

Ordinance No. 13-00, An Ordinance To Amend Chapters 351 and 303 Of The Granville Codified Ordinances, Establishing Residential parking Areas, Providing For The Issuance Of Parking Permits For Residential Parking Areas, And Providing For The Removal Of Vehicles Parked In Residential Parking Areas Without A Valid Parking Permit was introduced, its title read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet. A public hearing was set for August 2, 2000.

Vice Mayor Wernet announced that the Streets & Sidewalks Committee will meet at 6:30pm August 2, 2000 at which time they will discuss the parking permit issue.

Discussion: Theoretically the idea is to allow parking for residents via a parking permit. Guests visiting the parking permit required area will either be issued a temporary permit or in the case of numerous guests at any one time by notification to the Police Department. The neighbors will more than likely police the area themselves and simply place a call to the Police Department if there is a concern. It was suggested that this Ordinance reflect the time frame of August - June.

Ordinance No. 14-00, An Ordinance Denying Application To Rezone Properties Located at 130 N. Main St. From The Zoning Classification Of VRD to Zoning Classification of Village Business District (VBD). Vice Mayor Wernet scheduled a public hearing or Ordinance No. 14-00 for August 2, 2000.

Appeal Hearing – Council will hear Bob Seith’s appeal of the Planning Commission Application #97090M on August 16, 2000. 

Councilmember Lucier noted that she would be unable to attend the Council meeting of August 16, 2000.

MAYOR'S REPORT The Mayor's Court Report for the month of June was presented for review. Councilmember Moore made a motion to accept the Mayor’s Report for the month of June. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried. Vice Mayor Wernet directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

MANAGER'S REPORT The Manager's Report for the month of June was presented for review. Vice Mayor Wernet directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of June 21, 2000, were presented for review. Councilmember Lucier moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember Moore. Motion carried.

COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilmember’s McGowan and Moore met with Reader’s Garden. Concerns and issues have been agreed to and met with regard to the leased space at 143 E. Broadway. The lease has been adjusted to allow them the opportunity to make changes to the space, at their expense, to fit their needs. Councilmember Moore complimented Attorney Bob Erhard and Manager Hickman for their efforts in this successful agreement.

Personnel Committee (McGowan). The Committee will hopefully meet in early August. 

Street Lights – Lights are being painted and should be installed any time.

Economic Development Committee (Moore). The Committee met with GBPA and continued to work on drafting an Economic Development Policy. Great strides have been made. Hopefully there will be something to present to Council at a future meeting. The Committee is also working on a Business Assistance brochure. It was decided that Township input was important and they will be included in this effort. Next Meeting is August 9th.

OTHER Vice Mayor Wernet requested that all documents of Council be prepared in minimal 12pt type as some documents are difficult to read.

Web Page - Councilmember Crais noted that there has been a delay in photography for the Web site redesign. However, the updates are moving along and the new site should be up and running in a couple of weeks.

Manager Hickman noted that there is water drainage problems on S. Main Street. It appears that when the subcontractor, Shelly Company, did the paving they didn’t get the crown in the road correct. They will be back to fix it. There is still some striping to be done on Broadway and S. Main Street. In relation to the idea of a speed table, Manager Hickman noted that a speed table would not work on S. Main Street because of the drainage pattern. A speed table on Broadway would be more appropriate. S. Main Street crosswalk will include 8ft wide brick, recessed lights, and yellow flashing indicators. 

Councilmember Lucier expressed a need for posts or markers that demarcate the bike path from the driveway areas at the Mill. Manager Hickman has talked to the Granville Mill, and IGA and will advise the police to monitor the area. Additional markings will be painted. If needed, bollards will be reinstalled.

Noting that the sidewalk doesn’t extend all the way to the corporation limits Councilmember McGowan expressed concern for the need of a walkway to extend to the Village limits from the IGA. Vice Mayor Wernet asked Manager Hickman to look into this installation and make a suggestion at the next Streets and Sidewalks meeting. Signs at S. Main St. – Business signs in the right of way along S. Main Street have been taken down. Ross’ IGA will be working with the Planning Commission for new signage. If an agreement cannot be reached, Manager Hickman agreed to reinstall their current sign on their property and out of the right of way. Certified Oil was given the same offer. 

4th of July – It was agreed that the fireworks display this year was fantastic. Councilmember McGowan noted that the festivities would fall on the same calendar days next year. He also noted that handicapped and senior citizen parking should be addressed. Council requested the Manager send a letter to Kiwanis in appreciation of the successful event.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – August 2, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:52pm. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Meeting adjourned.

Council Minutes 6/21/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:33pm. 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Lucier, Moore, McGowan and Bellman; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Law Director Hurst and Manager Hickman. 

CITIZENS COMMENTS Re: Kendal at Granville Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place. Raised another facet of her continuing concerns about Kendal¡¯s possible effects on private water wells in the area of the proposed Kendal site at the intersection of Burg & New Burg Streets. Cited a New Albany golf course that had drained all the water in the area to the point where a judge stepped in, declared a water emergency, and forced ¡°Franklin County¡± to extend water service to citizens with no water. Asked if Council could give any assurances that Granville wouldn¡¯t be put in the same position (i.e., can the Village be legally protected?). Reported that the petition opposing the proposed location, but not the project, has almost 400 signatures. [Councilmember Bellman said he would check with Keith Myers, the New Albany planner, who might have some insight into this. Mayor Robertson asked about the disposition of the petitions.] Ms. Consolo said they would go first to the zoning board since obtaining a zoning change would be Kendal¡¯s first stop. The Township Trustees and Village Council will also receives copies. Ms. Consolo is hoping all these entities will work together to find an alternative site. She also asked again why the Comprehensive Plan isn¡¯t being followed and wondered if could be made more legally binding. [Vice Mayor Wernet stated that a comprehensive plan is a legally binding document that must be followed by all zoning ordinances. The only question is ¡°which way the plan points.¡±] Ms. Consolo asked when Council might have a response to her questions. [Manager Hickman said he would contact Keith Myers. Council expects to have answer by its next meeting.]

Laurel Kennedy, 758 New Burg Street. Asked Council to pay particular attention to two general areas of concern: 1) the criteria by which decisions are made by Council and the Township Trustees, particularly with regard to selective extension; and 2) taxation issues. She asked if Kendal had sought the same kind of property-tax abatement from Granville that it sought, and got, from Oberlin (in which Kendal agreed to voluntarily pay taxes into the school system). [Councilmember Lucier noted that property-tax abatement would be a Township issue. Mayor Robertson reported Kendal has said they would make voluntary payments to the school system but no rates have been discussed. Councilmember Lucier added that all of Kendal is subject to standard property taxes except for the part that is actually a medical facility. Councilmember Bellman noted that the Oberlin abatement was locked in for ¡°a ten-year period or so.¡± Councilmember McGowan suggested Council get a legal opinion to be sure; Councilmember Lucier suggested asking the Township; Councilmember Moore, the school district; and Councilmember Bellman, the Oberlin tax commissioner. Mayor Robertson felt Ms. Kennedy¡¯s question needed to be answered in public, given that what some Kendal authorities have said doesn't match what was said to Council. Re: JEDD Jim Jump, 143 Thresher Street. Reported that the Thornwood project has been officially declared ¡°dead¡± by ODOT, rendering moot any issues to do with federal funding and/or NEPA standards and procedures. The existence of JEDD is not affected by ODOT¡¯s decision. In fact, its scope may well be expanded to address other shared issues (e.g., general development in the area). Mr. Jump, who is in favor of continuing to build on the good relationships that have been forged, asked Council¡¯s opinion as to whether the JEDD should remain an informal group or become an official regional council. [Vice Mayor Wernet expressed appreciation for Mr. Jump¡¯s efforts and involvement with JEDD. Mayor Robertson agreed that using the positive group dynamics already created to move on to another kind of function would be helpful. Councilmember Bellman noted that bridging the former gap between Granville, Newark, and Heath and establishing meaningful dialog between the three communities has been very helpful. Councilmember Lucier suggested that the group proceed with discussion of the regional-council model and consider including other communities in the County. Councilmember Moore agreed that this was a good opportunity to broaden JEDD¡¯s focus.]

Re: PUD-as-an-Administrative-Act Ordinance Jim Jump, 143 Thresher Street. Reminded Council that, in response to a court decision, it had approved an ordinance last year making PUD an administrative act subject to administrative appeals, etc. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has since stated that the approval of plans in a previously zoned PUD is a legislative matter. Mr. Jump asked if Council wanted to change the language of the ordinance to "legislative" instead of ¡°administrative.¡± Vice Mayor Wernet said that if Counsel feel we need to change it to follow the Court¡¯s prescription, we should change. Mayor Robertson felt such a change should be made quickly so Council would be in compliance prior to dealing with any applications. Law Director Hurst stated he would ¡°strongly encourage Council to direct that this be done with all deliberate speed.¡± Mayor Robertson asked Law Director Hurst and Mr. Jump to write up the change as quickly as possible. Law Director Hurst pointed out that Council should not simply reverse the previous action without also correcting ¡°a series of inadequacies and conflicts in the previous procedure¡± at the same time. He added that he and Mr. Jump would get the new ordinance to Council promptly since time is of the essence. Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 8:08pm.

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held on the 2001 County Tax Budget. No one appeared to speak for or against the issue. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:09pm.

OLD BUSINESS Readers Garden Lease/Bank First National Release Manager Hickman asked that Council authorize him and one or two Council members to negotiate directly with Readers' Garden without waiting for feedback at the next Council meeting, two weeks from now. Councilmembers McGowan and Moore volunteered to participate and all agreed that the Bank First National release would not be signed until the Readers¡¯ Garden lease has been finalized. There are two main points remaining to be settled on the latter. First, Readers¡¯ Garden is asking the Village to stand the expense of repairing the floor, which the Village is not willing to do. Councilmember Bellman pointed out that a commercial lease is usually rental of the basic structure with improvements done by the lessee, and suggested that perhaps Bank First National might be willing to help Readers¡¯ Garden with the expenses for the floor. Councilmember Lucier stated she was not averse to negotiating on the floor, perhaps for a 50/50 split of expenses. The second point concerns the Readers¡¯ Garden proposal that they sign the lease corporately with no personal guarantee. Councilmember Moore felt that since this lessee¡¯s reliability was a central part of Council¡¯s decision to award them the lease at a rate below Council¡¯s asking price, asking for a personal guarantee was not unreasonable. In response to a request for special reserved parking behind the Village offices, Council stated that parking there is first-come, first-served and should stay that way; Readers¡¯ Garden could lease some Park National Bank spaces if they felt the need to do so. Licking County Transportation Board (LCTB) Manager Hickman asked Council for direction as to action to be taken, noting a resolution would be required in order to proceed. Mayor Robertson noted that the minutes of the June 6, 2000 meeting indicated Council¡¯s desire to proceed and that Mr. Zarbaugh was to have conveyed the draft Memorandum of Understanding to counsel. Law Director Hurst stated he had reviewed the draft but was not aware what Council may have agreed to. Councilmember Lucier noted that Council had neither reviewed the document nor signed anything; it had simply agreed that $1,117/year for Granville¡¯s contribution to the project was an ¡°agreeable¡± amount. Law Director Hurst was concerned that there might be some ambiguity as to that being the entire amount represented and said he would make it absolutely clear that Granville¡¯s contribution would not exceed that number. He will complete his review and revisions promptly.

NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. 00-26, A Resolution To Adopt The 2001 County Tax Budget As Proposed And To Direct The Village Manager To Submit It To The County Auditor, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. After assurances by Manager Hickman that this County Tax Budget closely mirrors the Village budget, the Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-26 is adopted.

Ordinance No. 10-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 1181 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, was introduced by title only by Vice Mayor Wernet. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for July 5, 2000.

Ordinance No. 11-00, An Ordinance to Approve the Covenant Agreement for the Colony at Bryn Du.

Discussion: Before introducing the ordinance, Mayor Robertson asked counsel about its relation to the pending appeal. Law Director Hurst explained that Council, as the legislative authority in this matter, apart from the participating parties, has the power to approve or not approve the restrictive covenants. If the parties involved do not reach an agreement via the current mediation, Council would not approve the covenants. If the parties agree and Council approves of their agreements, the covenants could be passed and the appeal then dismissed. He emphasized that the rights of the participating parties would be impacted if the appeal were to be dismissed before the covenants were approved. Mayor Robertson asked for verification that no action was needed on the appeal in order for her to entertain a motion for Council to consider the ordinance. Law Director Hurst agreed. Councilmember Lucier asked, since the appellants were appealing a Planning Commission decision, if their appeal would be moot if the covenants were adopted by Council. Law Director Hurst said it would not. His opinion is that the central issue was/is not the approval of the site plan but rather what the application of the restrictive covenants to the site was going to look like. Further, if a set of restrictive covenants that both sides could live with were developed, then approved by Council, appellants would no longer be interested in pursuing their appeal. In short, having the appellants withdraw their appeal is a very different situation from Council dismissing that appeal. Law Director Hurst concluded by saying that since this matter cannot be concluded without everyone being on the same page at the same time, the ordinance should be introduced. Ordinance No. 11-00, An Ordinance To Approve The Covenant Agreement For The Colony At Bryn Du, was introduced by title only by Mayor Robertson, who then set the public hearing for July 5, 2000.

Ordinance No. 12-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 1139.05 (g), 1139.06, 1141.05(e) & (f), and 1147.04(b) Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, was introduced by title only by Vice Mayor Wernet. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing July 5, 2000. MAYOR'S REPORT The Mayor's Court Report for the month of May was presented for review. Mayor Robertson directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

MANAGER'S REPORT The Manager's Report for the month of May was presented for review. Mayor Robertson directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7, 2000, were presented for review. The following corrections/additions were requested: ¡ñ page 2 ¨C ¡°Re: Proposed Development at Newark-Granville Road/Cherry Valley Road.¡± Concerning the sentence beginning at the bottom of the page (¡°Mr. Fackler responded that Law Director Hurst [quote] ¡®wanted this to happen and would recommend that Council grant the request.¡¯ [unquote]¡±), Law Director Hurst asked that the record reflect that ¡°I never made that statement.¡± He further informed Council that he has had no discussions with Mr. Fackler. He was contacted by representatives of Mr. Fackler concerning whether or not there was a mechanism for zoning permits to be extended; Law Director Hurst explained the procedure in 1135.07(c). ¡ñ page 3 ¨C ¡°Appeal Decision ¨C 117 East Elm Street.¡± Attorney Jump asked for three corrections, as follows: 1) change ¡°¡­ the lack of which should have been raised¡­¡± to ¡°¡­the lack of which could have been raised¡­;¡± 2) change ¡°¡­unless the Planning Commission states¡­¡± to ¡°¡­unless the Village Planner states¡­;¡± and 3) [on page 4] change ¡°¡­Attorney Jump would have sent it back¡­¡± to ¡°Attorney Jump would have recommended it be sent back¡­.¡±

Vice Mayor Wernet moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Motion carried.

COMMITTEE REPORTS Personnel Committee (McGowan). The Committee will be meeting in the near future to consult with Manager Hickman on personnel issues for next year. Mayor Robertson and Vice Mayor Wernet are the other members of the Committee. Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Wernet). The Committee discussed 1) the alley on Sunrise Street, which they recommend be brought up to ¡°reasonable standards of condition¡± and then turned over to the residents in that area; 2) off-street parking in certain sections of the Village, which they will discuss with the Law Director before making any recommendations to Council; 3) the Raker property (report by Manager Hickman) ¨C the Village Planner did make a determination, with the participation of the Planning Commission, that six spaces (to be newly striped) plus available on-street parking would satisfy parking requirements. Councilmember Bellman noted that it emerged through the discussion that was no requirement for the Village Planner to put her determination in writing and suggested Council move to require the creation of a written record, in this and other similar circumstances, to avoid such confusion in the future. Mayor Robertson suggested Council ask Ms. Wimberger to create a list of items such as this which need to be addressed by the next planner. Vice Mayor Wernet added that Council may also want to set itself the task of a proactive look at certain sections of the code to check for places that need to be "trimmed up." Mayor Robertson agreed, citing issues of possible inequitable applications of code provisions that became apparent in the course of the East Elm Street appeal. Councilmember Bellman suggested that, in addition to a review of the codes to make sure they comply with the Comprehensive Plan, we take a look at the ¡°business district¡± provisions of the Comprehensive Plan (which suggested periodic reviews). Since we now have more than one business district, Council might consider establishing different densities in different areas. He also encouraged Council to coordinate with the Township Trustees to understand where they are with respect to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to work together to allow additional businesses into the area without ¡°sucking¡± everything out downtown Granville to the outlying areas. Vice Mayor Wernet suggested Council might meet quarterly with the Trustees instead of annually, and asked Manager Hickman to pursue this and set the first meeting time. Council agreed it would be productive to work more closely with the Township Trustees on matters of joint importance, with particular attention to meeting the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Planning Commission (Lucier). The Commission has no recommendation as to the Fackler request for an extension since that is not under their jurisdiction. Also, having received word of a possible application from Speedway and McDonald¡¯s, the Commission had a work session and advised their representatives to review the Granville code ¡°very, very, very carefully¡± and comply with every detail. Mayor Robertson noted that Council was asking the Planning Commission if the Fackler plan was still a good plan for the place. Councilmember Lucier reported that the issue had not been conveyed to them that way by Ms. Wimberger and Mr. Fackler did not appear. They also don't know what the current plans are (i.e., whether or not they are identical to the original plans). Mr. Fackler did not appear. Mayor Robertson suggested that a call be made to Mr. Fackler to tell him he needs to take a current plan to the Planning Commission if he wants to proceed. She also pointed out that Council oughtn¡¯t to be acting like a planning commission, i.e., if the permit has expired and Council has no information about whether the plan still makes sense or not, Council cannot make a decision to extend or not extend without input from the Planning Commission. Manager Hickman noted the Mr. Fackler knows he needs to go back to zero and start again. Law Director Hurst agreed, nothing that while there is a mechanism in 1137.05(c) of the codified ordinances to extend a zoning permit under the proper set of circumstances, there is no provision for extending a conditional-use permit; when one expires, the applicant must reapply. Therefore, in a mixed-use structure, if no construction can occur in the absence of an extension of the conditional-use permit, extending the building permit accomplishes nothing. Councilmember Lucier concluded by saying that no action is required of Council at this time.

Tree & Landscape Committee (Moore). In the absence of a quorum, no was action taken.

Economic Development Committee (Moore). Met with the GBPA and received the report of their recommendations (distributed to Council). Council members should review the report and Council will discuss it at a future meeting. The Committee made significant progress in their efforts to craft a statement of economic development policy and also has a first draft of a business development assistance brochure, intended to give new businesses some direction as to where to go and what to do in setting up a new businesses. The Committee met with the Granville Federation for the Appreciation of the Blues to hear the proposal for beer to be served at the Blues Music Festival on September 9th. They heard a detailed discussion of logistics (e.g., size and location of tent, hours of operation, security, insurance) and the GFAB¡¯s rationale that the proceeds from beer sales are vital from a financial standpoint. The Committee recommends that Council approve the application for a temporary liquor permit when it is officially presented, with appropriate requirements for strict controls on the situation (i.e., a defined space, proper security and adequate insurance).

