VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE COUNCIL MINUTES April 7, 2004
CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:32 pm)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Barsky, Hartfield, Herman, O’Keefe, Main, Vice Mayor Crais, and Mayor Robertson. Law Director Crites and Manager Hickman.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA (7:34 pm) Mayor Robertson stated that she wished to add Resolution No. 04-31 to the agenda. Councilmember Barsky moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Herman. Motion carried. Mayor Robertson read aloud Resolution No. 04-31, A Resolution of Appreciation of Clifton Crais For Service On The Village Council To The People Of The Village of Granville. Second by Councilmember O’Keefe.
CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (7:40 pm) Licking County Transit Authority – Marcia Phelps – Licking County Commissioner – stated that she was in attendance to answer any questions in regards to the Licking County Transit Authority. She introduced Loretta Frenton who heads the Transit Authority. Ms Frenton stated that she believes in public transportation. She stated that they receive $38,000 from the state budget. Ms. Frenton stated that there is a May 12 public input forum being held at the Alexandria United Methodist Church. Ms. Frenton stated that the Transit Authority has three main purposes. The first is to provide county-wide transportation Monday – Friday from 6:00am to 6:00pm. She stated that their transportation service is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The cost is $5.00 one way, or $2.50 for senior citizens over the age of 65. The second purpose is to provide a commuter bus for service to downtown Columbus at 7:00/7:30/8:00. The cost for this service is $3.50 one way or a monthly pass for $120.00. Ms. Frenton stated that they are currently working with COTA to get transportation to the OSU medical center. Thirdly, she stated that the Transit Authority works with social services such as MRDD, Aging, Catholic Social Services, etc. She stated that there are a total of 25 social service entities that they work with. Ms. Frenton went on to say that there is also a commuter assistance program for employees to provide to their employees and a tax break is available.
Councilmember O’Keefe asked if they provide assistance for elderly/disabled people needing help getting from their residence into the vehicle. Ms. Frenton stated that for liability reasons they are unable to provide help inside a residence. She did say that if the elderly or disabled person has a personal care assistant, that person would ride at no charge.
Vice Mayor Crais added that the village is in the process of negotiating a renewal contract with Adelphia Cable. He stated that perhaps a partnership could be created with them for publicity for the Transit Authority.
Ms. Frenton ended by stating that anyone is welcome to contact her in regards to questions for the Transit Authority. She stated that if you are unable to remember her name, simply as for the “bus lady.” Ms. Frenton can be reached at 740.349.1609.
Concealed Carry Gun Law Sergeant Dudgeon spoke to Council on the Concealed Carry Law becoming effective tomorrow, April 8, 2004. He stated that it will likely take 45 days before background checks take effect. He stated that it is estimated that there will be an initial rush of 100,000 applicants to carry a concealed weapon.
Councilmember Hartfield asked where you can get signs that say “No Guns on Premises.” Sergeant Dudgeon stated that a copy of such a sign is available on the Attorney General’s website. Marcia Phelps also stated that she can provide to Manager Hickman the name and phone number of a local business which provided the county’s signs. Councilmember Hartfield stated that this information would be helpful and she could get it to members of the Chamber of Commerce as well. Councilmember O’Keefe asked how law enforcement can be sure applicants are complying with the law. Sergeant Dudgeon stated that it will all depend on how well it is concealed, and it will be tough to enforce.
Councilmember Barsky asked how many states have similar laws. Sergeant Dudgeon and members of Council guessed somewhere around 43 states.
Sergeant Dudgeon stated that there are three ways to transport a concealed weapon in a vehicle under the new law. The first is a holster, second is a locked box on the seat, and thirdly stored in a locked glove box.
Councilmember Herman asked if the registry list of permit holders will be public information. Sergeant Dudgeon stated that some of the information, such as name and social security, will be available.
Councilmember O’Keefe asked how law enforcement can ensure that someone who is mentally disturbed (such as the recent McCoy case) doesn’t have access to a concealed gun. Sergeant Dudgeon stated that it was his understanding that medical records would be reviewed during the background check process.
