Granville Community Calendar

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. 

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.