OTHER Spignola Litigation (Law Director Hurst) Re: constitutionality of an ordinance that restricts a speaker to a specified area). Reported that Federal Court has scheduled the preliminary injunction hearing in this case for the coming Monday. Attorneys have asked the Village Manager and the Police Chief to be on standby; the Law Director was requested to attend. GFAB Committee (Gerry Martin, 15 Briarwood Drive) Gave an update on plans for the Festival, noting that the temporary F-2 liquor permit will have a 48-hour limit. Mayor Robertson asked for Council response to the Economic Development Committee¡¯s recommendation that the application be approved when it is presented. Councilmember McGowan asked about restrictions on the permit; Mr. Martin stated it would confine the hours of operation to approximately 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m., with beer sales starting one hour after opening and stopping one hour before closing. They plan to serve in a fenced-in area with entry controlled by ID bracelets obtained when drink tickets are purchased at a central location. Signs stating ¡°We reserve the right to refuse service¡± will be posted, and off-duty sheriffs will be hired. The stage for the bands will be in front of the Alltel building, with spectator stands directly across the street. Vice Mayor Wernet said it sounded as though the organizing committee had put a lot of thought into giving this event the best chance to work and he is comfortable with trying it this year to see how it works out. Councilmember Lucier agreed. Councilmember Bellman expressed some concern about wristbands (i.e., the ease with which the process can be corrupted) and suggested the committee consider ultraviolet stamps instead. Mayor Robertson voiced Council¡¯s consensus that the committee should continue with its plans. Mt. Parnassus Lift Station (McGowan). Noted that Kim Miles was not in attendance at the meeting due to the item not appearing on the agenda distributed prior to the meeting, and requested that the discussion be postponed to the next meeting. Manager Hickman agreed.

Public Restrooms (Lucier). Asked if the Village could/would arrange for 24-hour public access to the handicapped restroom in the Village Hall. Manager Hickman stated the issue had previously been raised a number of times and his concerns are still the same (i.e., the increased need for maintenance and the possibility of calls to him at home at night due to problems). He suggested it might be better to restrict access to regular business hours and wondered if GBPA might want to assist with the maintenance and/or upkeep. Councilmember McGowan suggested that, since the Village Hall custodian now works limited hours, any increased costs could be included in the budget next year if Council feels this is a worthwhile effort. Vice Mayor Wernet stated he would rather the Village pay for this than ask GBPA. Manager Hickman expressed his willingness to look at the issue again if Council so instructed him. Mayor Robertson asked him to do a feasibility review, including projected costs,

Cell Phones (Mayor Robertson) Asked for reaction from Council on the issue of prohibiting the use of a cell phone while in a moving vehicle. Members asked about hands-on vs. hands-off phones and whether Council could actually pass such an ordinance. Law Director Hurst stated that he had not yet reviewed the issue but could assign the review to someone. Manager Hickman said he would confer with the Police Department and report back to Council.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting ¨C July 5, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9.45pm. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Meeting adjourned. 

Council Minutes 6/7/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:38pm. 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Bellman, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, and Mayor Robertson. Vice Mayor Wernet moved that Councilmember Crais be excused; second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion passed.

NOTE: Also present were James Jump (in lieu of Law Director Hurst) and Service Director Mark Zarbaugh (in lieu of Manager Hickman). 

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held by the Licking County Transportation Board for the bus route proposal.

Marcia Phelps, Licking County Commissioner, introduced the transportation proposal to those citizens present for the hearing, reiterating the background given to Council at its May 17, 2000 meeting. (See the Minutes of that meeting for further details.) Ms. Phelps then introduced Loretta Frenton, who provided additional background, adding that Newark City Council had approved funding for the proposal. She then asked for comments from those citizens present.

Discussion: Citizens’ questions elicited the following information: •LCTB is expecting at least 24 riders on a daily basis; they will start with a 16-passenger bus and switch to a 24-passenger bus when necessary. •The pilot program is funded to provide service one day per week; expansion will depend on interest. •There will be three round-trips per day (morning, midday, and late afternoon). •Doctors’ offices will try to work with the constraints of the bus schedule. [Councilmember Bellman reiterated his interest in using the buses for local special events.] Ms. Frenton cautioned that the system’s federal funding would restrict such usage to once-a-year events, eliminating the possibility for anything scheduled on a regular basis. Ms. Phelps also cautioned that LCTB service couldn’t place itself in competition with any existing charter service. [Mayor Robertson informed Ms. Frenton and Ms. Phelps that Council would decide on the next appropriate step (i.e., which committee of Council should handle this issue) and so notify the LCTB as quickly as possible. Councilmember McGowan asked how the system would work if, for example, the bus should be full before it gets to Granville.] Ms. Frenton responded that a back-up vehicle would be dispatched to run the rest of the route. She then distributed to Council a draft Memorandum of Understanding for their review, noting that since Newark has signed off on its portion of the funding, the service could be started as soon as the other Villages complete their own paperwork, perhaps as soon as the second week of July. [Mayor Robertson said the issue would be on Council’s agenda for the next meeting.] Discussion was closed at 7:58pm; Mayor Robertson declared a 5-minute recess during which interested citizens could view the bus parked outside. 

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS Mayor Robertson opened Citizens’ Comments at 8:05pm.

Re: Radon Testing Joe Ebel, Licking County Health Commissioner. Reported on the status of radon testing in the Village, noting that free kits are available in the Village office. In 1999, 428 kits from Granville were returned to the Health Department for review. The highest reading was 319.4; the average reading was 23.6, with a mean of 11. A reading of 4 is the EPA level recommended for action. In 2000, 221 kits have already been returned, with a mean of 16.3 and a high of 212. Five kits showed readings over 100, one over 200. The Health Department intends to continue the program, expanding on-site availability of kits into other villages. [Vice Mayor Wernet asked about specific risks of radon.] Mr. Ebel responded that the primary risk of radon—a colorless, odorless gas—is lung cancer. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, behind smoking, and risk rates increase exponentially for smokers who also have radon in their homes. He encouraged everyone to test their homes, noting that, overall, one out of three houses have levels above the “action” level of 4. [Councilmember Bellman asked if it was true that 80% of homes in the Granville area had higher readings.] Mr. Ebel said that was “probably true;” the one-out-of-three statistic is for Central Ohio in general. He added that the kits contain instructions for follow-through, i.e., contacting a licensed radon mitigator who can tell a homeowner what it would take to reduce radon levels. In the near future, the Health Department will also have a person qualified to recommend a course of action. [Mayor Robertson noted that the Village had previously placed an ad in the paper to help raise awareness and asked if Mr. Ebel had any other ideas.] He suggested that the Village include a periodic notice in the water/sewer bills. He also noted that the Village might ultimately want to require some sort of radon- resistant construction for this area. [Councilmember Lucier asked if the Health Department had any statistics on the percentage of households that do remediation.] Mr. Ebel said they did not since the identification information in the kits is not specific enough to allow any follow-up. [Citizen Mark Parris interjected the comment that it would be easy and effective to disseminate radon information through the schools, e.g., a presentation in a middle- school science class that also distributed kits for the students to take home.] Mr. Ebel acknowledged that such a plan would be good but also cautioned that it was “tough to get your foot in the door.” Re: Kendal at Granville Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place. Alerted Council to the need for and possible use of Village water should Kendal be built on Burg Street. ODNR says that site is located on bedrock, meaning any water extracted from the site will not recharge, and they asked that a test well be dug. Even if water was available on-site, the projected need of 40,000 gallons per day might dry up nearby wells (some of which have already run dry, with second wells already down 400 feet.) A petition is circulating among nearby citizens who wish to convey their opposition to this site. Ms. Consolo emphasized that Kendal, itself, is a favorable idea, just not at this site, for the following reasons: 1) it would violate the 1998 Comprehensive Plan that designated this area of Burg Street as agricultural; 2) area residents chose their home sites because they wanted open space; 3) water availability is questionable; 4) if the Kendal parcel is rezoned, other land to its north is vulnerable to rezoning as well, opening the possibility of massive development; and 5) there is too much traffic on access roads already. She again asked Council to oppose extension of water to this site and continue searching for a better site, then suggested a land swap—having the acreage across from Spring Valley be the Kendal site and leaving the Burg Street site as green space.

Abram Kaplan, 843 Burg Street. Stated he was not so much concerned with Kendal itself or even with traffic concerns as he was with the decision-making process, maintaining the rural character of Granville, and providing good-faith follow-through on the Comprehensive Plan. He urged Council to be proactive about limiting development, stating it was time to make clear choices about our future so as to “keep farmland as farmland and our Village the way we like it.”

Re: Proposed Development at Newark-Granville Road/Cherry Valley Road: George Fackler, 323 Parker Drive, Newark (owner, Fackler Country Gardens). Requested a 12-month extension on the project to allow it to continue. He received a letter from the Village approximately April 20th that said an extension of the May 6th deadline was possible, then received a second letter approximately one week later that said it was not. A prior deadline of August 1999 has also expired. [Vice Mayor Wernet noted that the conditional use for a drive-through was tied to the August 1999 deadline.] Mr. Fackler stated he has qualified tenants for the project and would like to proceed without changing the footprint of the project, which has already broken ground. [Vice Mayor Wernet asked when Mr. Fackler had first talked to Manager Hickman about an extension.] Mr. Fackler said they had spoken in March. [Vice Mayor Wernet noted that the deadline the previous August had actually stopped the project, which then disappeared for six months before an extension was requested.] Mr. Fackler resonded that Law Director Hurst “wanted this to happen and would recommend that Council grant the request.” [Mayor Robertson acknowledged that permits expire because conditions change, etc, and stated that, since Council had not gone through all the steps the Planning Commission has with this issue, she would like the Planning Commission to review the matter and give Council their recommendation. Councilmember Bellman asked for clarification of what exactly is at issue and wondered if Council had the authority to extend a BZBA approval for a drive-through that expired last August.] Mr. Fackler stated that Law Director Hurst thought it did. [Mayor Robertson asked if Mr. Fackler had Law Director Hurst’s opinion in writing.] He does not. [Vice Mayor Wernet stated Council is looking at legal and management issues here, with neither the Law Director nor the Village Manager in attendance. Councilmember Bellman suggested Council seek the needed guidance and revisit the issue in two weeks. Councilmember Lucier concurred, asking Mr. Fackler to provide Council with everything he has in writing. Councilmember Bellman asked if there were any steps Mr. Fackler could take in the interim, instead of waiting until council meets again. Councilmember Lucier suggested he go to the Planning Commission meeting of June 12th, speaking during Citizens’ Comments since it is to late to put his issue on the agenda. Councilmember Bellman added that if the Planning Commission members wanted specific details from Mr. Fackler, he would be able to go ahead and get started. Councilmember Moore asked what exactly had expired May 6th.] Mr. Fackler stated it was the zoning/building permit.

Doug Kaiser, 1256 Newark Road (representing Susan Kaiser). As a planned tenant in Mr. Fackler’s center, Mrs. Kaiser intends to open a cooking school. They will have to withdraw if the entire process has to be repeated.

Barb Hammond, 184 Spruce Drive (owner of The Furniture House). Also a prospective tenant for Mr. Fackler. Encouraged Council to expedite approvals for what would be a beautiful gateway to Granville from the west.

[Councilmember Bellman and Vice Mayor Wernet encouraged the tenants to be patient since we have a much more streamlined process now and people are on board with the concept.]

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments at 8:39pm. 

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 09-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. No one appeared to speak for or against Ordinance No. 09-00. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:40pm. 

OLD BUSINESS Appeal Decision – 117 East Elm Street At the request of Mayor Robertson, Attorney Jump relayed the results of his review of this issue to those present, as follows: First and foremost, the appellant did not attend the Planning Commission hearing, a “fatal and jurisdictional defect.” The law clearly states that anyone who participated or tried to and was refused could appeal; neither of those contingencies was met. Similarly, the appellee did not appear, either in person or by attorney, as stated in the law; representation is not the same. Had proper procedure been adhered to, the following would have happened: •The Planning Commission should have had a record hearing with a court reporter, the lack of which should have been raised by a proper appellant. •Under Section 1159.06 (re change of use), the Planning Commission should have treated an application for change just like a new one. This would have included checking Section 1133 for the number of parking places required by law, then following the procedures specified in Section 1159 when it was determined that the proper number of places did not exist. A variance from the BZBA is required unless the Planning Commission states that the requested change will not results in any greater parking requirements than the existing use. According to the record, none of this happened. Had the issue been raised in a proper appeal, Attorney Jump would have sent it back for either a variance or a recommendation by the Village Planner. In this case, the issue is a moot point since there is no proper jurisdiction.

[Vice Mayor Wernet asked if the applicant still needed a variance.] Attorney Jump said he does, unless the Village Planner specifically states that the change-of-use will not increase need, per Section 1159.03(e)3. [Mayor Robertson asked if the Planning Commission could change the number of spaces required.] Attorney Jump said they could not, but were rather required by law to send an applicant to the BZBA for a variance. Such variances are supposed to be granted on the basis of a unique hardship, which doesn’t apply here. If the property already has a variance for a non-conforming use, it doesn’t appear in the record.

Cathy Raker, 176 Seymour Place (owner of the property). After searching for three years for a good tenant, the Planning Commission agrees she has found one. She has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with Mr. Williams, and asked Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the change-of-use application.

Bernie Williams, appellant. Reiterated his disagreement with Mrs. Raker as to who parks where, and suggested that she add a parking pad in front of the building on South Main Street, designed to park six additional cars. Mayor Robertson closed comments and convened a discussion among members of Council. Councilmember Lucier recommended, based on Attorney Jump’s advice, that Council remand the issue to the Planning Commission with appropriate instructions and background on the legalities of procedure. The Planning Commission may then either certify that the change-of-use will not require additional parking or send the applicant to the BZBA for a variance. Attorney Jump noted that he would also have recommended that procedure except that it doesn’t address the fact that the appellant is not a proper appellant. Therefore, even though Council is empowered to direct that proper procedure be followed by the Planning Commission, Attorney Jump would recommend that the appeal be dismissed due to the fatal jurisdictional flaw. With no appeal, there are then no grounds to remand. Mayor Robertson asked the parties if they would be willing to have a Planning Commission review. Mrs. Raker said she felt a good decision had been made and asked Council to uphold it. Mrs. Williams reiterated their objection to having to obey the parking rules while others don’t; Mr. Williams asked Council to uphold the law. Mayor Robertson again asked Mr. Williams if he would be willing to rent spaces. He responded he would not, for personal reasons, and again asked if they would be willing to put spaces in their front yard. Mr. Pinkerton stated that Mr. Williams as well as Greystone were short on parking spaces so renting from him would not solve anyone’s problem.

Councilmember Lucier moved that the appeal be dismissed for lack of an appellant with standing. Second by Councilmember Moore.

Discussion: Vice Mayor Wernet said he felt Council was bound by Attorney’s Jump’s judgment of a fatal jurisdictional flaw in the appeal. Mayor Robertson felt that it was troubling and significant that the appellant’s inability to read the notice in the paper resulted in his not attending the hearing and thereby having standing on appeal. However, she also would have preferred to have seen more of an attempt to try to solve this, as was requested by Council three weeks ago. [Council agreed to send letters to everyone on issues such as these, not just for variances.] Vice Mayor Wernet called the question. A Roll Call Vote yielded five affirmative votes (Councilmembers Bellman, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; and Vice Mayor Wernet) and one negative vote (Mayor Robertson). The Appeal is dismissed; the original decision stands. Attorney Jump reminded Council that their decision must be reduced to writing within 45 days.

Following the vote, Council addressed the issue of the possible procedural flaw at the Planning Commission stage. Vice Mayor Wernet asked if Section 1133.03 was applicable. Attorney Jump said it could be, though it wasn’t drafted with the idea of applying after an appeal. He suggested Council use Division B (…”Council may review any administrative decision on it own initiative.”). Following the procedures spelled out, such action would require a resolution, clearly indicating the basis for the review and referring to any pertinent issues. Councilmember Lucier asked if Council could ask the Planning Commission to conduct a review to determine whether procedure was not followed and, it if was not, to reconsider the application following appropriate procedure. Attorney Jump thought Council could do so but cautioned that it may be challenged. Vice Mayor Wernet pointed out that it would not be a hearing on the same issue. Councilmember Lucier reiterated that it has been brought to Council’s attention that there may have been a flaw in the procedure. Therefore, Council needs to know if Kathryn Wimberger made any determination. If she did, then Council needs to know whether the determination has to be presented to the Planning Commission to be valid, or whether it can be made but not presented, and still be valid. Vice Mayor Wernet asked about the standard of review in an action under Section 1133. Attorney Jump wasn’t sure but expected it would be clear and convincing evidence. Councilmember Bellman added that the standard is whether legally Council thinks a bad decision has been made at some point in the process. Councilmember Moore stated that Council’s decision to review is based on a question of jurisdiction, not on the merits of the appeal. Councilmember Bellman noted that if the Village Planner did not make a finding she should have made, the case is unlawful. Councilmember Lucier noted that if Council decides the procedure was flawed, they may direct the Planning Commission to do it again. Councilmember McGowan felt it was micromanaging for Council to try and change a Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Moore suggested we begin by asking the Village Planner if she made a determination. All members agreed. Once we know the answer to that question, the issue can be revisited at Council’s next meeting.

Ordinance No. 09-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43- 99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was re-introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Bellman.

Discussion: Councilmember Bellman reported that he and Vice Mayor Wernet (representing the Streets & Sidewalks Committee) had inspected the curbs in question and feel there is need to replace only one section of the block just west of Plum Street, near Sugar Loaf. Vice Mayor Wernet moved that Council amend the ordinance to confine new curbing “from Borishansky’s to the stone wall, but nothing else,” and to change the stated expense of $28,870 to $8,000. Second by Councilmember Lucier. A Roll Call Vote on the amendment yielded six affirmative votes (Councilmembers Bellman, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, and Mayor Robertson).

The Committee was also disturbed by the “suburban feel” of the rounded-contour curbing being installed on South Main Street; they would have preferred a square-edged contour as more consistent with curbing in the rest of the Village. They suggested that the rest of the curb be square, not rounded, and that Council consider replacing what has already been poured. Mr. Zarbaugh stated that the South Main Street job order called for a curb-and-gutter installation. Manager Hickman informed Mr. Zarbaugh that 18” vertical stand-up curb was specified, but the issue of square vs. round was not specified. Since the rounded curb is not contractor error, the Village would have to bear the cost of a change. Currently, 1,700 feet of curbing on the west side of the street is completed. Mr. Zarbaugh asked for direction from Council as to the curbs on the east side of South Main Street. He also reported that the cost to remove-and-replace existing curbing was $25/foot; installation of new curbing is $17/foot. In other words, it would cost $42,500 to change the curbing on the west side of the street. Mr. Zarbaugh also cautioned Council that removal-and-replacement of the west-side curbing would throw the construction schedule off considerably (i.e., the project could not be completed by July 1). Councilmember Bellman suggested we might change to the square curbing on the east side of the street, then re-do the west side only by the Baptist Church where there’s diagonal parking. Councilmember Moore objected to having two kinds of curbing, as well as to any delay. Council agreed to match both sides of the street with curved curbing, and to give specific instruction as to what constitutes “standard” curbing from here on out. NEW BUSINESS 2001 County Tax Budget – Council acknowledged receipt of the 2001 County Tax Budget. Mayor Robertson scheduled a public hearing on the budget for June 21, 2000.