Councilmember Main asked what problems regarding this new law Sergeant Dudgeon envisions coming to Granville. Sergeant Dudgeon stated they are initially expecting a lot of calls about people seeing a gun. He stated that they will investigate these calls.
Councilmember Herman asked if there can be a service district within a municipality that can have a no gun ban applied. Law Director Crites stated that this was passed by the General Assembly, but he could look into what options there are.
Marcia Phelps, County Commissioner, added that this new law is costly to the County. She stated that some county’s are limiting the number of permits distributed. She stated that Licking County has no such limitations and they expect some applicants from other county’s to apply for permits here.
Councilmember Hartfield asked if people are carrying guns with holsters in other states in open view. Sergeant Dudgeon stated that his personal experience tells him yes.
Jurgen Pape, no address given, stated his interest on being selected for the Bryn Du Commission. Mr. Pape stated that originally, he felt the best thing to do was sell the Mansion and keep the property. He stated that after serving on the second Bryn Du Advisory Committee, he completely changed his mind. Mr. Pape added that he is involved in many civic things and a list of them is available from Manager Hickman.
Councilmember Herman asked if there was some type of glitch to him being selected to serve on the Bryn Du Commission. Mr. Pape stated that he originally tried to go thru the Chamber of Commerce to be selected to serve on the Commission, but they had chosen someone else.
Amber Mitchell, 600 West Broadway, stated that she would like to volunteer in any form. This could include the opening for village Council, Bryn Du Commission, or the Arts Commission.
Mayor Robertson closed citizens’ comments at 8:25 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 03-04, An Ordinance To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into A Lease Agreement With St. Luke’s Episcopal Church For The Lease Of 118 South Main Street.
Jim Yung, 744 Burg Street, 221 West Broadway, stated that he was appearing before Council to show his displeasure for what he felt they were about to do concerning the lease agreement with St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Mr. Yung stated that years ago the four corners were considered sacred and were to never be sold. He stated that he wanted it on record how much he is displeased at what he felt Council was going to do.
Patrick Hart, Colony at Granville, Gail Road, and former part owner of Sensibilities read a letter to Council. He stated that ten years ago Sensibilities was the high bidder for the property located at 118 South Main Street. Mr. Hart stated that they were never considered as a prospect when the lease matured and he questioned why there was not another bid process. Mr. Hart stated that they have made 120 lease payments on time. He asked Council why the bidding process was by-passed. Mr. Hart stated that they have improvement costs to recover. Mr. Hart stated that when they decided to sub-lease the building they were offered $2600 by St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, as well as $3600 and $3700 by other parties. He stated that even though St. Luke’s was the lowest bid, they were sensitive to the church’s inability to pay more. Mr. Hart stated that although some people are saying they are greedy, they have principal, interest and insurance to pay. Mr. Hart stated that St. Luke’s would be given a $1055 discount if leased directly through the village. He asked why St. Luke’s is being given “a sweetheart deal.” Mr. Hart also stated that they tried to buy the building ten years ago, but were told it couldn’t be done because it was a historic building. Mr. Hart stated that by losing this lease, they will suffer a major monetary loss. He went on to say that they were hours late on a holiday weekend to renew the lease. Mr. Hart stated that “the penalty hardly matches the crime.” Mr. Hart stated that this was a mean spirited decision by Council and a terrible economic decision for the village. Mr. Hart proposed to Council that they would cooperate with them on selling the building, as long as they could recoup their $50,000 loss.
Councilmember Main asked why Mr. Hart didn’t exercise the right to renew the lease earlier.
Mr. Hart stated that they were technically a few hours late, however, the village offices closed early that day. Mr. Hart also stated the holidays as being a reason for it being late. Mr. Hart stated that the agreement was delivered at 8:00am the next day. He stated that he was in Florida, and that his business associate was taking care of the renewal. Mr. Hart ended that in forty years of business he has never been involved with something like this.
Manager Hickman stated that he wished to clarify that the lease could not be renewed sooner than 180 days before its expiration. This would be from October 3 – January 1. He stated that the village offices were open all day on December 31 and January 2.
Mr. Hart stated that he disagrees with Manager Hickman because this is a leap year.
Mayor Robertson asked Mr. Hart for a copy of the letter he read aloud to Council. He agreed to provide a copy.