Resolution No. 00-27, A Resolution Authorizing The Village Manager To File An Application And Enter Into An Agreement With The Ohio Department Of Natural Resources For The Purpose Of Acquiring Funds Through The Division Of Forestry’s Urban Forestry Assistance Program and Declaring An Emergency, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Moore. Motion Carried. Resolution No. 00-27 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-28, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Submit An Application For Ohio Department Of Transportation Enhancement Program Funds, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-28 is adopted. 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of May 17, 2000 were presented for review. Vice Mayor Wernet moved the minutes be approved as submitted. Second by Councilmember Moore. Motion carried. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Vice Mayor Wernet). In addition to the previous discussion on curbing, the Committee requested Mr. Zarbaugh to get pricing for the unimproved section of Sunrise Street. The Committee will meet again at 6:30 on June 21st, before the next Council meeting, to consider the residential parking permit proposal.

Economic Development Committee (Councilmember Moore). Still exploring a possible “guidebook” for new businesses outlining procedures, contacts, etc. On a side note, Kathryn Wimberger had done some research on what other resources in the County (e.g., the Newark Area Chamber of Commerce) were saying about Granville and discovered they’re not saying very much. The guidebook concept is also a recommendation of the Downtown Improvement Committee, which refers to it as a “roadmap.” The Committee expects to have a first draft at their next meeting. They also want to get the report from the Downtown Improvement Committee as to their recommendation on an economic development council.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). In addition to the previous discussion re the Elm Street appeal, Councilmember Lucier reported that the Commission had been asked to review a letter being sent out by the village. They discovered that the e-mail attachment didn’t match the hard-copy attachment included in their packets. Their preference is for the language in the e-mail version. Mr. Zarbaugh will speak with Manager Hickman to make sure the appropriate version is sent. 

OTHER Exclusive Trash Hauler Proposal Mr. Zarbaugh stated he will retrieve previous discussion and records on this issue so Council can consider it at their next meeting. Bank First National Release/Reader’s Garden Proposal Re the lease: Vice Mayor Wernet, citing the June 7th letter from Robert Erhard to Wesley Untied, stated that the changes made by Attorney Erhard looked good. He also asked 1) whether Council might want to add language to Village leases to protect the Village from a business that shuts down and leaves a space vacant, and 2) whether Council might want to make the lease more specific (e.g., a lease specifically for a bookstore). Council did not want the lease to be that specific but did agree that it was a good idea to add a clause that stated the space would revert back to the Village if it stayed empty for a specified amount of time (e.g., 60 or 90 days). Vice Mayor Wernet asked for one change to the terms stated in the June 7th letter—deleting “689 square feet” and inserting “property.” Council agreed. Re the release: Council asked Attorney Jump to review the letter from Bank First National and advise Council before they accept it.

Re posting for new law director. Councilmember Lucier suggested that Council consider proposing to voters in November an amendment to the Charter that would allow Council, rather than the Village Manager, to appoint the law director. When the Charter was written in the early 1960s, in was widely thought that local governments were run like businesses. They were concerned with efficient management, not policy issues, and therefore a professional manager, who would give reports to the elected officials, was “the order of the day.” That model no longer exists. Council is faced with policy issues at virtually every meeting, almost all of which have significant legal implications. The opinions and advice of the law director are vital to members of Council. It therefore makes sense for Council to have the power to appoint the manager as well as the law director. Vice Mayor Wernet strongly agreed and added an equal concern about the finance director, citing issues of independence and independent judgment. He noted that the Charter states that Council may introduce a measure, pass it by a two-thirds vote, then put it on the ballot to be decided on by a majority of the voters. Council strongly supported the proposal and agreed to pursue it, pending a final decision in August, 100 days prior to the election.

Reading of Declaration of Independence at 4th of July Council agreed that the Reading was an important part of the July 4th celebrations and should be repeated. It was decided to do it from the reviewing stand just prior to the start of the Parade. 

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – June 21, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45pm. Councilmember Lucier second. Meeting adjourned.

Council minutes 5/3/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:32pm. 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Law Director Hurst, and Manager Hickman. 

UNION CEMETERY BOARD MEETING Mayor Robertson convened the official annual joint meeting of Village Council and the Township Trustees. Representing the Township were Trustees Jim Havens, Eric Jones, and Lyle King; Township Clerk Norm Kennedy, and Cemetery Board member Flo Hoffman. Councilmember Lucier, referencing Section II of Resolution 00-24, asked that Council consider eliminating the stated ceiling of $91,000. Vice Mayor Wernet said he would be willing to strike the phrase, “… until those annual contributions from the Village equal $91,000….” There was general agreement and Councilmember Lucier made the change as she read the Resolution into the Minutes.

Resolution No. 00-24, A Resolution To Declare With The Granville Township Trustees That Operation And Maintenance Of The Union Cemetery Under The Provisions Of Section 759- 34 Of The Ohio Revised Code Continue And That The 2000 Annual Meeting Required By Section 759.34 Has Been Conducted And To Fill A Pending Vacancy On The Union Cemetery Board Of Trustees, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet.

Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-24 is adopted. [The Township Trustees then convened a brief official meeting of their own during which they passed a companion resolution to 00-24 and reappointed Flo Hoffman to the Cemetery Board for a three-year term ending 5/31/03.]

 Mayor Robertson concluded the joint meting at 7:41pm. 

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS Mayor Robertson opened Citizens’ Comments at 7:42pm.

Re The Colony at Bryn Du Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. Reported that the Bryn Du residents had scheduled a meeting on Sunday, May 7th, and expected to be ready for mediation shortly thereafter.

Re Residential Parking Permits Barclay Gano, 527 Burg Street (owner of property at 453 Burg Street). Explained that he is having difficulty finding renters for his apartments because the municipal lot on Burg Street has become a de facto student parking area. His tenants are sometimes forced to park at the bottom of the hill and carry their groceries, etc. up to the house. He feels strongly that Burg Street residents should have preferential parking at the top of the hill, and asked that Council develop a means to limit Denison parking to Denison property. Mr. Gano has been working with Manager Hickman to try and find a solution acceptable to all parties, and is willing to meet further with Council if needed. [Mayor Robertson, noting the issue was on tonight’s agenda, moved it forward on the agenda and set discussion for the end of Citizens’ Comments.]

Re Truck Scales Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm Street. Expressed concerns about the appearance of the scales and asked that Council reconsider the S.R. 661 entrance instead. [Mayor Robertson noted that issue was on tonight’s agenda as well.]

Mayor Robertson closed citizens’ comments at 7:49pm.

OTHER – Permit Parking Background: There are a number of places in the Village where parking for residents of the area is consistently preempted by student cars with on-campus parking permits. The Village is proposing the issuance of parking permits for strictly defined areas, as necessary. Cars parked in such areas without the proper village permit would be ticketed. Residents could obtain temporary permits for guests through a procedure yet to be determined. (Law Director Hurst noted that though this has been discussed in the past, no regulations have been enacted.) Mayor Robertson reported that residents of West College, Burg Street, and Sheppard Place have all called the situation “intolerable.” She also clarified that this is a Village issue, not a Denison one, since there are no regulations keeping any car from parking anywhere in the village. Councilmember McGowan reported that Denison’s policy bars cars with five on-campus tickets from being parked anywhere on campus except for the remote lots at Ebaugh’s Pond; student owners of the cars almost always elect to park in the Village rather than at Ebaugh’s. Vice Mayor Wernet asked if the wording in 351.17(c) suited the need in this situation. Law Director Hurst cautioned that he had not given the specifics a thorough review yet, preferring to ascertain Council’s direction first. He did note, however, that the specified parking areas can be very specific, detailing, for example, areas between designated signs, license plate numbers, which side of the street, which days of the week, etc. Restricted areas can also be color-coded to the parking permit stickers, up to and including different color coding for different linear portions of the same street. Councilmember Lucier summed it up, saying Council could make the parameters as narrow or as broad as makes sense for our circumstances. [Don Contini, 315 N. Pearl Street, asked if the block of Summit Street at the foot of the hill could be added to the proposed list. It can.] Councilmember Moore suggested the issue be referred to the Streets & Sidewalks Committee for further investigation, in conjunction with neighbors, neighborhoods, and Denison. Mayor Robertson instructed the Committee to meet before the next Council meeting so they could present a report at that time. Vice Mayor Wernet asked that Law Director Hurst review the matter and suggest any needed modifications, so that a resolution could be introduced if the Streets and Sidewalks Committee reaches consensus on the issue. Councilmember Lucier urged that special attention be paid to publicizing the Streets and Sidewalks meeting. She also noted that many Village residents also compete for on-street parking with visiting shoppers, meaning there might be many more people who would want protected parking that the current list indicates. Councilmember Bellman suggested that, if the timing of the process worked out in a way that would permit citizen notification via an enclosure in Village utility bills, that would be a very effective way to spread the word. Vice Mayor Wernet urged all due speed in consideration of the concerns expressed by Mr. Gano. Councilmember Crais emphasized the need to include Denison in the process, especially with reference to first-year students’ cars. 

BANK FIRST NATIONAL LEASE Mark Gearhart, Bank First National, 222 E. Broadway. Asked Council to clarify what he called “mixed signals” received over the course of the lease (i.e., should the Bank sublease the space? does the Village want to write a new lease with a new tenant? what information does Council require in order to approve a new tenant?) He currently has expressions of interest from three parties. The first is an existing retail operation offering to pay less than market. The second, who has been talking with Manager Hickman, wants to start a retail business and would pay full price. The third is an attorney who wants to locate an office in the building. Mr. Gearhart emphasized that Bank First National wants out of the lease. They moved out per the agreement, and would like to see a new tenant in the space. He asked 1) who they should work with to get closure, 2) what the approval process would be, and 3) could they get out of their lease if they found a suitable tenant? Mayor Robertson reported that she and Manager Hickman thought the Economic Development Commission (Mayor Robertson, Councilmembers Crais and Moore) should meet with Mr. Gearhart and report back to Council. (A public meeting, to include Mr. Gearhart, was set for Friday, May 12th, at 8:00am in Council chambers. 

NEW BUSINESS Ordinance No. 08-00, An Ordinance Providing For The Issuance Of $695,000 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 by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Moore. Vice Mayor Wernet then read Section XIV in its entirety, to establish an emergency. Councilmember Moore seconded the emergency section.

Discussion: Molly Roberts explained that this ordinance was a semi-annual renewal of a note normally renewed annually, issued for projects east of the Village. Interest rates and principal fluctuations were discussed, with Ms. Roberts noting that the Village had paid down $35,000 since last year. Responding to a question from Councilmember McGowan on the present interest rate, she noted the annual rate was 3.97%. Mayor Robertson asked the reason for the semi-annual renewal. Ms. Roberts stated that the Village hoped to roll this note into some outstanding bonds, then do a larger note at a lower percentage rate in the fall to save the Village some money in the long term. Councilmember Moore added that we have some outstanding revenue bonds at 6.5- 6.75% that will mature on November 1, 2004. We currently pay a fee of $5,000-6,000 a year to the bond trustee— approximately the amount of interest earned by the $150,000 that is required to stay in a debt-service reserve fund, held by the trustee. The Village is trying to make an adjustment on November 1st (the first date we can do an optional redemption on outstanding revenue bonds at par with no penalty) that will give us short-term interest rates of 4.8-6.5%. We will increase the size of the note by $265,000 and add the $150,000 from the debt service fund, using the latter to retire revenue bonds. Councilmember Bellman questioned whether or not interest rates would rise. Councilmember Moore said we would see no effect if anticipated interest increases stayed within expected parameters. She added that we have the option of retiring the debt early, though current plans are to continue to pay down notes at the same rate as paying down bonds. Councilmember Lucier asked if this debt was for the municipal sanitary sewer system; Ms. Roberts clarified that this is all sewer-related. Councilmember Moore reported that the Village is looking at a savings of about $50,000. Councilmember McGowan asked if that meant that the debt- service fee on Village water bills would disappear in three years. Ms. Roberts said it would and explained that the lower annual rate would appear on Village utility bills approximately six months after November 1. Councilmember Moore added that the Village would continue to look for a better rate than the 4.83%, up to and including bidding it out via the standard Request for Proposal process. A Roll Call Ordinance 08-00, Section XIV, yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, and Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 08-00, Section XIV, is adopted.

A Roll Call on Ordinance 08-00 yielded seven (7) affirmative votes: Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, and Mayor Robertson. Ordinance 08-00 is adopted. 

Appeal Hearing An Appeal Hearing was scheduled for May 17, 2000, for the purpose of hearing Mr. Bernard Williams’ appeal of the Planning Commission decision dated 4/10/00, application No. 00-029, by Monique Pinkerton. 

Resolution No. 00-17, A Resolution To Direct The Village Manager And Law Director To Prepare Modifications To Ordinance No. 23-98, Relative To Truck Traffic, was read in full by Councilmember Bellman. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Councilmember Bellman explained that this stems from a resolution originally passed eighteen months ago (relative to proposed plans for the Keny property) that banned through-truck traffic on Cherry Valley Road. After the ban, businesses on Tamarack Road protested and asked for a temporary reprieve, which was granted. Meetings of the Newark-Granville committee resulted in mirror ordinances having been passed by both municipalities. At this point, Councilmember Bellman feels we are moving in the right direction. Mayor Robertson reported that she and Craig Baldwin (Newark City Council) have been discussing taking the steps specified in the mirror ordinances (i.e., taking the issue to our state representatives to initiate ODOT involvement in the search for a definitive solution). Councilmember McGowan asked if Granville truck scales would affect the balance of traffic between the two communities. Vice Mayor Wernet responded that Newark is aware we are discussing the matter. He also noted that the permanent Newark scales on S.R. 13 north of Newark, which push the truck traffic over to S.R. 661, are virtually forcing us to have permanent scales of our own. The goal of the resolution on the floor is to acknowledge that the commercial enterprises using Cherry Valley Road have been making a good-faith effort to reduce their truck traffic (i.e., we ought not penalize them, even though we clearly still have a heavy highway truck problem). Councilmember Bellman noted that even though the ordinance currently in effect requires heavy trucks within the Village to confine themselves to state routes, he feels the exception for Cherry Valley Road, now in its second 6-9 month extension, should be permanent due to the unique circumstance of Cherry Valley Road being the only viable link between the industrial park and S.R. 16. The eventual goal is to obtain the active cooperation of the other governmental entities involved to solve the problem permanently. Responding to Councilmember Moore’s question about the use of a resolution rather than an ordinance, Councilmember Bellman stated that being able to enter an approved action in the minutes immediately would indicate the extent of Council’s determination to address the issue. Councilmember Moore asked when the current ordinances expired; Mayor Robertson gave the respective dates as 7/1/00 and 1/1/01. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that the current direction to Manager Hickman and Law Director Hurst addresses only heavy truck traffic on Cherry Valley Road without acknowledging that any of the proposed north/south routes will exacerbate things even further. [Note: discussion was recessed momentarily while Law Director Hurst produced copy of the ordinance for Councilmember Moore. A reading of the previous ordinance produced no additional discussion.]

Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-17 is adopted. 

Resolution No. 00-21, A Resolution To Direct The Village Manager To Proceed With The Purchase And Construction Thereof For Truck Weighing Scales, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Crais. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet.

Discussion: Vice Mayor Wernet distributed Keith Myers’ rendering of the proposed scale, illustrating the extensive landscaping being proposed for the area. Councilmember Moore renewed her objection to the site, saying it seemed inconsistent for the Village to invest in major beautification improvements for the south entrance only to put a permanent truck scale in the middle of it. Vice Mayor Wernet replied that there is only so much that could be done to beautify the area given the presence of the Denison steam plant/stack and the mill/grain elevators. He also made the point that the Village is paying “a small fortune” for road improvements caused in large part by heavy trucks (based on ODOT statistics showing that 70% of road damage is caused by heavy trucks). Trucking firms—or farmers or Village salt trucks, for that matter—need to abide by posted weight limits. They should also pay their fair share of road maintenance costs. The Village cannot continue to subsidize trucking firms who intentionally violate weight restrictions. Experience has already shown that whenever the truck scales are out, heavy trucks don’t come through town. This means they should be there every day. [Constance Barsky, 221 E. Elm Street. Asked if the scales were on the same side of the road as the steam plan; they are. Also asked if cars might use the scale lane to get around cars waiting to turn left into the IGA area; Manager Hickman responded that the lane would probably be chained closed when not in use.] Councilmember McGowan noted that, in addition to enforcing weight laws and improving the safety of this area, it would be very helpful if state and county law enforcement units were called in more often since speed is a more egregious offense than excess weight. Also, the proposed location is the most congested area in the village and will only get worse. The proximity of the bike trail is a continuing concern as well. He also agreed with Councilmember Moore’s concerns about the South Main Street site. [Don Contini, 315 N. Pearl Street. Expressed disappointment that the conversation was still going back to whether or not the Village should have it own scales, wondered why our scale had anything to do with Newark, and asked Council to “get on with it!”] Councilmember Crais, citing a New York Times Magazine article about how traffic and trucks will destroy the ambience of small towns, emphasized that nothing will happen if Council doesn’t take the initiative. He proposed that the fewer trucks we have going through town, the more beautiful a community we will have (i.e., permanent truck scales would enhance both beautification and the quality of life). He also suggested we put more pressure on state government and other agencies to look for a long-term solution to the north-south traffic route. Councilmember Moore, after thanking Manager Hickman for giving her a tour of all the proposed sites for the scale, said there really isn’t a perfect spot for a permanent scale and asked if Council could revisit the idea of purchasing portable scales jointly with Newark. Such an arrangement would help foster community relationship, allow the staffs to work together, would be a more cost-effective method of sharing, and would provide further evidence to ODOT of our joint commitment to this problem. She further stated that if permanent scales win out, she still favors a site to the north. Councilmember McGowan reiterated his own preference for portable scales and his concerns about the proposed location. He reported the results of his survey: 20% of the respondents chose a location south of the bide trail; almost 50% chose the Village’s service-building property; approximately 25% chose a site north of Burg Street on S.R. 661. Responding to Councilmember Lucier’s concern about where we would line up trucks waiting to be weighed on the South Main Street site, Manager Hickman said trucks would be picked up one at a time and could be held on S.R. 16. On S.R. 661, there is no good holding spot. [Vivian Ashbaugh, 121 N. Pearl Street. Stated she has yet to hear another logical location for the scales. Since South Main Street is already a commercial area with a lot of concrete in place, additional paving won’t make it any uglier. On the other hand, the north entrance has lots of residences, lots of green space, and lots of kids coming and going to school. Putting the scales there would require stripping away green space. She has been working on this for eight years and feels this permanent scale—the “closest the Village has come to taking its own initiative””—would be an effective way to send a message to ODOT that we have a problem here.] Councilmember Crais stated that sharing a portable scale with Newark would defeat the purpose since the strongest argument for permanent scales is that they offer a permanent deterrent. Councilmember Moore asked if the purchase of the scales had to be bid out since it was over $15,000; Manager Hickman acknowledged that it did. Law Director Hurst urged Council to direct Manager Hickman to send the matter out to bid (as opposed to treating it as a change order to the South Main Street project). Vice Mayor Wernet raised the question of whether Layton would be able to do it at a significantly lower cost since his crews and equipment are already on site and urged that the bid process be done in as timely a manner as possible to avoid any unnecessary increases in the price. Law Director Hurst assured him we could proceed expeditiously in getting back to Council with bid numbers. He urged Council to direct Manager Hickman to proceed with the preparation and submittal of bids for purchase and construction of truck lanes. Mayor Robertson and Councilmember Crais noted the need for amending the resolution on the floor, and Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to modify the title to read, “A Resolution To Direct The Village Manager To Proceed With The Bid Preparation And Submittal Of Bids For Truck Weighing Scales” and modify Section III to read, “The Village Manager is directed to proceed with the bid preparation and submittal of bids.” Second by Councilmember Crais. Motion to amend carried. [Paul, Jacob, 115 West College Street. Asked if there was any more technologically advanced method of weighing trucks that might eliminate the scales as proposed. Manager Hickman said there was not. Motion carried (five affirmative votes, two negative votes). Resolution No. 00-21 is adopted. 

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 07-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. No one appeared to speak for or against Ordinance No. 07-00. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 9:28pm. 

OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 07-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43- 99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was re-introduced by Councilmember Crais. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet.

Discussion: Manager Hickman reported a discussion of the South Main Street crosswalk by the Streets and Sidewalks Committee re making substantial safety improvements to it, as follows: •$12,000 – brick pavers (10’ wide) with a concrete trough and miscellaneous curbing added as a visual barrier to pedestrian and vehicular traffic; •$13,000 – recessed lighting in brick pavers and pedestrian signals 100’ north and south of the crosswalk. (Responding to questions from Councilmember Lucier, Manager Hickman noted that the crosswalk would be virtually the same as the Broadway crosswalk, including the fact that traffic is required to yield rather than stop. There will, however, be pedestrian-activated signals on either side of the road that will enable the yellow flashing lights); and •$14,000 – improvements to existing path including the access to the wastewater plant, pursuant to an agreement with the Evans Foundation that we would do so. The total requested expenditure should be $39,000, not the $45,000 shown. Responding to a number of concerns that the traffic might not actually yield, Manager Hickman stated “Stop” signs would be installed on the bike path. Councilmember Bellman suggested they be placed right next to button; Councilmember Lucier suggested they read, “Push button, wait for traffic to stop.” Law Director Hurst suggested the Village put up road signs on either side of the path indicating “traffic must stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk.” The language could be softened to “yield” if necessary. Vice Mayor Wernet asked if similar signs could be used at the Broadway crosswalk. Law Director Hurst indicated they could be tried there as well. Councilmember Lucier recommended that Manager Hickman check out funding for bike path improvements available through June from the Ohio EPA; he will do so. Councilmember Moore asked if the Evans Foundation had been kept informed of proposed improvements; they have.

Vice Mayor Wernet proposed an amendment to change “$45,000” to “$39,000” and “$64,000” to “$65,000.” Second by Councilmember Lucier. The Motion to Amend carried.

Council instructed Manager Hickman to handle the question of yellow vs. red lights at the path crosswalk “as strictly as possible.”

A Roll Call yielded seven (7) affirmative votes (Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, Moore and Bellman; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson).

Ordinance 07-00 is adopted. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of April 5, 2000 were presented for review. Mayor Robertson complimented the Deputy Clerk on having captured the marathon meeting. Three changes were requested: p.1 – amend the “Roll Call” paragraph to indicated that the two negative votes were “in the case of Councilmember Bellman” and change “later in the meeting” to “within a few minutes;” p. 4 – in the detail of the Roll Call vote on Ordinance 03-00, insert Councilmember Bellman as an affirmative vote and delete Councilmember Lucier; p. 6 – in “Web Site Update,” 15th line, change “suggested” to “endorsed.” Vice Mayor Wernet moved the minutes be approved as amended. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried.

The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19, 2000 were presented for review. Two changes were requested: p. 1 – “Citizens’ Comments,” change “The Colony” to “The Colony at Bryn Du;” p. 5 – “Planning Committee” report, change the second sentence to read, “In addition, Councilmember Lucier has met with Kathryn Wimberger….” Vice Mayor Wernet moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember Moore. Motion carried. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Recreation Commission (Councilmember McGowan) The gate is on order, the lights are in, and the arms are being painted. All will be completed by July 4th.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier) The Commission is waiting to find out what procedures need to be followed by whom re the request to build a house on the corner of College and Granger Streets, on the property purchased from the school district. Attorney Robert Erhard submitted a legal opinion indicating that the easement was part of the original agreement. The people who wish to build on the site would like to have that changed. Councilmember Lucier inquired whether the request had been transferred to the Law Director. He responded that it had not, though Ms. Wimberger may talk with him. Councilmember Lucier also reported that the Commission has yet to receive a new application for the garage on Maple Street. In closing, speaking as a Trustee of the Old Colony Burying Ground, she thanked Council for its renewal. Tree and landscape Commission (Councilmember Moore) No report. Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Vice Mayor Wernet) In addition to discussing the truck scales, the Committee determined they wish to propose to Council that crosswalk lights (yellow, mounted in the street) be installed at the intersections of Elm/Main and College/Pearl. Manager Hickman reported the Village was considering recessed lighting at both intersections. Vice Mayor Wernet reported that the reports from the Downtown Granville task forces contained many positive aspects; he especially appreciated the proposal for combined signage. Re the Land of Legend Transit proposal, the Committee felt that while this particular plan might not be the right one for us, some kind of shuttle-bus service between Newark and Granville might make sense at some point. Councilmember Bellman added it might be helpful to shuttle between the Cherry Valley Road office-park area and downtown Granville. Councilmember Lucier, after confirmation by Vice Mayor Wernet that the Committee had responded “non-positively” to the Land of Legend Transit proposal, asked that the matter be placed the next meeting’s agenda for further review. Manager Hickman offered to have Loretta Frenton, general manager of Land of Legend Transit, come to the meeting; Council agreed that would be helpful. Councilmember Bellman reported that the former ODOT member at the Committee meeting had raised the possibility of a stoplight at the entrance to the IGA area, noting that if this light were tied to the light at Broadway and Main, it could create gaps in the traffic for easier egress from all areas along South Main Street. Councilmember Lucier noted that would help crossing traffic on the bike path as well. Councilmember Bellman also noted that Keith Myers had suggested a slight rise in the bike- path crosswalk, a “small traffic bump, six or seven feet long.” The Committee also suggested that GBPA signage could start at IGA. 

Economic Committee (Councilmember Crais) The business community expressed their gratitude for Council’s efforts with the web page. They also feel this is a Council that listens to their concerns and works with them in a “surprising and good way,” which bodes well for the future. The Committee began work on a major topic first raised by Councilmember Moore—forming an economic council. The Committee made some progress on the issue of creating a booklet that would contain coordinated procedures and advice for people trying to establish businesses in Granville (e.g., regulations, ordinances, the master plan, contact people, how to navigate the system, etc.) and will continue to move toward assembling that data. On the issue of the county bed tax, discussion centered on the fact that the great majority of the tax monies from Granville establishments ends up in the coffers of the Licking County Convention and Visitors Bureau (LCCVB), characterized by Councilmember Crais as a “less than helpful institution for Granville.” The Committee is investigating ways in which we might be able to bring more of the bed tax back home. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that the LCCVB video of Licking County has a high percentage of scenes of Granville. Councilmember Moore will cover the meetings of the Economic Committee in the absence of Councilmember Crais. 

Bicentennial Planning Session (Mayor Robertson) Having represented Council at the session, she reported that many exciting ideas were presented, e.g., putting original street names on the signs with current ones, all of which would be tied together with the consistent-signage project. Another idea was to raise money from the sale of commemorative items. 

OTHER JEDD (Councilmember Bellman) In the context of an overall lack of direction by the JEDD, Councilmember Bellman asked Council to decide on its own goal for the project. They are beginning to write a detailed contract but the lack of agreement on some of the major points will quickly become an issue. Two meetings ago, a small group met to draft a reduced plan (a two- lane, “ Super Two” proposal) that involves buying easements to do the Thornwood portion of the plan, stopping at River Road or Cherry Valley Road. They would then depend on ODOT to fund the connector to S.R. 16. The cost for the Super Two version is $6 million; cost on the original plan was $45 million. They then presented a second version that took the Super Two all the way to S.R. 16, at a cost $10 million (obviously without the original cloverleaf connector). Even so, Councilmember Bellman expressed some reservations about the costing of the proposals. He does support the idea of buying easements, however, since it’s also obvious that a two-lane S.R. 37 as the main connector to I-70 will be totally overloaded in five-to-fifteen years. Even though the funding is still lacking, he and Jim Jump want to proceed with writing detailed parts of the contracts. A procedural understanding has been reached with Heath and Newark on annexation issues, including a test period of one- to-three years. He emphasized that would not protect us against other annexation. He also underlined one other aspect of the entire north-south project (the traffic that will be dumped onto S.R. 16) and urged that we get a commitment up front from ODOT to address this issue; otherwise, we’ll have solved one problem and created another. Finally, after informing Council that his experience with JEDD has been a wonderful exercise in cooperation, he asked Council to affirm that unless we deal with the north/south route as well as the annexation issue, there is no point in continuing the JEDD association. Public Restrooms (Councilmember Lucier) Asked that this issue be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. 

Cell Phone Usage (Mayor Robertson) Asked if Council would be interested in making it illegal within the Village to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. Vice Mayor Wernet asked Law Director Hurst to research possible federal and/or state preemptions; he responded he would but could not research the federal issue by the next meeting. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that this is a preliminary-stage inquiry, meant to reveal any determinative evidence of risk. [Scott Rawdon, Sentinel reporter, asked if Council would differentiate between hands-on and hands-off phones. Mayor Robertson said the question would be addressed.] Council’s consensus was to place the matter on a future agenda. 

Personnel Committee (Mayor Robertson) Noted that Council has yet to establish a personnel committee. There are matters that need to be attended to in June and July, as per Manager Hickman’s information. Councilmember McGowan, Mayor Robertson, and Vice Mayor Wernet were designated as members. 

Sensibilities Lease (Councilmember Crais) The sub-lease issue is still pending. Vice Mayor Wernet asked for a dollar figure for the renovations done by Mr. Vance; Manager Hickman will get it.

South Main Street Update (Manager Hickman) The project is 3-4 weeks ahead of schedule. He has notified The Village Baker that they will be able to determine the dates on which their driveway will be done. The detour will stay intact, with flaggers during the day and local traffic in the evenings. Everything is still on schedule for completion by the end of June. 

 MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – May 17, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Wernet made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:27pm. Councilmember Lucier second. Meeting adjourned. 

Council mInutes 4/19/00

 CALL TO ORDER In Mayor Robertson’s unavoidable absence, Vice Mayor Wernet convened the meeting at 7:33pm. 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Law Director Hurst, and Manager Hickman. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Crais seconded that Councilmember Bellman and Mayor Robertson be excused. The motion passed.

 CITIZENS’ COMMENTS Vice Mayor Wernet opened Citizens’ Comments at 7:35pm. There being none, Vice Mayor Wernet closed Citizens’ Comments at 7:35pm.

Vice Mayor Wernet announced that the hearing on The Colony, schedule for this evening’s meeting, had been delayed for 60 days to allow time for mediation to occur. He then granted Robert O’Neill an opportunity to speak.

Robert O’Neill, 17 Meadowood Drive. Reported that Southgate Corporation was now prepared to try mediation as suggested by Mayor Robertson early on in this process. Expressed his hope that after the mediation Council would take action to bring the restrictive covenants onto the floor for a discussion, and asked for some assurance that this, in fact, would be the process. [Vice Mayor Wernet noted that the general goal of the mediation was to eliminate some of the issues and hopefully work something out, though only time would tell. (As he spoke, Mr. O’Neill distributed materials that had been circulated within Homeowners’ Association meetings and community meetings.) Councilmember Crais informed Mr. O’Neill that it would be hard to give him the assurances he was seeking without knowing how the mediation will unfold. A best-case scenario could possibly expedite the process; a worst-case one might not.] Mr. O’Neill asked that Council at least recognize that Southgate has good intentions by getting the issue on the agenda, and asked specifically if Council would agree to address the issue if Southgate “goes through the exercise.” [Vice Mayor Wernet responded that the process will hopefully bear fruit. Councilmember Lucier stated it was her impression, though she was unable to be at the most recent meeting, that Law Director Hurst had indicated that covenants had to go to the Planning Commission. Law Director Hurst clarified that he had not so specified. Rather, he had indicated that there were a number of fundamental questions that had to be answered. Depending upon which direction Council determined to proceed, the answers would form the basis for the decision on what happens next to those covenants next. Vice Mayor Wernet remarked that some Councilmembers had felt that the covenants should be sent back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember McGowan reiterated his comments on this issue from the last meeting, to wit: if it’s not in the ordinance and not in the attachments, it’s not part of the law. Council can’t go back and interpret what someone meant to put in. Councilmember Moore affirmed that Council’s goal has always been to try to get the parties together to reach an understanding since the end result would be better for everyone involved if it were the result of a mutual agreement. Since Council has afforded the parties every opportunity to meet and work things out, participation in the mediation process would be a positive mark on Southgate’s ledger, but what Council does after that will depend on the outcome of the mediation. Vice Mayor Wernet added that willingness to go to mediation speaks well of all parties involved. He also agreed with Councilmembers Crais and Moore in being hopeful that it will be successful.

Larry Dixon, 341 Glyn Tawel Drive. Stated he was pleased with the move to mediation and hoped it would come to common ground. If it did not, however, he wondered if the appeal would still be on the table (as opposed to just bringing the covenants back to the table). [Vice Mayor Wernet confirmed that the appeal would still be on the table and added that it was Council’s hope that the uncertainty involved in the appeals process might prod an agreement.]

Bill York, 101 Bedwen Bach Lane. Confirmed that the homeowners are eager and sincere about mediation. Hoped 60 days would be the outside target. Emphasized that showing up at a mediation and actually mediating were two different things, stating that each side has good reasons for its point of view but each needs to be prepared to compromise.

Vice Mayor Wernet closed comment on this issue at 7:50pm. 

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 05-00, An Ordinance To Revise The Codified Ordinances By Adopting Current Replacement Pages. No one appeared to speak for or against Ordinance No. 05-00. Vice Mayor Wernet closed the public hearing at 7:50pm. 

NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. 00-17, A Resolution To Direct The Village Manager And Law Director To Prepare Modifications To Ordinance No. 23-98, Relative To Truck Traffic, was pulled from the agenda by Vice Mayor Wernet.

Resolution No. 00-18, A Resolution To Appoint A Fire Prevention Officer, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Councilmember Crais. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-18 is adopted. Resolution No. 00-19, A Resolution To Award The Bid For 2000 Granville Village Street Painting, As Per Specifications, To Kneisel Contracting Corporation And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Crais. Second by Councilmember McGowan.

Discussion: Councilmember Moore asked for clarification that this is a different contractor than last year; Manager Hickman verified that it is. Councilmember McGowan asked if West Broadway was finished; Manager Hickman said it would be finished before July 1st. Councilmember Crais asked how the Village would react to contractor incompetence; Manager Hickmen indicated payment would be withheld until satisfactory completion. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00- 19 is adopted. Resolution No. 00-20, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manger To Enter Into A Contract With Maher Consulting & Design For The Purpose Of Updating The Village Of Granville’s Web Site, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Crais. Second by Councilmember McGowan.

Discussion: Councilmember McGowan asked if the stated fee was a one-year layout fee with additions only in the following year; Ms. Maher said it was. Councilmember McGowan asked what next year’s cost would be; Ms. Maher estimated approximately $200 for needed changes to planning/zoning/tax forms and business listings (with perhaps 10 businesses coming and going over the course of a year). She noted that there would be no changes to the search, calendar, or list features; the layout design wouldn’t change unless Council wished to change it; maintenance on the walking-tour map would be data-base generated and therefore could easily be updated on a regular basis. Councilmember Lucier asked if we would be able to download Village forms as is possible with state and federal resources; Ms. Maher said we would. (Before the vote on this Resolution, Molly Roberts answered a question posed by Councilmember Moore re Ordinance 07-00, adjusting budgeted “contractual services” up $5200.)

Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-20 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-22, A Resolution To Extend The Use of Roberts Park For The Purposes of Skateboarding And Roller Skating Through November 1, 2000, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Lucier.

Discussion: Councilmember McGowan asked for confirmation that the fireworks area would not be compromised by the skateboarding; Manager Hickman assured him there was no conflict and that all skateboarding equipment could be moved as needed. Councilmember Lucier, remarking on how controversial this issue was last year, stated she was pleased that kids using the park have done such a good job of allaying peoples’ concerns. Vice Mayor Wernet stated he would be comfortable changing the end-date on the Resolution to November 1, 2001; Councilmember McGowan preferred to maintain yearly review. Councilmember Crais was pleased that the controversy seems to have disappeared but was struck that some residents had concerns about children’s safety, up to and including the discovery of drug paraphernalia, and urged that the area be more closely monitored.

Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-22 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-23, To Award The Bid For The Denison University 250,000 Gallon Stand Pipe Interior Painting Project To American Suncraft Construction Company And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Councilmember McGowan.

Discussion: Manager Hickman clarified budgeting details for the project. Account E1-250 (Water Production) has $20,000 set aside for this purpose. Account E-91 (Water Capital Improvements) had an original entry of $65,000 for “East Broadway Services” which should have been split between tank painting ($35,000) and actual East Broadway service ($30,000). The needed adjustment may either be approved through this resolution or Manager Hickman can submit an appropriation ordinance to spell it out specifically. Councilmember Lucier asked if this project was for the big tank. Manager Hickman explained that there are two tanks— one 500,000-gallon glass-coated steel tank that needs minimal repairs, and one 250,000-gallon steel tank, epoxyed on the outside with a 12-year epoxy. The project addressed by 00-23 will apply a 20-year epoxy coating. Councilmember Lucier asked if we had painted a tank last year. Manager Hickman reported that two years ago we had painted the exterior of this same tank, at a cost of $60,000. Councilmember Lucier expressed concern that we were now having to spend $50,000 for the inside of the same tank. Manager Hickman noted there was an issue of lead-based paint. Councilmember Moore asked for clarification that this amount had actually been budgeted but just not accurately described. Manager Hickman concurred. Councilmember Lucier suggested a budget modification to leave a proper paper trail; Vice Mayor Wernet agreed, and asked if it needed to be done before approving the resolution. Manager Hickman said we still needed to enter into an agreement, but could modify the budget ordinance through the appropriation ordinance now on the table by adding language. Council agreed to this course of action.

Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-23 is adopted.

Ordinance No. 06-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43- 99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses And To Declare An Emergency, was introduced by Councilmember Moore. Vice Mayor Wernet set a public hearing on Ordinance No. 06-00 for May 3, 2000.