Dorothy Garrett, 45 Donald Ross Drive, stated that Mr. Hart and Mr. Vance had 90 days to renew their lease and they failed to do so in spite of this. She urged Council to lease the property to St. Luke’s, or sell the property if possible. Ms. Garrett stated that she was on Council when it was available ten years ago. She also stated that Mr. Vance was on Council at that time. Ms. Garrett stated that she felt it was questionable on whether or not Mr. Vance profited by knowing information available by being on Council and that he did not make Council aware of the fact that he was involved in this business deal. Ms. Garrett stated that she is not a member of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. She ended by saying that she feels the village is being had.
Vice Mayor Crais asked Ms. Garrett if she recalled any discussion on what might happen if the business failed. Ms. Garrett stated that she did not and they were inclined to think more positively.
Councilmember Barsky stated that she recalled (through various notes) that the Harts were allowed some months of no rent. Ms. Garrett stated that they got the price they did because the plan put before Council at that time showed money being put into the building for improvements up front.
Keith Myers stated he was representing St.Luke’s Episcopal Church. He stated that their principal interest is continued occupancy of the building.
Councilmember Herman asked what St. Luke’s understanding was of the money they invested and were there any discussions of recouping their investment.
Mr. Myers stated that they have invested $135,000 worth of improvements to the building. He stated that there was no discussion of recouping their investments.
Lillie McCutcheon, no address given, stated that she has known the Hart’s for eight years. She stated that both the Vance’s and Harts spent their own money on the building. She stated that the improvements also benefited the village. Ms. McCutcheon stated that the Harts and Vance’s have had good business relations with the village and made on time payments. She went on to say that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime and Council is sending the message that Granville is hard to deal with.
Ordinance No. 04-04, An Ordinance To Adopt The 2001 Review Updates To The Granville Comprehensive Plan.
No one appeared to speak in regards to Ordinance No. 04-04.
Mayor Robertson closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 pm.
NEW BUSINESS (8:35 pm) Resolution No. 04-15, A Resolution To Award The Bid For Grounds Maintenance, As Per Specifications, To Fackler Country Gardens And To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into An Agreement Therefore was introduced by Councilmember Hartfield. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Discussion: Manager Hickman stated that $50,000 was spent last year and that the village has picked up an additional 34 acres. He stated that $60,000 has been budgeted for this year. Manager Hickman stated that the polo group has agreed to pay $200 a week for mowing instead of $200 per use. He also stated that more polo will be played.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-15 is adopted.
Resolution No. 04-24, A Resolution To Authorize The Non-Permanent Installation Of A Sidewalk Café On The Public Sidewalk At 132 East Broadway In Front Of The Business Known As “Village Coffee Company” was introduced by Councilmember Barsky. Second by Councilmember O’Keefe.
Discussion: Councilmember Hartfield stated that this Resolution appears to be lengthier than last years. Manager Hickman stated that they think they have all the bugs worked out and that this Resolution is simply a renewal.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-24 is adopted.
Resolution No. 04-25, A Resolution To Authorize The Non-Permanent Installation Of A Sidewalk Café On The Public Sidewalk In Front Of The Business Known As “Broadway Delicatessen” was introduced by Councilmember Herman. Second by Vice Mayor Crais. Discussion: None.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-25 is adopted.
Resolution No. 04-26, A Resolution To Authorize The Non-Permanent Installation Of A Sidewalk Café On The Public Sidewalk At 138 East Broadway In Front Of The Business Known As “Whit’s Frozen Custard” was introduced by Vice Mayor Crais. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-26 is adopted.
Resolution No. 04-27, A Resolution To Authorize The Non-Permanent Installation Of A Sidewalk Café On The Public Sidewalk At 134 East Broadway In Front Of The Business Known As “Victoria’s Parlor” was introduced by Councilmember O’Keefe.. Second by Councilmember Hartfield.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-27 is adopted.
Resolution No. 04-28, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Re-bid West Elm Street Improvements was introduced by Councilmember Main. Second by Councilmember Hartfield.