Explanation. Molly Roberts explained that approval of this ordinance is needed to put the Village in compliance with State Auditor’s office, which requires the establishment of capital projects funds to account for Issue 2 monies and projects. Approving this ordinance involves no additional expense to the Village; the fund accounting process will reflect monies paid by Ohio Public Works Commission as a revenue and expense transaction. Ms. Roberts further stated explained that our subcontractor (Layton Excavating) would like to be paid and she is unable to release monies without this appropriation. Procedurally, Council needs to vote tonight on Section III of the ordinance (the emergency provision), which must be introduced and seconded, then voted on by roll call vote; all Councilmembers present must be in favor for it to pass as an emergency. Section III was introduced by Councilmember Moore; second by Councilmember McGowan. A Roll Call yielded five (5) affirmative votes (Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet). Section III of Ordinance No. 06-00 is adopted. 

OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 05-00, an Ordinance To Revise The Codified Ordinances By Adopting Current Replacement Pages, was re- introduced by Councilmember Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais.

A Roll Call yielded five (5) affirmative votes (Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet).

Ordinance 05-00 is adopted. 

 MAYOR’S REPORT The Mayor’s Court Report for the month of November was presented for review. Vice Mayor Wernet directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

Discussion: Councilmember McGowan noted that cases appearing in court have doubled in the past year.

 MANAGER’S REPORT The Manager’s Report for the month of November was presented for review. Vice Mayor Wernet directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

Discussion: Vice Mayor Wernet, referring to the Police Department report supplement, page 5, point 7, stated Council would appreciate detail on Officer Eitel’s deposition; Manager Hickman will supply it at a later time. Councilmember Crais asked for verification that there had indeed been two incidents of rape and asked if charges had been filed. Manager Hickman noted that he was unsure of the status of charges but that investigations were continuing. Councilmember Crais if the incidents had occurred at Denison; Councilmember Lucier said they had. 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of April 5, 2000, were not available for review. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Planning Committee (Councilmember Lucier). · The Committee is ready to make its final version of the sign code to send on to Council, after having met with Kathryn Wimberger and Bernie Lucko to discuss design standards. · She and Jack Burris went to a very good workshop put on by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. The keynote speaker, who was experienced in land-use cases, discussed NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems) procedures. She asked Manager Hickman if Granville were working on this effort; Manager Hickman replied that our latest certificate of compliance is one year old (certificates being renewed every five years) and we have had one for many years now. · Displayed a copy of the Old Colony Cemetery newsletter and highlighted the Walking Tour (June 1) and the scheduled summer work days. Reported that the Cemetery Board was very appreciative of the Village having taken down some worrisome trees in the cemetery. [Law Director Hurst reminded Council of the need to schedule the statutory mandated annual joint meeting of Council and the Cemetery Board. Since the meeting must occur not later than the end of May, it was scheduled for Council’s second May meeting.

Tree and landscape Commission (Councilmember Moore) · Reported much discussion re AEP tree trimming. The bike path is scheduled for next month. AEP has been instructed by the Village to clear away cut wood rather than leaving it lying around on the ground. [Vice Mayor Wernet characterized the trimming as “energetic”—a comment that elicited much agreement among Councilmembers.] Councilmember Moore reported there was some discussion about the clear-cut method; the Commission is hoping for a response from AEP. · Reported that John Klauder will be doing the Mt. Parnassus replanting. · Reported some discussion on ODNR tree grants, which will be investigated.

Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Councilmember Crais) · Reported that Councilmember Bellman had covered this meeting and could give the full report at the next Council meeting. · Reported that a former ODOT employee (now with Jobes Henderson) who was present at the meeting was helpful in answering Committee questions. Keith Myers had also attended. 

OTHER Pending Liquor License Application by the Village Coffee Company Manager Hickman informed Council that the application had not actually been submitted yet, but if Council wished to have a hearing on the matter, the application would need to be filed within the next few days. He asked Council for some direction in the matter. Law Director Hurst provided some general process information: there would be a hearing before the Liquor Control Board, which body would review the application and the qualifications of the applicant, as well as determining whether or not an additional permit is allowed in the area in question. Those who wish to contest or oppose the application must be able to point to egregious problems or difficulties more significant that just not wanting more liquor or objecting to the hours); in the absence of such qualified objections, the permit will be approved. Councilmember Moore inquired as to who was permitted to ask for a hearing; Law Director Hurst thought the municipality itself could do so. Manager Hickman reminded Council that the last time this issue arose (for Brews), the four corner churches had asked for a hearing (but were involved only because they were within the “impact sphere”). He added that this request is asking for on-premise consumption of beer until midnight, as well as sales of beer in cans and bottles for off-premise consumption. Councilmember Crais said it felt like Council didn’t have much of a say in the issue. Law Director Hurst responded that he wasn’t sure of that, but the history of such applications seemed to indicate that applicants, in the absence of a contesting party’s being able to show something terribly wrong, don’t seem to get turned down. There is greater success in non-renewals if there is some history of problems, however. Councilmember Crais expressed concern about another bar in the Village. Law Director Hurst stated that while many residents may agree, that’s not likely to change the license decision. Concilmember McGowan asked if, barring a felony conviction or other criminal activity, the number of permits in a given area depended on the population. Law Director Hurst said anyone may petition for more to be available and if the Liquor Control Board authorizes them, there will be more. Councilmember McGowan asked if this would be a new permit; Manager Hickman thought so. Councilmember Moore asked if the applicant had to do something proactive to proceed. Law Director Hurst did not know if the applicant had an “affirmative duty” to do anything. Moreover, the applicant, upon approval, becomes the owner of the permit, which is considered an asset which he may either use himself or sell. Councilmember Moore asked if the permit were to a specific establishment. Law Director Hurst stated that permits must be transferred by location as well as by owner. He then asked Council if they wanted to request a hearing. Vice Mayor Wernet declined, saying it seemed like a pointless exercise. Community Service District – Use Request Manager Hickman reported he had received a request for property located at 80 Westgate Drive. Approximately 75% of the building is to be used by the applicant’s spouse for an electrical business; the other 25% would be used for the purpose of baking horse treats. He felt it was reasonable to think that horse treats could fall within a community service district, but “bakery,” per se, is not listed. He asked Council for some direction (i.e., is this a permitted use? may the Village allow this business to proceed? should we modify the ordinance and address this request as a conditional use? should we use the permit route?). Vice Mayor Wernet recommended a conditional use, since the proposed use seemed pretty non-intrusive and required a small square footage. Law Director Hurst thought it might fit under 1167.02 (a)(4) (farm and garden-related operations, including but not limited to milling operations, storage and sales of grain and livestock fee, retail sale of farm implements and products, etc.). He noted that baking, itself, is not actually included but “products” are. He also felt this could not be a conditional use since it wasn’t light manufacturing, assembly operation, food or beverage service, etc. Councilmember Lucier asked if it had to be a restaurant and Councilmember Moore asked why this couldn’t be considered light manufacturing. Vice Mayor Wernet felt a baking process was different than light manufacturing. Further, he stated that if this were a conditional use, Council would have to grant B-1 status as well as add another conditional use to the Community Service District that more accurately and fairly described this operation since the Planning Commission couldn’t analyze it under existing uses. Councilmember McGowan saw no reason not to add a conditional use.

Manager Hickman asked Caroline Fetter, owner/operator of the proposed business, to describe the process. She stated the horse treats were technically considered livestock feed; therefore she is registered with the Ohio Department of Agriculture who monitors and tests her facility. The treats have nutritional status and livestock feed is within the permitted use of the space. While there is a baking process involved, this is not a bakery, per se. There is also no retail operation; all distribution is wholesale. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that this was a good location for this operation and he had no problems with the request. He does feel, however, that the language in this section could be clearer (Law Director Hurst described it as “cryptic”) and urged Council to rectify this at some point in the future. Councilmember McGowan felt this was not quite a permitted use. Vice Mayor Wernet agreed, stating that the Planning Commission had approved the concept but couldn’t come to a definitive conclusion because they didn’t know where to put it. Ms. Fetter asked for clarification about the stipulations of a permitted use (e.g., could someone else in the future turn the operation into a bakery or something bigger or does the permitted use stipulate that it’s a livestock operation and not anything else). Law Director Hurst stated that generally any property owner has a certain bundle of rights, including all permitted uses; conditional uses (since they are an oversight arrangement) apply only to the extent of approvals already attached, though other conditional uses may be requested. Councilmember Lucier stated she had no objections to a conditional use under light manufacturing and asked if this could be sent to the Planning Commission with that stipulation. Law Director Hurst felt it would be appropriate to do so, specifying that, rather than add another conditional use, Council is comfortable that this be considered under B-1, Light Manufacturing. Councilmember Moore concurred. Councilmember McGowan added that, if necessary, Council could approve the Planning Commission’s non-approval.

Survey Results Councilmember McGowan distributed the results of the survey he had conducted, noting that he had received 164 responses (86% Village 11% Township, 3% Other).

Empty Space in Village Building Councilmember Crais inquired as to the status of Readers’ Garden occupying the empty space. Manager Hickman reported he had told Mark Gearhart of Bank First National that there had been no other signs of interest beyond the two he already has. Gearhart responded that he had a lead of his own that he will follow up. Manager Hickman stated that it’s time for a rent increase but is waiting for a response from Gearhart. Councilmember Crais, commenting on the “glacial” movement of this issue, asked how the process might be expedited. Law Director Hurst recommended going ahead and raising the rent. Manager Hickman will do so tomorrow. Councilmember Lucier inquired as to the status of the Sensibilities lease since they are closing and there is a “For Rent” sign in the window. Law Director Hurst reported he had received no official communication from Sensibilities. Manager Hickman will call Ed Vance and remind him of the terms of his lease re sub-leasing. Councilmember McGowan asked that Council receive copies of the lease. Law Director Hurst reported that it is a five- year term, with two additional five-year options. Councilmember McGowan asked if we had granted reduced rent in exchange for improvements made. Law Director Hurst explained that the is a pro-ration formula and structure in the lease instrument. He will provide copies to Council.

Lynn Windley Antiques Council briefly discussed the “For Sale” notation re this building that had been enclosed in their packets. No decision was made as to whether or not to add it to the Village home page if the “Business Opportunities” section materializes.

Absence Notifications Councilmember McGowan will not be at the second meeting in May. Councilmember Crais will be out of the country May 17 through early July. 

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – May 3, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McGowan a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15pm. Councilmember Moore second. Meeting adjourned. 

Council Minutes 4/3/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:31pm. 

 ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Law Director Hurst, and Manager Hickman. Vice Mayor Wernet moved and Councilmember Crais seconded that Councilmembers Bellman and Lucier be excused; the motion passed with two negative votes. [NOTE: Councilmember Bellman arrived later in the meeting.] 

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS Mayor Robertson opened Citizens’ Comments at 7:36pm.

RE: South Main Street Construction Project Scott Hickey & Margie Hickey, 211 S. Main Street (Owners of The Village Baker, 212 S. Main Street). Expressed serious concerns with the manner in which the South Main Street construction project was being managed, especially with regard to “Detour” and “Road Closed” signs. The “Road Closed” sign posted at the intersection of Broadway and Main makes no mention of the fact that the street is open to the businesses in the 100 and 200 blocks. Driveway closure dates were set without any consultations with business owners and the bakery has three weddings on the weekend in which their driveway will be inaccessible. Asked that contiguous property owners receive the same notice and have the same opportunities for input for large construction projects that they receive for smaller ones (e.g., when someone wants to build a fence). Requested the Village post a flagger at the “Road Closed” sign.

Mary Bline (Greystone Country House Antiques, 128 South Main Street). Asked that the “Road Closed” signs be moved down to Maple Street. [Manager Hickman reported they had been moved that same afternoon.] Asked that “Detour” signage be improved, noting that if one is coming into Granville from S.R. 161, there is no sign indicating the need to exit at S.R. 16 due to the closure of South Main Street. [Manager Hickman indicated the detour signage would be improved. Councilmember Moore expressed concern about the timing and effectiveness of business notification, asking Manager Hickman what had been done and if the Village had been deficient in any way. She acknowledged that the Hickeys had some valid points and it would have been helpful to have addressed these issues earlier in the project. Councilmember Crais agreed, stating that policy issues need to be looked at for the future. He suggested that, of the three issues presented tonight (advertising the project to contiguous property owners, the project’s overall time-line, and Village signage), the Village could move immediately to correct signage problems. Council should authorize Manager Hickman to do whatever we could that would be helpful (e.g., perhaps budget for some overtime to compress the construction schedule and change threshold pouring dates where possible). Manager Hickman stated that the schedule was constructed to use as short a timeframe as possible; we are currently in the most disruptive month. Councilmember Crais asked for estimates for some double-time as a way to expedite the most disruptive phase. Mayor Robertson reiterated Councilmember Crais’ proposal that Council authorize Manager Hickman to work with affected businesses toward making this project as easy and as beneficlal for them as possible. She also expressed Council’s willingness to authorize some costs on the part of the Village to make certain that businesses suffer as little as possible.]

Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. Reiterated a need for flaggers to guide, help business, and keep people safe. [Councilmember Moore emphasized the long-range benefits of the project to the beautification of the South Main Street entrance to the Village.] 

RE: Skateboard Park Jerry Miller, 440 W. Broadway (Recreation Commission Director). Reported there have been no “incidents” at the park; they are putting in trash receptacles and signboards detailing rules for park usage. [Manager Hickman reported that reaction to the park is generally favorable.] Mr. Miller reminded Council that it needed to approve the continuation of the park’s conditional use permit. [Mayor Robertson noted the applicable ordinance would be on the agenda for Council’s next meeting.]

Gail Stewart, 133 W. Cherry Street (Chairperson of Skateboard Park Committee). Reported that the Committee will have a big ramp project going up in the next couple of months; parents, especially those with younger kids, have given lots of positive feedback. [Councilmember McGowan asked if the ramp would affect plans for a permanent ice rink.] Eric Stewart explained that the ramp is constructed in segments that can be dismantled and moved when necessary.

Sally Scheiderer, 171 Wildwood. Had no complaints about the skateboard park, but is concerned about Wildwood Park in general (e.g., amount of traffic in and out, squealing tires, and kids there after dark). Asked about a safety phone and a gate at the entrance of park, to be closed at night. [Jerry Miller responded that while he was not sure about a gate, the phone would be installed shortly; the Village will pay for the phone and installation and the Rec Commission will pay the monthly bill. Councilmember Moore noted that a gate for the Park was on Council’s agenda for this meeting.] 

RE: Median Proposal for Broadway John Crecca, 1550 Welsh Hills Road. Asked if the proposed median would eliminate turn lanes at Prospect and/or Pearl, and expressed concerns about the safety of the crosswalk.

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm Street (speaking for the Beautification Committee). Clarified that the median strip would not be continuous and there would be no elimination of turn lanes; a diagram will be posted in the Village office window as quickly as possible. [Councilmember Moore reminded those present that this is at the proposal stage and is not an approved plan at this time. Mayor Robertson reported that the crosswalk situation was already being addressed. Councilmember McGowan reported there would be a public meeting at 7:30pm on May 2nd at which time all three committees working on recommendations for downtown Granville would be presenting their reports. Law Director Hurst clarified that the crosswalk does indeed have legal standing with ODOT and violators may be ticketed.] RE: Landscaping on the south slope of Mt. Parnassus Jackie O’Keefe, 4 Samson Place. Asked why the slope has been virtually clear-cut. [Manager Hickman reported that he is working with AEP and the Tree and Landscape Commission to try and decrease the number of power outages caused by the growth on that hillside. Council has been asked to appropriate $4,300 for replacement landscaping.] 

RE: The Colony at Bryn Du Bill York, 101 Bedwyn Bach Lane. Questioned the stated date of April 18 for the scheduled hearing on The Colony. [Mayor Robertson corrected the hearing date to April 19.]

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments at 8:23pm. 

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 03-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. No one appeared to speak for or against Ordinance No. 03-00. Mayor Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:23. 

OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 03-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43- 99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was re-introduced by Councilmember Moore. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet.

Discussion: Councilmember Moore asked for an explanation of the additional $10,000 requested for engineering. Manager Hickman stated that it was to cover unexpected expenses for street crossings at Elm, Pearl, and College Streets as well as some storm sewer projects and engineering costs to analyze the Kendal traffic study. Councilmember Moore and Mayor Robertson asked Manager Hickman for the detail on the Kendal expense. Manager Hickman verified that Kendal had paid for the original study in line with the Village’s common practice of always having the developer pay for expenses incurred for anything that would ultimately benefit the applicant corporation or entity. Councilmember McGowan asked Manager Hickman to provide a breakdown whenever there are multiple expenditure issues to be approved. Councilmember Moore asked about the $1,500 requested for the municipal building roof. Manager Hickman noted that some structural wood under the shingles was soft and needed to be replaced. The estimate for the job was actually $500; he is asking for $1,500 to cover any other contingencies and expects it may not all be spent. Mayor Robertson asked about the $16,831 requested for West Broadway construction expenses. Manager Hickman stated the original engineer’s estimate for that project was $190,000. The line-item in the Village’s 2000 budget was $163,000; the bid came in at $179,831; the $16,831 makes up the difference. Since the Layton bid was the only one received, Manager Hickman asked Council for a recommendation as to whether we should award the contract or reopen the bidding. Councilmember McGowan asked for clarification about work schedules (i.e., whether or not the Main Street workers be moving back and forth between that project and West Broadway). Manager Hickman assured Council there would be two crews working. He acknowledged that West Broadway is “a mess” but reported that the infrastructure work was nearly completed and milling and paving would follow shortly. Mayor Robertson asked if taking the Layton bid would save money since their equipment is here already. Manager Hickman said it would save mobilization costs and seemed a reasonable bid.

A Roll Call yielded six (6) affirmative votes (Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson, Vice Mayor Wernet). Ordinance No. 03-00 is adopted. 

NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. 00-15, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise For Bids For The Painting Of The 250,000 Gallon Water Tank, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Crais. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-15 is adopted.

Resolution No 00-16, A Resolution To Award The Bid For West Broadway Improvements As Per Specifications To Layton Excavating, Inc. And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Crais. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-16 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-17, A Resolution To Direct The Village Manager And Law Director To Prepare Modifications To Ordinance No. 23-98 Relative To Truck Traffic, was tabled (motion by Vice Mayor Wernet, second by Councilmember Moore). Motion to table carried.

Ordinance No. 05-00, An Ordinance To Revise The Codified Ordinance By Adopting Current Replacement Pages, was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet (no second required). Mayor Robertson set a Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 05-00 for April 19, 2000.

 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of 15 March 2000 were presented for review. Councilmember Moore asked that the identification of a speaker re The Colony at Bryn Du (page 2—Debby Farrar, 275 Bryn Du Drive) be corrected to reflect her status as the former president of the Bryn Du Homeowners Association. Councilmember Crais made a motion to approve the minutes as amended; second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Motion carried. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Lighting Committee (Councilmember McGowan). No report given due to time constraints. Recreation Commission (Councilmember McGowan). No report given due to time constraints.

Tree and Landscape Commission (Councilmember Moore). No report given due to time constraints.

Economic Liaison Committee (Councilmember Crais). No report given due to time constraints. Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). No report given.

Streets and Sidewalks Committee (Vice Mayor Wernet). The committee is considering additional setback for the truck scales, to which Denison will have to agree. The “roadway” would be the same material as South Main Street, with five feet of green space between the scale and the road to create a driveway-like appearance that would blend in as much as possible. In response to questions from several councilmembers about whether the proposed site was the best one, Manager Hickman reviewed the site-selection process.

Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to empower Manager Hickman to pursue the plan to place the scales as shown on the drawings reviewed at the meeting, the only variance being to move them farther away from the road if an agreement can be reached with the University. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion: Vice Mayor Wernet clarified that Council must still appropriate funds for this project. Manager Hickman noted that $50,000 has already been appropriated but Council will be asked to vote on the final number. Councilmember Moore objected to the South Main Street site, stating that a slab for a truck scale is inconsistent with the fact that the Village is spending $1 million to make its south entrance more attractive; it may also send the wrong message to the agri-community in our area to have it right across from the grain elevators. Vice Mayor Wernet felt the area would look significantly better, even with the scale, and that we would be sending an “Obey the Law” message. Councilmember Crais thought it would be relatively inconspicuous, with trees to break up the space and no building to call attention to it. He also reminded Council that even if the motion to pursue the issue passes, it will return to Council at a later date.

A Roll Call yielded three (3) affirmative votes (Councilmember Crais, Mayor Robertson, Vice Mayor Wernet) and two (2) negative votes (Councilmembers McGowan and Moore). The motion passed. 

OTHER Blues Festival Gerry Martin (15 Briarwood Drive). Asked that Council officially approve closing off Broadway on Saturday, September 12, 2000, as per the previous proposal. Councilmember Crais raised the question of whether or not beer would be served. Mr. Martin said it has not been decided yet but if it were, it would be served in a tightly controlled, fenced-in area on Prospect Street. Bracelets would be used, IDs would be checked, and no open containers would be allowed on the street. Councilmember Crais asked if it were possible to have the beer tent operate for only part of the seven hours of planned activities. Councilmember McGowan noted that people will come and go and suggested the tent be closed an hour before the end of the Festival; Mr. Martin agreed. Law Director Hurst emphasized that Council should have some concern about the issue of providing Village law enforcement personnel for an event where alcohol is being purveyed (i.e., allowing uniformed Granville officers to provide security exposes the community to liability). Mr. Hurst also suggested that Mr. Martin go through the existing permit process for street closure approval. Manager Hickman noted that the Village needs details to proceed (e.g., the alcohol decision, exact date, definite locations, an agreement to adhere to stated decibel limits and the 10:00pm noise ordinance, names of food suppliers, plans for restroom facilities, etc.). He asked Mr. Martin if the Festival committee would be willing to proceed if alcohol were not permitted; they would. That being the case, Councilmember Wernet suggested they proceed with the event permit without including alcohol since it could be added later if they elect to do so.

Liquor License Manager Hickman reported that the Village Coffee Shop had applied for a liquor license; the issue will be addressed on April 19. Web Site Update Manager Hickman reported a productive conversation re the proposal to update the structure and content of the Village’s web site presented by Elizabeth Maher, 354 North Granger Street, who has been managing the site for the last few years. Councilmember Crais noted that we need to create a system that can 1) keep citizens well informed and 2) assist the business community as much as possible. This might include an event calendar, an e-mail list-serve, a “This Week in Granville” feature, links to other web sites (e.g., GBPA and/or other municipalities), map and text of the Village Walking Tour, basic zoning and planning forms (with information on what form to use and what the rules are), tax forms, sub-contractor forms, business highlights, etc. Bev Adzic has been putting Council minutes, ordinances, and resolutions on the site for two years now; there have been 21,000 visits to the site since March 1999. Mayor Robertson asked if there had been any discussion of cost-sharing; there has not. Council appropriated $5,000 for the web site last year; the amount was increased for year 2000. Councilmember Bellman suggested we might promote businesses in community (e.g., have a gateway page on “getaways” that would be picked up by search engines) in a way that would also be a “hook” for people not specifically looking for Granville. Mayor Robertson suggested a virtual tour (i.e., one could click on each point of interest and see a standard set of information with links to home pages of each entity). Vice Mayor Wernet suggested a feature on the bike paths, including maps. After discussing the matter of featuring businesses, Council decided that specific businesses needed to make their own decisions (e.g., to “web” or not to “web”) rather than Council’s making them an automatic feature of the Village site. In response to a question from Mayor Robertson, Ms. Maher stated that the total price for her work to update the site would be $5,100, assuming four planning/zoning forms with a general information page and as well as a look-and-feel overhaul that will make the links easier to use. Councilmember Crais, noting he was impressed with the proposal, asked what the procedure would be to proceed. Manager Hickman stated that while Ms. Maher’s proposal was more than had been budgeted, he felt Planning and Zoning could fund their own sections of the site and allow the legislative monies already appropriated to fund the majority of the improvements. Law Director Hurst stated Council needed to approve a resolution in order for the project to move forward. Councilmember McGowan welcomed the resultant opportunity for public input before the final appropriation. Councilmember Crais asked if the resolution should cover both the previously budgeted amount and the additional sum. Manager Hickman suggested a special appropriation ordinance for any additional monies needed. Councilmember Crais asked that Council vote at the April 19 meeting, following which Ms. Maher could commence her work. Councilmember McGowan asked Ms. Maher to prioritize what could be done and in what time frame; she responded with an estimate of 30-45 days total. Mayor Robertson confirmed that the resolution (and accompanying ordinance, if needed) would be voted on at the next meeting. Councilmember Crais expressed appreciation to Ms. Maher for all of her work. The Colony at Bryn Du Mayor Robertson, noting that Council had received Law Director Hurst’s comments on this matter, asked him for the record if Citizens’ Comments were appropriate at this time. Law Director Hurst stated that, assuming Council chooses to accept his comments, then some mechanism would need to be established under which those preliminary comments could be appropriately disclosed to those involved since said comments will impact future proceedings and considerations. He emphasized that he was not suggesting that a debate on the merits of either of what he considers the two separate components of this issue be undertaken other than through an announced public forum (i.e., a scheduled appeal hearing or some other venue). Rather, his letter of comment was intended solely as a response to a request by Council to take a look at the issues and provide some input to Council as to what Council’s next step(s) might be. Vice Mayor Wernet asked if it would make sense, given that part of document would impact individuals’ preparation for an appeal hearing, to make those elements public so people could be responsive. Councilmember Moore asked if discussing the letter’s contents would thereby make them part of the public record (i.e., available upon request). Law Director Hurst responded that the letter at this point is considered an opinion of Council’s legal advisor and is therefore confidential. Only Council has the absolute authority to waive that confidentiality. If Council chooses to discuss portions of the letter, those portions are no longer confidential (i.e., the more specific Council becomes in referencing the letter, the more public it becomes). Responding to Mayor Robertson’s question as to whether there was any reason it should not be made public, Law Director Hurst said that, as the author of the letter, he felt there was not but that it was Council’s decision. Councilmember Moore asked about the applicability of Sunshine laws vis à vis possible executive sessions. Law Director Hurst replied that the more generally accepted interpretation thereof relative to this type of issue (i.e., when a public body may or may not go into executive session) hinges on whether that public body is receiving an update or consultation with its legal advisor on pending or imminent litigation. Since Law Director Hurst is unaware of any pending, threatened, or imminent litigation concerning this issue, he feels that while arguments could be presented for allowing an executive session they would be a stretch. He then noted that since his opinion forms the basis for action Council might take, it becomes fair game.

Mayor Robertson, reminding Council that one of Law Director Hurst’s recommendations is for Council to develop some method whereby people in Bryn Du and other interested parties could know about his opinion, asked for discussion on that issue to proceed.

Councilmember Crais, noting that the final plat on The Colony had been approved in November 1999, asked what would happen if the plat’s contents, as specified in 1113.04, were not complete. In other words, Section (f)1 details twenty items that constitute final plat content. When those plat contents are incomplete—and the Planning Commission continues through its process without ever flagging the fact that it is an incomplete submission—is their decision nullified? Law Director Hurst responded that, first, if the Planning Commission entertains a matter that has specific prerequisites, any individual adversely impacted by their decision can appeal to Council. Council, in seeing that there has been a mistake, has, at least in the past, remanded the issue to the Planning Commission for their further consideration, consistent with the requirements of the ordinance. Second, in the absence of an appeal by an impacted citizen, Council can on its own bring the issue up and direct the Planning Commission to reconsider an approval if Council determines that the consideration undertaken is not consistent with requirements set forth in codified ordinances. Councilmember Crais referred again to 1113.04, item #13 (protective covenants) as not being included; Law Director Hurst clarified that the Planning Commission cannot approve protective covenants. Councilmember Crais agreed, but felt that since such covenants were specified as items required for inclusion in a final plat and since The Colony did not have protective covenants, their submission was not complete. Law Director Hurst, noting that such covenants can only be done by ordinance (and therefore, by Council), stated that although he did not know when the draft of those proposed covenants first surfaced for comment, he did know they haven’t come before Council—the only body empowered to adopt restrictive covenants. (When restrictive covenants are being considered, Council has historically invited comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission which are brought into the discussion at a public hearing.)

Councilmember Moore asked about the official Development Plan for The Colony; she has seen only the preliminary plat. Law Director Hurst responded that the original development plan was for the entire area, Phase 1 through The Colony. The original development plan dates back to 1987; the initial ordinance (5-87) accepted the application for annexation of territory and established certain zoning districts, one of which was a covenant between the Village and the Granville Golf Course Company in re Bryn Du Woods. The next issue dealt with was in 1989, zoning that area PUD. (Under PUD, there is an initial approval of a development plan and concept, with subsequent opportunities to get specific plat approval for various successive phases; in 1994, it was the preliminary plat for Phase 4 and The Colony.) In August 1993, Council considered the portion which had originally been the Farmington area, taken over by Mr. Kent at that time and made a component of development plan. Councilmember Moore asked why Council had approved 1-94, a separate development plan. Law Director Hurst stated that 1-94 approved the development concept and a preliminary plat, with plat approval subject to adoption of specific restrictive covenants in the future. Councilmember Moore, citing Section (f) of PUD 1171.04 referencing development plans, emphasized that the issue at hand is whether or not there is a substantial deviation from the plan, rather than the plat, and asked how Council can know if such a deviation exists if they don’t know what the plan is or was. Law Director Hurst stated that he had never seen a separate, multi-page, uniform, single document identified as The Development Plan in any PUD. The Plan, in fact, has not ever necessarily been a separate instrument from schematics, plats, restrictive covenants, and/or ordinances which impose specific criteria on that phase of a project. Councilmember Moore asked if there shouldn’t at least be drawings; Law Director Hurst responded that there should, at a minimum, be drawings. Councilmember Moore asked if they should cover just the land or include the buildings. Law Director Hurst said that preliminary drawings/plats wouldn’t cover anything but lot configurations, in order to inform density discussions. He has, however, never seen a presentation without the kind of architectural drawings or plans that end up in the restrictive covenants (e.g., type of siding, road widths, green space, etc.). Such covenants flow from “sales pitches” as the reflection of Council’s determination of what the development plan is going to be. The Planning Commission receives and conducts the preliminary analysis of any PUD; once they are through with it, it comes to Council, which may accept or reject any or all of the Planning Commission’s recommendations on what the restrictions are going to be. He reminded Council that, in 1994, PUD was a legislative matter. After three-plus years of litigation, Council was told that PUD was an administrative process, at which point Council developed some serious criteria for PUD consideration. Then, in November 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that PUD consideration was a legislative process. Council is today looking at an administrative analysis and criteria for consideration of PUD that did not exist in 1994 and is of questionable application today.

Vice Mayor Wernet cited 1113.03, asking if all the listed elements (e.g., review, setbacks, protective covenants, etc.) should be considered by the Planning Commission, then by Council. Law Director Hurst said they should, but that Council needs to make the distinction within the PUD framework that ultimately it is Council’s obligation and authority to determine the specifics of a development plan; the Planning Commission only makes recommendations. When the Planning Commission does so to approve a preliminary plat, then Council adopts a preliminary plat. In the instance of a final plat in PUD, however, Council must remember that it is not exactly like a final plat in a suburban residential district (i.e., certain things are not applicable in PUD). For example, the Planning Commission’s primary focus of analysis is whether or not the final plat deviates from the preliminary plat; if it does, the Planning Commission can’t approve it since only Council can consider a modification of the development plan. Councilmember Moore pointed out that the covenants for The Colony trying to come before Council at this time have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council therefore has no recommendations from that body. Law Director Hurst stated that was his understanding as well and that when the application for the final plat was submitted, it should have been accompanied by a draft of restrictive covenants. Councilmember Moore asked if it would be appropriate for Council to ask the Planning Commission to review the covenants and give Council their recommendation; Law Director Hurst said it would. Councilmember Crais expressed frustration with both the submitter of the final plat for omitting a crucial document and with Planning Commission, who erred in continuing to review an incomplete dossier. He also stated that he is disturbed by an attitude of “getting on with it” instead of taking time to clarify the gray areas. Law Director Hurst said he wasn’t sure if the prevailing confusion was latent or had been created by people moving in a haphazard manner and/or not fully complying with appropriate procedures. Councilmember Crais stated that a citizen is under no obligation to understand the complexities of the formulation of the law he is required to follow. He can certainly read the Code to see the law but has no additional obligation to check official Minutes to determine complex arguments that went into its drafting. Law Director Hurst agreed that was a fair statement and noted that, when there is confusion in what the law is or was intended to be, a court of competent jurisdiction has the obligation to get into the history in an effort to determine legislative intent. Vice Mayor Wernet asked again if 1113.04.d (as well as 1113.04.b), referring to obligations on the part of the Planning Commission, were governing with respect to a PUD developer. Law Director Hurst affirmed that 1113.04.d is governing since it references a final plat.

Law Director Hurst stated that we do not know, under 20-94, given the language of 1-94, whether or not the restrictive covenants were introduced and a public hearing established by the Planning Commission, or if Council got the restrictions on the introduction of 20-94, inclusive of Planning Commission recommendations. Mayor Robertson remembered that the Planning Commission (on which she was serving at the time) talked about covenants before the issue went to Council but in reference to Councilmember Crais’ question about something being missing from the list of requirements, she wondered if what they forwarded to Council was, by definition, not a final plat. Law Director Hurst thought it may have been submitted and treated as a final plat, even though the decision to proceed with the approval of it may have been fundamentally flawed, such that it is not enforceable or binding. Councilmember Crais felt perhaps the only way of moving forward in the absence of a crucial component of a final plat would be by operating under the assumption that the covenant had already been approved by prior legislation. Law Director Hurst thought the Planning Commission may well have operated under that assumption. Vice Mayor Wernet said he believed that the Planning Commission was told there were certain things that could or could not be considered and that protective covenants were among the latter.

At this point, several Bryn Du citizens were permitted to join the discussion, as follows:

Larry Dixon, 341 Glen Tawel Drive. Asked if there were any mention of restrictive covenants when the original plat was approved in 1994. [Law Director Hurst stated that 1-94 approved the preliminary plat and further noted that restrictive covenants would follow.] Mr. Dixon asked if the restrictive covenants referred to Phase 4 and The Colony. [Law Director Hurst said Ordinance 20-94 approved the restrictive covenants for Phase 4 but not for The Colony. The covenants were quite clear as to which lots were included (i.e., the ones generally referred to as Phase 4), however the language of the ordinance itself was not clear. Proposed restrictive covenants for The Colony were not considered by the Planning Commission as a component of their review of 20-94. Whether they received bad direction (i.e., that the existing covenants applied or were thought to apply) is unclear to Law Director Hurst.] Mr. Dixon asked if Mr. Kent et al had asked for a deviation to the covenants. [Law Director Hurst stated they had requested Council to begin the analysis by introducing an ordinance (04-00) which would ultimately result in adopting restrictive covenants for the Colony; that ordinance has not been introduced at this point. Councilmember Crais clarified that 04-00 had been raised twice but, not having found a sponsor, has not been formally introduced.] Mr. Dixon asked if the Planning Commission needed to consider covenants before they approve a preliminary plat. [Law Director Hurst said they do, but also stated that preliminary plat approval does not require the adoption of restrictive covenants; final plat approval does. Mayor Robertson added that The Colony had not had final plat approval until February 2000 and therefore had not required approved covenants prior to that time. Law Director Hurst clarified that developers/architects/builders present a schematic layout which evolves into a preliminary plat. Discussion leads to a determination by Council of what is acceptable to become a part of the restrictive covenants and thereby part of the final recorded plat and thereby a component of deed restrictions that run with the land and become part of public record—all of which is binding when adopted by Council.] Mr. Dixon asked what concept for Phase 4 and The Colony was proposed in 1994. [Law Director Hurst stated that minutes of the Planning Commission, as early as August 1993, reflect that what was proposed for that area was different from the remainder of the Bryn Du development. He quoted from the Minutes: “Mr. Bassett explained that the plan he was proposing consisted of 130 single-family lots with a substantial amount of green space. Lots in front of the development would be smaller, cluster homes….” There are similar minutes in September and December, 1993, reflecting that a distinction was being made about what was being proposed for the front. Councilmember McGowan noted that, when Council was adopting an ordinance, it could not go back and look at previous minutes to see if everything done previously was correct (i.e., the minutes just quoted, and the discussions which led to them, are not apparent in the ordinance passed).

Bill York, 101 Bedwyn Bach Lane. Built his house in Bryn Du Woods (2800 sq.ft.), paying extra to use materials required by the covenants, in good faith, thinking everyone would have to play by the same rules.

Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. Stated that tonight’s discussions make it clear that there still are some petty severe procedural problems within the Planning Commission and perhaps the Council. Granting that there was no malevolent intent in this instance, he still felt it was arguable that anyone coming for approval could take advantage of vagaries (i.e., “in chaos there is opportunity for some people”). Whatever the outcome of this situation regarding The Colony, Council should get its procedural house in order very quickly, especially in light of the climate for development in Granville. Since regulations and requirements can’t change for every developer who walks through the door, he urged Council to “Fix it, please!” [Mayor Robertson granted Mr. Parris a point well taken and noted that we now have a well-educated, well-prepared and certified planner. She also urged the citizenry to follow the process and give Council their input. Law Director Hurst added that we also wrestle with court decisions overturning laws and procedures that were thought to be firmly in place. Councilmember Crais contended that the problem isn’t the so much the procedures as it is the execution thereof. For example, a lot of the legislation discussed at this meeting was passed in 1995 and grew out of a lot of turmoil and change. He has faith in the laws we have but it is acutely clear in the current morass that procedures are not always followed. Vice Mayor Wernet noted, from personal experience on the Planning Commission in the late 1980s, that things are different now in that this Council has a determination to make the processes, ordinances, and appeals with which it deals clear to everyone. Mayor Robertson concurred.] Mr. Parris again urged the use of proper procedure that would allow these issues to be addressed before stakes and bulldozers appear.

Councilmember Moore asked for clarification that, at this point, no construction may begin until this process is completed; Law Director Hurst verified that, in the case of The Colony, that is true.