Discussion: Councilmember Barsky asked if the re-bid could change the bid amounts. Manager Hickman stated not necessarily. He stated that he was also going to get bids for moving overhead utilities underground.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-28 is adopted.
Resolution No. 04-29, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Advertise for Bids for the Sale Of Miscellaneous Surplus Equipment was introduced by Vice Mayor Crais. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Discussion: Manager Hickman stated that this was for a 1996 Ford Taurus, as well as some outdated computer equipment. He stated that the computer equipment could go for bid or donation, depending on which is best.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-29 is adopted
Resolution No. 04-30, A Resolution To Appoint The Bryn Du Governance Commission was introduced by Councilmember Barsky. Second by Councilmember Hartfield.
Discussion: Council voted twice by ballot. All applicants were narrowed down to five. The five applicants selected by the first ballot vote were: Steve Herb, Keith Myers, Jurgen Pape, Tim Riffle, and Jim Siegel. Council then voted to narrow the list down to the final three people to serve on the Commission. The final three people chosen by ballot to serve on the Bryn Du Governance Commission include: Steve Herb, Jurgen Pape, and Keith Myers.
Vice Mayor Crais stated that he has one concern with the way the Bryn Du Governance Commission is set up. He stated that two of the selected committee members are married and he is uncomfortable with this. Vice Mayor Crais stated that he lives by the principal that if his wife is on a committee, he would purposely not be on that particular committee.
Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she too has the same type of concern.
Councilmember Herman stated that he is not at the same place. He stated that he can see the need for this being addressed in future decisions by Council, but feels uncomfortable with the issue being raised now.
Councilmember Barsky stated that she agrees with Councilmember Herman. She stated that it would be judicious of Council to address this kind of issue in the future.
Councilmember Main stated that he agrees with Councilmember Herman and now is not the time to make these kinds of changes. He went on to say that if we are concerned about married people serving on the same committee, should Council also look further into all relatives, such as father/son – mother/daughter, etc.
Various members of Council stated that this issue has been discussed lengthy.
Councilmember Hartfield stated that she does not recall this issue being brought up during a Council meeting.
Mayor Robertson stated that it has been raised with the people involved.
Councilmember Hartfield stated that this has not been raised by the Chamber of Commerce.
Council stated that there are many people (including married couples) wishing to get involved in the village, and that this issue should be looked at for future decisions.
Mayor Robertson stated that there appears to be a general consensus by Council that the rules should be modified so this doesn’t happen in the future. She asked if the legislation can be changed and that this is something that should be considered and revisited. She went on to say that Council is free to not be a rubber stamp here. She stated that the names put forth are simply recommendations. Mayor Robertson stated that Council should remember that the village owns this property and we are being generous in sharing it with all of our friends and neighbors. She stated that a precedence should be set that whoever is nominated or recommended by the other parties will not necessarily be accepted by Council.
Councilmember Herman ended by stating that there are some risks involved by having married individuals serve on the same committee. He suggested that we move on with the faith that the individuals involved will make the situation work fine and he wished all of the committee members well on getting on with the work that is ahead of them.
Motion carried (7-0). Resolution No. 04-30 is adopted
Ordinance No. 05-04, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 26-03 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2004 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses was introduced by Councilmember Herman. Second by Councilmember Main.
Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for April 21, 2004.
Krone Appeal – Law Director Crites stated that he was not in attendance for the March 17 Appeal hearing. He stated that Council’s decision would need to come from the evidence put forth during that hearing. Law Director Crites stated that Section 1137.01 of the Codified Ordinance states that Council shall make its decision no later than the regularly scheduled Council meeting after the appeal hearing. Council then is allowed 45 days to formalize its decision in writing. He stated that Council will need to debate, discuss, and orally state what their decision will be. Law Director Crites suggested that a motion be used to announce Council’s decision and that he would prepare in written Resolution to formalize the decision within 45 days.
Councilmember Main asked Law Director Crites if Council’s decision comes down to a preponderance of evidence that there is a safety issue. He stated that this was what was directed by Assistant Law Director Gorry. Councilmember Main wished to know what the decision comes down to.
Law Director Crites stated that Council needs to make a determination based on evidence that is on record from the March 17th hearing. He stated he read that there were engineers that stated on record that safety was not a hazard. He went on to say that this is evidence that can and should be considered by this Council. He stated that Council’s decision must be based on the evidence – probative, relative, and material evidence.
Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the basis of safety was 250 feet for site and stopping distance. She stated that this accounted for just one side of the road (North) and should the South side of the road also be considered.
Councilmember Main stated that that particular evidence put forth shows no change because it showed only site and stopping distance. This is different than what evidence Mr. Krone put forth in regards to driveway spacing.
Councilmember Barsky stated that she has some concern because there hasn’t been a traffic study done on Milner Road. She stated that it is clear that the site and stopping distance meet the requirements, but it is also clear that this road has changed and could now be considered as a collector road. Councilmember Barsky stated that both parties during the hearing referred to the Licking County Subdivision Regulations. She stated that it was used by the parties when it was to either sides benefit.
Mayor Robertson stated that this comes down to an issue of safety. She asked how this would be handled if the entire property was located in the village
Chris Strayer, Village Planner, stated that if the entire property were in the village, there would be a traffic study done, but not an extensive one. He stated that the village owns the road, but the land belongs to the township. He stated that under village requirements for subdivisions, anything over five lots would not be allowed. It was stated that nine lots were originally proposed in this case. Mr. Strayer stated that the current set up would not be allowed. He also stated that there likely would be one thru roadway, under the village regulations. Mr. Strayer stated that with this particular issue the attorney’s got together and decided the coarse of action should be transportation, since the village’s only concern is the road. Mr. Strayer stated that the attorney’s agreed it came down to a matter of safety.
Vice Mayor Crais stated that “the lot split, put crudely, is none of our business.”
Councilmember Herman stated that on page 70 of the appeal hearing minutes, it was asked if the volume of traffic enters into consideration with curb cuts. It was stated that it does not. Councilmember Herman stated that considering traffic volume might make sense to us, but it doesn’t enter into at least one traffic engineers method who testified that they don’t do it that way in Delaware County.
Councilmember Barsky stated that on page 68, the traffic engineer was asked if it would be wise to know the traffic of the road and he stated that it would certainly be nice to know if it affects the safety of the road. She stated that when the Krone’s built ten years ago, the nature of the road was much different.
Councilmember Herman asked if she was speaking in terms of policy or as the matter before us right now.
Councilmember Barsky stated that the safety issue was never really addressed because we don’t have the adequate information. She stated that we need to consider the safety of the citizens. Councilmember Barsky stated that this is a health and safety issue, and she feels a bit uncomfortable and not sure how this should be handled.
Vice Mayor Crais stated that it strikes him that the safety issue is a matter complicit in the entire process.
Mayor Robertson stated that she was not at the Council meeting the night of the hearing, however, she has studied the transcript. She stated that it occurs to her that implicit in our subdivision regulations is that safety demands one entrance. She stated that she recalls a slide during the MORPC presentation where there was a large empty farm field with a road in front. She stated that there were many roads/driveways leading in. Mayor Robertson asked Mr. Strayer why the village has the subdivision regulations, and what are the underlying principles behind them.
Mr. Strayer stated that they are growth management principles. He stated that it is due to a variety of reasons such as agriculture protection, open space protection, community character, quality of life, and safety.
Mayor Robertson stated that Mr. Strayer did mention safety.
Councilmember Main stated that suppose Council were to approve the curb cuts, what are the chances the plan would be turned down.
Mr. Strayer stated that if Council approves it, it will be approved by Licking County Planning Commission. He stated that if Council doesn’t approve the curb cuts, it will 100% be denied, and the individuals involved would need to go back to the drawing board.
Councilmember Main asked if our Planning Commission knew that when they voted on this.
Mr. Strayer stated yes.
Councilmember Barsky asked Mr. Strayer what defines a minor collector road.
Mr. Strayer stated that he would rather not answer that questions because he is not a traffic expert.