Mr. Dixon asked if lack of detail at the Planning Commission level might be a valid reason to send this issue back to them. [Law Director Hurst felt there was a solid basis for that argument but cautioned against oversimplifying a complex and difficult issue. By way of illustration, he explained that if it were determined as a matter of fact that the restrictive covenants adopted in 1994 did apply to The Colony, then one would have to seriously question how the plat submitted to the Planning Commission could be reconciled with those covenants. Conversely, if one were to reach the conclusion that the covenants adopted in 1994 do not apply to The Colony, then one is forced to conclude that a tentative final plat cleared the Planning Commission hurdle in the absence of a review of restrictive covenants, calling into question the validity of the final plat. Law Director Hurst emphasized that there is no implicit criticism of the Planning Commission, whether they included the restrictive covenants in their own review or assumed that Council would deal with them (i.e., he is not suggesting that they proceeded in disregard of executing duties they thought they should execute). The question of whether or not the restrictive covenants of 20-94 apply to The Colony remains a question of fact that has to be resolved and one on which reasonable people may disagree. Once this initial determination is made, ancillary issues will fall into place. Law Director Hurst stated that he does have problems with the appeal, however, since it makes as it assumption the applicability of the covenants to The Colony. If they do not apply, the appeal is at a minimum premature until Council makes the determination as to the applicability of those covenants. At that time, those who wish to contest will have proper forums to do so.

Mayor Robertson, noting that Council must now decide how to proceed, laid out the alternatives: 1) whether to release the Law Director’s opinion to the public, 2) whether to ask the Planning Commission to do something different from what they’ve already done, or 3) whether to allow the hearing scheduled for April 19 to proceed.

Discussion followed on whether or not to release Law Director Hurst’s letter. Law Director Hurst stated he had been asked to give guidance to Council, which guidance contained his opinion that some of what is involved in this issue is a question of fact. He also stated that, to the extent that the letter represents attorney-client privilege, Council must decide whether or not to waive privilege on its own initiative or in response to inevitable public-record requests that would grow out of the extensive discussion of the letter at this meeting. Councilmember Crais was concerned that that even though there were some issues not covered in the letter it might attain a status that could further complicate an already muddy issue, especially if and when new facts come to light. Councilmember Moore agreed, but said she saw no reason not to make the letter public since it was part of the record of the meeting. She also felt strongly that providing information is better than trying to hide things. Councilmember Bellman urged release, noting that the contents of the letter were not binding on Council. Vice Mayor Wernet felt Sunshine laws would require the letter’s release, agreed with Councilmembers Moore and Crais that more facts will come to light, and suggested Council be very clear that the letter is based on a certain understanding of fact. Councilmember McGowan expressed his concurrence with the statements made by Councilmembers Moore and Bellman and Vice Mayor Wernet, adding that he also saw no reason not to release the letter. Councilmember Crais stated that if, by not releasing the letter, Council is breaking the law, then it must be released. He then returned to the issue of whether or not the letter would make the hoped-for mediation more difficult given that a written document has a certain inherent status. Councilmember Bellman agreed that it would. Vice Mayor Wernet was also concerned about the mediation issue but felt that, even if an appeal were held, Council would still have thirty days to render a decision, during which time there would be opportunities for mediation. Mayor Robertson asked Council’s opinion on whether, if the letter were indeed detrimental to the mediation process, it should be released later rather than earlier. Vice Mayor Wernet said he was torn on this issue between Sunshine requirements and Council statements as to possible harm to the mediation process, and asked what Council’s obligations were. Councilmember Crais suggested a vote.

Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to disclose the letter. Second by Councilmember McGowan, who felt strongly the law would require disclosure regardless of possible adverse impacts on prospective mediation.

Discussion: Councilmember Bellman argued for protecting the mediation process, i.e., “buying time” to help it work. Councilmember Crais reminded Council the letter had been “discussed but never quoted,” saying that if mediation is a possibility he felt that placed a burden on the participating parties not to pursue the document and that the party who broke ranks and asked for the document would torpedo the mediation. Law Director Hurst stated that the Public Records Request would “carry the day” since it could come from anyone, not just the parties to the mediation. Also, if Council elected to argue attorney-client privilege, that in itself would stall mediation.

A Roll Call vote resulted in four (4) affirmative votes (Councilmembers McGowan and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, and Mayor Robertson), one (1) negative vote (Councilmember Bellman), and one (1) abstention (Councilmember Crais). The motion to release the letter passed.

Discussion on the letter continued, with Law Director Hurst urging Council to make clear that the letter contains “observations” pertaining to the issue at hand, with which Council may or may not agree. Councilmember Crais felt the letter contained “a deeply flawed argument;” Councilmember McGowan noted that everyone has some disagreement with the letter. Mayor Robertson, stating that everyone had a lot to learn and think about, asked if there should be any changes in the hearing scheduled for the next meeting. Council’s consensus was there should not. Vice Mayor Wernet asked for an explanation of the procedure. Law Director Hurst explained that, in large measure, this will be an appeal proceeding under 1137, from an administrative decision. Individuals who can establish that they have standing are permitted to present arguments to Council, who acts as “judge and jury,” sitting in quasi-judicial capacity as an appellate review body. Council also handles objections made. A court reporter will be present and the proceeding is recorded and transcribed. Witnesses are under oath and cross-examination is allowed. The rules of evidence and civil procedure probably will not apply. While Council may entertain and decide a motion to dismiss, such a motion is neither a requirement nor a prohibition of appeal proceedings. Vice Mayor Wernet raised the issue of what the scope of the appeal would be in regard to the relevancy of the rules of evidence. Law Director Hurst stated that Council would have to decided if the appeal is going to be limited in scope as to consideration of the issue (i.e., a question of compliance with restrictive covenants). Vice Mayor Wernet responded that his goal was to get all the facts out; he was therefore not prepared to limit the scope until both sides had an opportunity to argue what the scope ought to be. Law Director Hurst had no objection. 

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – April 19, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McGowan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:40pm. Councilmember Wernet second. Meeting adjourned. 

Council mInutes 3/15/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:30pm. 

 ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Law Director Hurst, and Manager Hickman. Council-member Bellman was excused for illness (motion by Councilmember McGowan, second by Councilmember Crais). 

CITIZENS COMMENTS [NOTE: The scheduled discussion re the deer problem was postponed.]

Mayor Robertson cautioned those citizens present that, due to insufficient opportunity to confer with Law Director Hurst (who has been trial counsel in another county), Council would be unable to completely address issues raised about The Colony. Noting that additional opportunities for comments will occur, she urged citizens to keep their statements brief. The Appeal Date on this matter was set for April 19, 2000.

Mayor Robertson opened the Citizens Comments at 7:33pm.

Re The Colony at Bryn Du Robert O’Neill, 17 Meadowood Drive. Reported that he had met with the Bryn Du Homeowners Association, as requested by Council at their meeting of March 1, 2000. Expressed the hope that the proposed ordinance would be introduced at the current meeting and offered to share pertinent materials if Council wished to see them. [Councilmember Lucier emphasized that Council was considering the covenant restrictions, not the development application approved by the Planning Commission. Law Director Hurst stated that he understood there had been an intervening event since the last Council meeting, i.e., the filing of an appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission granting final plat approval. Law Director Hurst expressed concern that, to the extent that Council determined to entertain the appeal that has been filed, any information presented by Mr. O’Neill could conceivably by the same information that would be presented on the occasion of the appeal. He cautioned Council against entertaining any discussion or comments concerning the plat in question until such time as 1) it is established that the appeal is properly before Council, and 2) Council has fully entertained and explored all of the arguments of both sides at a hearing. In short, Law Director Hurst confirmed that, since there is an ordinance pending on restrictive covenants, comments on the final plat would be inappropriate in the current Council session and would be more properly restricted to the public hearing convened specifically for the discussion of the ordinance. He did note, however, that the appeal in question is an administrative matter and Council might feel free to entertain discussion on legislative matters. Vice Mayor Wernet encouraged Council to confer with Law Director Hurst before proceeding with any discussions.]

Bill Willis, 1974 Welsh Hills Road. Agreed with Law Director Hurst on tabling the issue until a legal opinion has been rendered. Submitted a bound document detailing the history of the Bryn Du property, especially concerning the alleged error in the original ordinance. Urged Law Director Hurst to take steps to correct the ordinance and asked if Council would entertain a motion to dismiss the “improper filing.”

Bob Kent, 100 Pinehurst. Stated he was not interested in an appeal, but rather wanted a hearing on the currently proposed ordinance and hoped Council would introduce it.

Bill Willis, 1974 Welsh Hills Road. Felt Council had denied due process by not introducing the ordinance, stating that once an ordinance has been recommended by the Planning Commission, Council must either approve it, approve it with modifications, or reject it.

Jim Harf, 120 Wildwood Drive. Emphasized that he was neither for nor against The Colony but wished to speak to the issues under discussion on behalf of the School Board. He stated that price, then the number of bedrooms in a dwelling, were the two major factors that affect the number of children likely to live in a given development (i.e., a 1500-square-foot home with two bedrooms would have the least impact on the schools).

Debby Farrar, 275 Bryn Du Drive (President of the Bryn Du Homeowners Association). Stated that, to her knowledge, The Colony was always proposed as cluster homes and/or condos.

Peter Marshall, 211 Shannon Lane. Agreed with Mrs. Farrar and urged Council to schedule hearings for both the appeal and the ordinance.

Larry Dixon, 341 Glyn Tawel Drive. Reiterated the previously expressed sense of having received misinformation about The Colony at the time he purchased Bryn Du property and having made decisions that were based on public record, regardless of whether that record is or is not correct.

[At the request of Mayor Robertson, Law Director Hurst again cautioned Council to decline to consider comments that might reasonably be related to the appeal. He stated that if there is an ordinance introduced that relates to development and covenants, Council may consider arguments for and against it when a public hearing is scheduled, not before.]

Bill Willis, 1974 Welsh Hills Road. Offered a copy of the record filed with the Licking County Recorder for any interested citizen to review.

Bill Price, 146 Merywyn Circle. Stated he was informed of plans for 1500-square-foot cluster-type homes. Bud Farrar, 275 Bryn Du Drive. Agreed with Mr. Price, stating that, in 1994 when he purchased his lot, he had seen Mr. Kent’s plat of The Colony showing cluster/patio homes of a smaller nature. Felt the current homeowners’ should be addressing their concerns to their realtors, not the developer. 

Re Village Entrances Constance Barsky, 221 East Em Street. Encouraged Village- Township cooperation on issues of the Klauder development, Union Township water & sewer plans, and virtual clearcutting of scenic entrance corridors by ODOT.

Re Water & Sewer Extension to Kendal Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. Urged Council to deny Kendal’s request for extension because it would set a precedent under which others might demand similar consideration, as well as undermining the purpose of the Master Plan.

Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place. Felt the water & sewer decision should not be made before the Township zoning hearing and expressed concerns about traffic as well as the weakening of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. [Mayor Robertson reiterated Council’s decision at the meeting of 3/1/00 to postpone action on water & sewer extension until the Township Zoning Board had made its own decision.]

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens Comments at 8:10pm. 

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 01-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 501.01 and 509.10 Of The Codified Ordinances Of the Village of Granville.

Ordinance No. 01-00 was read by Mayor Robertson, with Law Director Hurst noting that this was the final version of this ordinance. Law Director Hurst then explained the purpose of this legisla-tion, i.e., to define a number of violations (specifically those in 09.01and 11.02) as nuisances so that, in addition to the misdemeanor penalties that one might incur, a conviction would define that conduct as a nuisance, thereby triggering either the common- law or statutory capability to bring an action to abate the nuisance. In other words, the Village would have the legal authority to reach beyond a tenant who chooses to consistently engage in conduct that is a misdemeanor and proceed against the property owner who is allowing the property to be used for the purpose, bringing an action to abate that nuisance and compelling eviction. While detailed research has revealed no case law directly on point, there is a sizeable volume of analogous case law. It is therefore Law Director Hurst’s best judgment that the Village should proceed with this Ordinance.

Mayor Robertson invited public reaction.

Bill Willis, 1974 Welsh Hills Road. Stated that he represents both the National and Ohio Apartment Associations, including homeowners on College Street, and that he supports this ordinance in that it allows a landlord to evict a tenant with the support of the Village.

Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 8:15pm. 

 NEW BUSINESS Appeal – The Colony at Bryn Du Mayor Robertson scheduled the hearing date for April 19, 2000.

Resolution No. 00-12, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise For Bids For 2000 Street Painting, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-12 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-13, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise For Bids For Jones Road Improvements And Improvements To The Newark/Granville Road Storm Sewer, was introduced and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-13 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-14, A Resolution To Authorize The Non- Permanent Installation of A Sidewalk Café On The Public Sidewalk at 134 E. Broadway In Front Of The Business Known As “Victoria’s Parlour”, Subject to Restrictions, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Wernet. Motion carried. Resolution No 00-14 is adopted.

Ordinance No. 03-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 43- 99 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was introduced by Councilmember Moore. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 03-00 for April 5, 2000. Ordinance No. 04-00, An Ordinance To Approve The Covenant Agreement For The Colony At Bryn Du, had no sponsor. 

OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 01-00, An Ordinance To Amend Section 501.01 and 509.10 Of The Codified Ordinances Of the Village of Granville, was re-introduced by Councilmember Lucier. Second by Councilmember Wernet. A Roll Call yielded six (6) affirmative votes (Crais, yes; Lucier, yes; McGowan, yes; Moore, yes; Robertson, yes; Wernet, yes). Ordinance No. 01-00 is adopted. 

MAYOR’S REPORT The Mayor’s Court Report for the month of February was presented for review. There were no questions. Vice Mayor Wernet moved approval of the report. Second by Councilmember Crais. Mayor Robertson directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes. MANAGER’S REPORT The Manager’s Report for the month of February was presented for review. Councilmember Lucier asked Manager Hickman to include addresses of applicants as well as their names in the Planning Report. The Manager’s Report was approved as presented. Mayor Robertson directed the clerk to file the report. A copy of said report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of 1 March 2000 were presented for review. 

Councilmember Crais asked that the comment by Newark City Council member Julie Barrett on page 1 be changed to express appreciation to “Councilmember Bellman and Mayor Robertson.”

Councilmember Crais made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Lighting Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Detailed the schedule of light replacement.

Recreation Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Reported on the continued development of Raccoon Park, noting a serious problem with drainage in baseball field (i.e., a big grate- covered drain in the middle of left-center field!). Law Director Hurst was emphatic that the drain be moved. Councilmember McGowan noted that the number of Recreation Commission activities is increasing; participation is up as well. The Commission survey is in fits final stages.

Tree and Landscape Commission (Councilmember Moore). Commission minutes were included for Council’s review; the Commission expressed its appreciation of the new watering system, and indicated its desire to have an Arbor Day tree- planting ceremony (with the exact date yet to be determined).

Councilmember Moore noted that, as Council’s finance liaison, she had met with Molly Roberts. The books looked good and the two discussed how the Village is investing idle funds to improve yield, as well as looking at possibilities for refinancing some debt. Economic Liaison Committee (Councilmember Crais). Discussed proposed changes to Broadway and the median strip, noting that Council will need to enter into extensive discussion with the business community as this proposal moves forward; reported that the subcommittee of the GBPA was ready to give it preliminary report. Discussed redoing the Village web page to make it more user- friendly and better able to assist local business; Elizabeth Mahr is drawing up a proposal. Discussed ways to bring the farming community back into Granville Village, e.g., direct marketing between producers ad consumers, researching federal grant money to save family farms, and exploring new ways to envision farming communities in America. The Committee plans to meet with more farmers as they continue investigating this. Their next meeting is set for April 4, 2000, at 7:30am.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). Had a productive initial work session with the owners of the Maple Street garage; another session is scheduled and the Commission expects that a new application will be submitted. Bernie Lucko is working with Kathryn Wimburger on design standards for signs. Manager Hickman asked for volunteers to work with him, Mr. Lucko, and Ms. Wimburger on this issue. Councilmember Lucier volunteered; Councilmember Bellman was volunteered. Ms. Wimburger will set a meeting and notify everyone.

Streets and Sidewalks (Vice Mayor Wernet). Did not meet. Councilmember Lucier asked if they would look at bike path cost estimates and respond. Vice Mayor Wernet said they would do so at their next meeting (6:30pm, Wednesday, April 5, 2000). 

OTHER Blues Festival (Councilmember McGowan). The originally scheduled date of August 5 may be changed to September 9 (the August date conflicts with the Dublin Irish Festival). Councilmember Crais asked for some additional information to get a better sense of what this group is hoping to accomplish; Gerry Martin (15 Briarwood Drive) will see that Council receives more details. This item is to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

Roberts Skating Rink (Councilmember McGowan). The Recreation Commission is considering putting some equipment on site and needs to bring a detailed request to Council for permission. This item is to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – April 5, 2000

ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45pm. Councilmember Moore second. Meeting adjourned. 

Council Minutes 3/1/00

 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:34pm, after extra chairs had been set up to accommodate the public. ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Mayor Robertson, Vice Mayor Wernet, and Manager Hickman.

NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. 00-09, A Mutual Resolution Endorsed By The City Of Newark, Ohio And The Village Of Granville, Ohio To Express The Urgent Need For A North/South State Route In Central Licking County, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Bellman. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-09 is adopted.

Councilmember Wernet thanked Councilmember Bellman who, in turn, introduced Julie Barrett, Craig Baldwin, and Bruce Bain, representatives of Newark City Council. Mayor Robertson expressed her appreciation as well.

CITIZENS COMMENTS (See the attached list for those signing the register) Re Utilities Extensions as they relate to the School District: Richard Salvage, 73 Berline Court. Population growth in the district indicates there will be 1000+ new students in the next 6-10 years. Village sites are preferable for the new facilities that will have to be built, but the lack of available sites in the Village will force the District to look in the Township, where building sites would require water and sewer services from the Village. Mr. Salvage asked Council to keep that in mind as they wrestle with a policy on extension.

Re Newark City Council: Julie Barrett, 42 N. 31st Street, Newark. Thanked Council for their efforts, saying it had been wonderful to work together and Newark Council looked forward to what can be accomplished together in the future.

Bruce Bain, 62 N. 31st Street, Newark. Thanked Council, and especially Councilmember Bellman and and Mayor Robertson, on behalf of Newark City Council, saying that, considering his 21-year history on Newark City Council during much of which relations between the two municipalities were not very good, he was especially pleased that the lines of communication are now open. Urged that both Newark and Granville resolve to pursue the action required by the Joint Resolution and not let it die. Re Kendal: Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place. Expressed concerns about whether any business could tap into a water and/or sewer line once it is extended, about possible negative effects on the water table and/or water pressure if service is extended, about Burg Street traffic levels, and about a potential conflict of interest with Township Trustee Jim Havens possibly having a connection with Cardinal Holding.

Jackie O¡¯Keefe, 4 Samson Place. Expressed concerns about Burg Street traffic if Kendal employees use the Thornwood- Burg Street shortcut to the intersection at New Burg. Raised the issue of pedestrians/joggers/GHS and Denison track teams who use the road. Urged Council not to rely solely on current traffic-study figures but to take into account the possibility of future traffic growth.

Trudy Knox, 168 Wildwood Drive. Reported that the manager of the Water Department had told her we are using less than a third of our capacity at this time. Asked how interested citizens who cannot attend Council meetings could let Council know how they feel. [Mayor Robertson suggested writing a letter with one or more signatures so Council would have a written record to build on; petitions and phone calls could also be used.] Laurel Kennedy, 758 New Burg Street. Expressed support for Kendal in general but has traffic concerns re the number of children who walk to school on a road with no sidewalks and lots of ¡°hormonally driven¡± teenagers, and about the short setbacks on many Burg Street residences.