Councilmember Herman stated that with the current regulations, volume is not looked at. Rather, he stated, that they look at things like site and stopping distance and speed. He stated that this appears to be the standard. Councilmember Herman stated that lets say Council chooses to remand, than what criteria does Council give to our Planning Commission as to what the appropriate volume is. He stated that it seems we need to have some reasonable basis of knowing that beforehand. Councilmember Herman stated that Council is not in a position to do that at this time. He stated that the preponderance of evidence supports this decision. He stated that if some standards were put into place before an applicant comes forward, it would be a different matter.
Vice Mayor Crais stated that Doyle Clear suggested moving the curb cuts from nine to seven. He asked why this was done.
Mr. Strayer stated that any information provided by Mr. Clear was provided to Council and not to the Planning Commission. He stated that Mr. Clear indicated that the nine curb cuts meet the criteria, but it would be better to reduce them to seven because some of the site distances were a bit short.
Vice Mayor Crais asked if Mr. Strayer recalls that Mr. Clear looked at both sides of the road.
Mr. Strayer stated yes, he looked at both sides.
Mayor Robertson asked if there was any discussion of any more sharing of driveways.
Mr. Strayer stated that this wouldn’t work for some driveways due to the topography and a gas line. It was stated that driveways 2 and 3 could be combined, but this was not discussed.
Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Council should consider the rights of the property owners having access to a road when making their decision.
Law Director Crites stated he was not there for the hearing. He asked if anyone else could shed some light on this and answer Councilmember O’Keefe’s question.
Mr. Krone objected to the opposing side speaking to Council. He stated he was denied the chance to give further testimony during the Planning Commission meeting.
Vice Mayor Crais stated he may be able to shed some light on this and that it was his recollection that Council cannot say that you cannot have a driveway. He stated that Council was instructed that they cannot act arbitrarily, but we have to have some kind of grounding.
Law Director Crites stated that if Council does not like the evidence before them, they can remand and ask for further information.
Mayor Robertson asked Council if there are criteria to remand. She stated that if they were to remand, they need to have a specific list of needed information. She asked if we have such a list.
Councilmember Barsky stated that she would like to know if Milner Road is considered a minor collector and if so is volume then considered.
Councilmember Herman stated that he asked the engineer if it is a collector is volume entered into the equation and he said no, at least not in Delaware.
Councilmember Barsky stated that she would like to know if volume is considered by Licking County.
Vice Mayor Crais asked if a remand could be made with specific instructions.
Law Director Crites stated yes, and he would suggest that if it is done it should be with specific instructions.
Councilmember Main asked if Council would use the Planning Commission’s decisions and not starting from scratch in the case of a remand. Councilmember Main asked if the Planning Commission felt they had adequate information to make the decision they did.
Councilmember Hartfield stated she attended the second meeting and it was her opinion that the Planning Commission was driving for the lowest number of curb cuts possible.
Councilmember Main also asked if it was the Planning Commission’s opinion that the safety issues were answered to their satisfaction.
Councilmember Hartfield stated that she believes all but one person (Karl) was satisfied.
Councilmember O’Keefe stated she attended the first meeting only.
Mayor Robertson stated that not all members were in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting. She knows Jack Burgess was not there.
Councilmember Herman stated that he would like to ask this in a different way. He stated that more importantly than the Planning Commission’s satisfaction is did they feel with the criteria they had to work with that they were able to render a decision that was congruent based on what they had.
It was stated that the attorney’s on both sides agreed that this was a transportation issue and that it is why it is now before Council.
Vice Mayor Crais stated that he is sympathetic to a lost situation. He stated that he is not happy, the Planning Commission acted reasonably with the criteria they had at that time. He went on to say that in the future he feels there will be significant safety issues in that area.
Councilmember Main stated that he too is not in love with the lot split in any way. On the other hand, he stated that this is not what Council is being asked to rule on. Councilmember Main stated that he is unsure what the level of safety should be considered on. He asked if it should be safe – barely safe – how safe should it be. Councilmember Main stated that he agrees with Councilmember Herman and Vice Mayor Crais. He stated that he is “comfortable” and not “real comfortable.”
Vice Mayor Crais stated that he was not impressed with Ms. Cummings testimony and the way the data was manipulated. He stated “I feel in no other position.”
Councilmember Barsky asked if Council should throw up their hands because we don’t have the sufficient date where needed. She asked what is the volume. How does Licking County define a minor collector, is there a disconnect where you question the safety, and lastly are the north and south sides both considered with the 250 feet space requirements.
Councilmember Barsky made a motion to remand to the Planning Commission with specific criteria which includes:
-definition of a minor collector and whether or not Milner is considered a minor collector -does the definition include traffic volume -are we obligated to follow Licking County regulations or other -do we consider both sides of the road (north and south)
The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Crais.
Councilmember Herman stated that those are the questions, but what will be done with the answers.
Councilmember Hartfield asked if Council would make the final decision after the answers are found out – not the Planning Commission. It was stated that Council would make the final decision.
Law Director Crites stated that the Planning Commission will simply consider any additional evidence in the rendering of its decision. He stated that another appeal hearing could take place on that decision.
Mayor Robertson asked if drainage of the property was ever looked at.
Mr. Strayer stated that the Planning Commission did not look at drainage, and that they didn’t feel storm water or run off would be an issue.
Mayor Robertson stated that she would like to see the final Resolution have language stating that if there is a drainage problem, the responsible party should have to fix it.
Roll Call: Barsky, Crais, Herman (no), Robertson, O’Keefe, Hartfield, Main (no) (5, 2) The Krone Appeal is remanded with the specifically listed criteria above.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Vice Mayor Crais moved to enter into Executive Session Pursuant to ORC 121-22(G)(3) – To conference with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of imminent court action. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Roll Call: Robertson, Crais, Barsky, Hartfield, Herman, Main and O’Keefe.
Vice Mayor Crais moved to return to regular session. Second by Councilmember Hartfield. Roll Call: Crais, Robertson, Hartfield, Main, O’Keefe, Herman, and Barsky.
Council returned to regular session.
OLD BUSINESS Ordinance No. 03-04, An Ordinance To Authorize The Village Manager To Enter Into A Lease Agreement With St. Luke’s Episcopal Church For The Lease Of 118 South Main Street, was tabled by Councilmember Main. Second by Vice Mayor Crais.
Discussion: Council stated this would be addressed at the April 21 Council meeting.
Ordinance No. 04-04, An Ordinance to Adopt The 2001 Review Updates to the Granville Comprehensive Plan was introduced by Councilmember Barsky. Seconded by Vice Mayor Crais. Discussion: Councilmember Barsky stated that they looked at the recommendations by the 2001 committee. She stated that Trustee Jim Havens has indicated that he felt the committee failed to address what they were charged to do. Councilmember Barsky stated that it needs to be clear what the charge is. She went on to say that the report you see is as is with some modifications. There was some discussion on how the report would be used by Council. Councilmember Barsky stated that it is her view that Council is accepting the report, but not necessarily agreeing with all that is in it. She also stated that it is her belief that the Trustees are not doing anything with the report.
Councilmember Main stated that the Trustees did send the report to their zoning and planning boards, and he believed they would be using it as a guideline.
Mayor Robertson offered the following friendly amendment: In Section I: strike “is” and replace with “are” and after the word “adopted” add “as they apply to the village.”
Mayor Robertson thanked the people who worked on this. She also asked that they be invited to a future Council meeting to be thanked in person. Councilmember Barsky added that she had thank you letters sent to each member stating that Council has taken a look at the work they did.
Roll call vote: Crais, Barsky, Hartfield, Herman, Main (no), O’Keefe, Robertson. (6-1) Motion carried. Ordinance No. 04-04 is adopted.
Council moved to table the remaining of the agenda.
Mayor Robertson reminded Councilmembers about the April 17th bowling at 10:30am.
Councilmember Hartfield asked if the Lights, Safety, Streets/Sidewalks & Utility Committee could meet to discuss outstanding matters. An April 16th meeting was set up.
Mayor Robertson asked if Councilmembers could send their interest for the Small Intergovernmental Committee to her. Councilmember Main stated he would be interested in Infrastructure and Development. Councilmember O’Keefe stated she would be interested in Safety.
ADJOURNMENT At 11:40pm, Vice Mayor Crais moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Councilmember Barsky. Motion carried, 7-0. Meeting adjourned.
Submitted by Melanie Schott