Abram Kaplan, 843 Burg Street. Noted that he¡¯s seen ¡°lots of drivers¡± go airborne at the top of the first hill coming out of the village. Cautioned that if it¡¯s the case that we wish to preserve the character of the village and have green space around us, council must make decisions that support those goals.

Arnie Joseph, 3 Samson Place. Understands the concerns about Kendal-driven traffic, but felt that every housing development along Burg and New Burg Street had added, and would continue to add, traffic to both roads; Kendal traffic probably wouldn¡¯t be any worse. Pointed out that alternatives to Kendal, which would be a boon to the Village, are uncertain and that Kendal is a not-for-profit entity.

Don Lewis, 4489 Burg Street. Also concerned about whether or not developers could tap in to lines already extended. Re The Colony at Bryn Du: The speakers listed below brought to Council their various concerns about the following: ¡ñinconsistent information having been, and continuing to be, conveyed to them about The Colony ¡ña green space on the east end of the Village ¡ñincreased traffic and impact on the schools from the 42 proposed homes ¡ñproposed reductions in square footage and design standards ¡ñnot having been given all necessary information when they purchased their houses or lots ¡ñnot having been aware that The Colony was even in the overall plat plan ¡ñnot having been aware of governmental meetings, and ¡ñthe proposed connection between The Colony and Glyn Tawel Dr. Mayor Robertson and several Councilmembers reminded citizens that meeting notices are published in the Sentinel, posted in the Library, and posted on the Village Office bulletin board with direct notification given only to property owners within 200 feet of the property under discussion (one of which is the Bryn Du Homeowners Association). Mayor Robertson also stated that the entire Bryn Du subdivision is private property and, as such, not under Council¡¯s purview. The legal procedure in place dictates that issues work their way through the Planning Commission and Zoning Board, then come to Council for final approval. That being the case, the homeowners need to be talking within their own Homeowners Association to determine what¡¯s going on with their private property. Council¡¯s function at this point in the process is to ensure that the developers adhere to the original, already- approved, covenants. [Speakers: Monica Graffeo, 235 Bryn Du Drive; Kathy Nichols, 233 Glyn Tawel Drive; John Friday, 235 N. Pearl (now building in Bryn Du); Randolph Kerr, 107 Ballymore Court; Lisa McKivergin, 1234 Newark-Granville Road; Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive; Rick Baltisberger, 156 Merywen Circle; Michael Kone, 223 Glyn Tawel Drive]

Re the Crosswalk on Broadway: Randolph Kerr, 107 Ballymore Court. Was ¡°shocked¡± to see that the crosswalk in the Village is a simple yellow flashing light¡ªdangerous because cars speed through there and won¡¯t stop for people in crosswalk. Suggested changing it to a flashing red, which he thought ODOT would accept. [Manager Hickman responded that ODOT has already expressed an unwillingness to approve a flashing red for this location. The crosswalk problem resurfaces regularly, every 4-5 years, and has yet to be resolved in a satisfactory way. Suggestions under consideration at this time include bricking the crosswalk, installing additional cautionary lights, or even removing the crosswalk altogether. Manager Hickman cautioned that pedestrians in any crosswalk need to exercise caution.]

Re ¡°Debt Service¡± Entry on Water Bills: Randolph Kerr, 107 Ballymore Court. Questioned why the debt-service charge still appeared on Village water bills and why the water and sewer bills were the same. [Manager Hickman explained that sewer debt service goes to pay off the sewer plant built in 1986; the debt will be paid in 2006. Part of the debt-service charge also goes toward sewer improvements (e.g., Broadway, South Main Street, Westgate Drive), as well as the sludge holding system at the waste water plant (built four 4 years ago on a 10-year loan). Another portion ($1.50 per unit) goes toward waste water treatment. We have 1,150 water and sewer customers and a population of approximately 3,500. We do sit on a great aquifer, though it produces hard water, meaning money for lime in addition to pumping, chlorination, fluoridation, etc. The bills are the same because the Village does not do ¡°deduct¡± meters, which are more expensive to install and maintain, in the hopes that the seemingly higher sewer cost encourages people to think twice before ¡°spending¡± water unnecessarily.]

Re Citizen Responsibility Dorothy Garrett, 45 Donald Ross Drive. Reminded those assembled that we live in a democracy where citizens have the responsibility to proactively see to it that they are informed. Mayor Robertson closed Citizens¡¯ Comments at 8:47pm. Council took at brief break and reconvened at 9:03pm. 

OLD BUSINESS Kendal Discussion: Rob Drake, 704 Newark Granville Road. Noting that this was not a formal presentation by Kendal, Mr. Drake and Tom Mitchell of Kendal asked for questions. Council requested an explanation of how the proposed site was selected and Mr. Drake put an annotated map of Granville Township on the easel. He noted that the site-location committee had identified the need for a feeling of proximity to the Village and a feeling of openness, aided by single-story construction. It takes approximately 50 acres to encompass all elements of a Kendal community (assuming single-story construction for the majority of the buildings). In addition, since the Township now has a 50% green-space/open- space set-aside in their ordinances, Kendal needs another 50 acres of set-aside¨C100 acres total. That total size requirement obviously limits the number of sites that may be considered. Two township properties south of the bypass lacked the feeling of connection to the Village and necessitated ingress/egress via one or the other of two major State highways. Suitable property north of the bypass is fairly limited, much of it having already been subdivided. Much of the rest consists either of tracts 15 acres or less in size, tracts less than 100 acres under one ownership, or tracts already in the hands of Denison, the Village government, the Township Trustees, or the School Board. The Rees property, at the far eastern limit of the Township, has topographical problems, with only 25 acres of flat ground (i.e., building there would required a multi- story complex, contrary to the initial preference-survey results). The Jack Lutz property on Jones Road (the only other site with adequate acreage) is not only topographically unsuitable; it is virtually impossible to provide ingress/egress onto Jones Road with adequate sight lines. In sum, the parcel that best meets the stated needs is the one now proposed¡ªnot a perfect site, but the best available site. It is clustered into an area where there is already significant development rather than being isolated out in the Township. Traffic is always a concern, but Kendal has confidence in its traffic study¡ªbased on Kendal at Longwood (outside Philadelphia), a similarly sized community.

In response to another question from Council, Mr. Drake, speaking on Kendal¡¯s behalf, consented to enter into an agreement that utilities, if provided, could not be extended beyond the approved site, either for a Kendal expansion or for anyone else, without a vote by Council. Council-member Crais noted that Kendal is asking for two major variances¡ªa reversal of Council policy against extensions and a rezoning of Township land. Mr. Drake agreed, saying that their request reflected the results of the comprehensive-plan survey in which more than 50% of the respondents thought a retirement community was a high priority and 57% said they wanted to live in Granville the rest of their lives. Mr. Drake also pointed out that people in Granville had approached Kendal, not vice versa.

In response to Council concerns about maintaining the integrity of the comprehensive plan, Mr. Drake proposed that if one accepts the premise that development is going to occur, it is best to manage it with creative zoning (e.g., clusters, set-asides for green space, etc.). While Kendal feels its proposal is well supported and consistent with the comprehensive plan in one way, it does indeed require rezoning to higher density than the current agricultural specification of 5 acres/unit. Councilmember Lucier asked how Kendal felt about the relative weight of focus-group opinion vs. the major hurdles of water & sewer extension and the possible changing of the spirit of the master plan (i.e., would they compromise on the single- story plan?). Mr. Drake allowed that they might. [Citizen Jack Heller reiterated the desire for single-story construction, saying that high-rise facilities are available in Columbus and this would be the only retirement community of its kind in Central Ohio.] 

In response to traffic concerns, Mr. Drake stated that Kendal would make it a condition of employment that their employees not use Burg Street. They would also schedule shift changes to avoid the morning and afternoon bottlenecks created by school traffic; suppliers would be encouraged to avoid those times as well. Revisiting the discussion of the Rees and Lutz properties on the east end of Newark-Granville Road, Council asked Kendal to rethink their position (i.e., even though it would mean multiple- story buildings and even though the community might be half on the north side of the road, half on the south, could it be made to work?). The Village will have to address traffic flow in the area sooner or later and retirement- community concerns could be folded into the discussion. Mr. Drake and Mr. Mitchell were asked to provide total traffic numbers for residents, employees, deliveries, service purchasers, child-care purchasers, etc. Mr. Mitchell noted that those numbers were in the Appendix of the study; Manager Hickman will distribute them.

Councilmember Moore asked if Kendal was prepared to pay all costs involved in the extensive piping needed by a water and sewer extension; they are. Mr. Drake noted that Kendal is asking for Village water so they don¡¯t have to maintain on-site water systems; they would also rather rely on a bigger system than a smaller one. Maintenance costs are built into the sales costs and monthly fees; if Kendal is required to put in their own facilities, the construction costs would have to be built in as well.

Councilmember McGowan said Council would like to see the Township rezoning happen before Council agrees to provide water. Mr. Drake responded that any Village water agreement would be contingent on Township rezoning. Councilmember Lucier felt that issues of traffic were more properly considered by the Township than by the Village, and agreed that Township decisions should be made before Council made its determination. She acknowledged Kendal¡¯s commitment to the project and differentiated between what they¡¯re asking of the Village and what they¡¯re asking of the Township. In short, Village water and sewer extension is important; Township rezoning is an absolute necessity. Mr. Drake concurred, but noted that detailed applications to the Township require complete site-design plans that, in turn, would require a determination of water and sewer sources. Mr. Drake wasn¡¯t sure exactly when he would need Council¡¯s decision since it depended on the timing of their application to the Township for rezoning. Mr. Mitchell noted that Kendal was preparing dual plans¡ªone for Village water and sewer, one for on-site water and sewer (the latter a spray irrigation system advocated by the Ohio EPA). Councilmember Lucier asked if water service was more, or less, of a problem that sewer service; Mr. Mitchell stated that Kendal would rather have water than sewer. Water service is more expensive to construct and more dangerous to handle. In addition, they have experience with waste facilities in other Kendal communities that have been in operation for almost 30 years in another community. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that Council could conclude that the best limitation for future development is on sewer line rather than water. Mr. Drake said Kendal is not interested in promoting development, even inadvertently.

Mayor Robertson concluded the discussion at 10:13 p.m. by asking Kendal to go to the Township and deal with the zoning issues (and any other issues raised by the Township), then come back to Council for action on the application. Mr. Drake agreed, and said he would convey to Council Kendal¡¯s need-to-know date for their tentative/contingent approval. 

NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. 00-08, A Resolution To Appoint A Deputy Clerk, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Wernet. Second by Councilmember Bellman. [DISCUSSION: Council-member Lucier asked Manager Hickman to clarify that Bev Adzic was the Acting Clerk; when he did so, she stated that, even though this appointment of a Deputy Clerk is not an issue, she didn¡¯t want Council to forget that the issue of appointing a Clerk remains to be dealt with.] Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-08 is adopted.

Oath of Office ¨C Mayor Robertson administered the oath of office to Sandy Ellinger. Resolution No. 00-10, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise For Bids For West Broadway Improvements, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-10 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-11, A Resolution Authorizing Participation In The ODOT Cooperative Purchasing Program, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember Bellman. Second by Councilmember Moore. Motion carried. Resolution No. 00-11 is adopted.

Ordinance No. 01-00, An Ordinance To Amend Sections 501.01 and 509.10 Of The Granville Codified Ordinances, was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing date for Ordinance No. 01-00 for March 15, 2000.

Ordinance No. 02-00, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 20- 98 And Approve The Covenant Agreement For The Colony At Bryn Du, had no sponsor. In the absence of legal counsel, Mayor Robertson suggested that any citizen could ask to have the ordinance introduced again in two weeks. Robert O¡¯Neill (17 Meadowood Drive) objected; Vice Mayor Wernet responded that even though there¡¯s been an interest raised in whether the Village would agree to a modification of the covenants, no one was willing to introduce the Ordinance. Therefore, it¡¯s not before Council anymore. In spite of some confusion about what covenants had been approved when, Councilmember Crais agreed with Vice Mayor Wernet that since Council did not move forward on this Ordinance, the existing covenants stand until Council agrees to put forward the proposed amendments. Mayor Robertson also agreed, saying Council had given a clear signal that it was not ready to approve the requested change. Responding to continued statements by Mr. O¡¯Neill, Mayor Robertson suggested that he needed to go back to the Homeowners Association and work this out before returning to Council. Councilmember Crais reiterated his concern about fungibility of the master plan which seemed open to constant negotiation and/or revision. Mayor Robertson once again instructed Mr. O¡¯Neill to go back to the Homeowners Association and ¡°get clear with everybody¡± before returning to Council with another proposal. Mr. O¡¯Neill agreed, but asked for clarification about what would happen then. Mayor Robertson said than an ordinance could be proposed and if it found a sponsor, Council would proceed and set a hearing for two weeks from the date of that meeting. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of February 16, 2000, were presented for review. A total of ten amendments were requested, as follows: Councilmember Bellman (p.1 - change ¡°cast¡± to ¡°case¡±; p.3 - change ¡°sewers were too far away¡± to ¡°Granville water and sewer lines were too far away¡±); Councilmember Moore (p.2 - Trustee Havens, not Councilmember Moore, made the statement about ¡°fewer hoops¡± in the Township; p.8 ¨C change ¡°¡­road changes had forced lot changes¡± to ¡°¡­road changes had forced lot changes with respect to site locations; p.9 - change ¡°¡­thought they wanted to make the lots smaller¡± to ¡°¡­ thought they wanted to make the houses smaller¡±); Mayor Robertson (p.2 - change ¡°Councilmember McGowan conceded¡­¡± to ¡°Councilmember McGowan believed¡­¡±; p.3 - change ¡°based on discussions in conservation meetings¡± to ¡°based on what she has learned from her attendance at conservation conferences¡­¡±; p.9 ¨C change Peg Baldwin to Craig Baldwin); Vice Mayor Wernet (p.6 ¨C change ¡°liability¡± to ¡°reliability¡±). Councilmember Bellman moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember Crais. Motion carried. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Street, Sidewalks & Utilities (Vice Mayor Wernet) ¡¤ Discussed a request to vacate an alley on Sunrise Street, with one property owner requesting vacating one leg of the alley, another property requesting paving the other leg. ¡¤ Discussed adding a gate to Wildwood Park (a duplicate of the gate at Fan Lewis Park); have an estimate of $480; Manager Hickman will see if this can come from already- appropriated funds ¡¤ Need to erect a ¡°Park Closes At Dark¡± sign; awaiting sign committee recommendation on general format of all signs to make it compatible. ¡¤ Reviewed plans prepared several years ago for Cherry Valley Road; no action taken. ¡¤ Will use the next Utilities Committee meeting to look at truck scales, especially their location; have decided that any scales should be confined with landscaping to improve whatever area is selected; Manager Hickman will review the preliminary plans and visit the site with the committee. ¡¤ Considered intersection improvements for the Broadway crosswalk and the intersections at College/Pearl and Elm/Main; investigating a system of flashing lights that sense someone crossing the street.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier) ¡¤ Based on prior instructions from Law Director Hurst, the Commission considered only the issue of final plat approval for the Colony at Bryn Du; said approval was granted and a special meeting was set for March 6 to discuss the sign code revisions. 

 

OTHER Bryn Du Concerns (Councilmember Moore). Councilmember Moore reported, as requested, on the position of the Bryn Du Homeowners Association re a tax levy to buy the property designated for The Colony in order to retain it as green space. The Association itself was not involved; the idea originated with a number of Bryn Du residents and other Village residents who were concerned but not organized, as well as being unsure how best to proceed. Councilmember Moore suggested other options to them (e.g., financing packages put together with grants, etc.). She also cautioned them to be cognizant of other levies that will appear. Councilmember Moore received a telephone call from Township Trustee Jim Havens who ¡°made it clear¡± that his law firm represents Southgate Corporation. Trustee Havens had also caucused with the Township Clerk and Trustee Lyle King and reported that the Township Trustees were prepared to provide $100,000 from Open Space Levy and Unrestricted funds if the contract that Bob Kent has with Southgate Corporation could be set aside and if other financing pieces could come together. Robert O¡¯Neill (Southgate Corporation) also called Councilmember Moore to set up a meeting about whether Southgate would be willing to sell. Councilmember Moore met with Mr. Kent and Mr. O¡¯Neill, at which time Mr. Kent stated that throughout all the calls and conversations about selling the property, he has said he¡¯s willing to sit down and talk. However, he currently has a contract to sell to Southgate Corporation. Mr. O¡¯Neill would need to put a value/price on what it would cost for his corporation to step aside. Until and unless Southgate Corporation no longer wants to proceed, which is not the case at this point, Mr. Kent is bound by the contract. Mr. Kent also said he¡¯s willing to discuss selling other properties that might be appropriate for parkland or green space and asked if Council would appoint an ad hoc committee to study the issue since there certainly is a desire for more parkland on the east side of the Village. Councilmember Moore volunteered for the committee; Vice Mayor Wernet nominated her as chair. Councilmembers McGowan and Lucier also volunteered for the committee. Council-member Moore then clarified the issue that had elicited the barrage of Citizens Comments from Bryn Du residents earlier in the meeting: The covenants for The Colony were included with the covenants for Bryn Du/Phase 4 and purchasers of Phase 4 property bought their lots believing that the Phase 4 covenants would apply to The Colony, whenever it was built. The developer is now proposing different covenants for The Colony (i.e., that it not be part of Bryn Du and that it have its own design standards). Councilmember Moore also clarified that, while the Township is levying the taxes and collecting the money, their funds can only be used for passive green space, not for a park. The Village does have parkland monies and Council should identify any property we want to acquire. Councilmember Lucier requested that Manager Hickman ask Law Director Hurst to provide Council with concise written information about the proposed covenant modifications, including his assessment of exactly where we are, how we arrived at this point, and what the implications are of Council¡¯s not introducing the ordinance. She also wants to know if Council is under any obligation to make sure covenant agreements exist. 

 

Annexation of Township Parcels (Councilmember Lucier) Councilmember Lucier asked Manager Hickman if any progress had been made on this issue (e.g., annexing the Street Department property into the Village). Manager Hickman said no progress has been made.

Locked Gates at Fan Lewis Park (Councilmember Lucier, Vice Mayor Wernet) Both Councilmember Lucier and Vice Mayor Wernet reported having seen the gates locked when they drove past the park in mid-afternoon. Manager Hickman thought perhaps they were just closed.

Music Festival, Liquor-Sales Option for Precinct D (Councilmember McGowan) Councilmember McGowan reported that the Music Festival date is now August 5th. He also reported that there will be a liquor option on the March 7th ballot for Precinct D (for Sunday sales at Brew¡¯s Caf¨¦),

Correspondence (Mayor Robertson) Mayor Robertson asked Manager Hickman to bring the thank- you letter to retreat facilitator Judith Thomas to the next meeting so Council could sign it. There is also a pending congratulatory letter to an Eagle Scout; Manager Hickman is awaiting a response from the initiator of the request.

Design Review Standards (Manager Hickman) Manager Hickman asked for one or two Councilmembers to look at the existing standards and give him feedback at the next meeting.

Alexandria Water Contract (Manager Hickman) Councilmember Bellman had concerns about this issue but, due to the late hour, asked if time was critical. Manager Hickman said the discussion could wait until the next meeting. 

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting ¨C March 15, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:12pm. Second by Councilmember Wernet. Meeting adjourned. 

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.