Village of Granville
October 5, 2011
CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Hartfield at 7:30pm)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Barsky, Lerner, McGowan, Mershon, O’Keefe, Vice Mayor Herman, Mayor Hartfield, Law Director Crites and Village Manager Stilwell.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember McGowan moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Councilmember Barsky. Motion carried 7-0.
CITIZEN COMMENTS (7:31pm)
As no one appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed Citizen Comments at 7:32pm.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:32pm)
Ordinance No. 30-11, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1305.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Amend Zoning Fees
Planner Terry made a presentation updating the proposed amendments to the zoning based on questions posed by Council during their previous meeting.
Planner Terry advised Council that the need to update the zoning fees was to address discrepancies in fees that no longer exist due to changes in the zoning code, to address issues of continuity between the zoning fees and the zoning code, the zoning fees had not been updated since 2005 and in response to requests from residents and Council regarding fee structure.
Planner Terry provided Council with a summary of the changes in the proposed amendment that would be most noticeable:
- A clarification of the language regarding the fees charged for both a Transportation Corridor Overlay District and the Architectural Review Overlay District.
- Clarification of what constitutes a minor revision versus a major revision to a development plan.
- The cost to file an appeal to Council.
- Removal of the encroachment easement fee as Council has addressed this issue by ordinance.
- Cost to reproduce a map based on the going rate.
- The addition of an inspection fee of 6% of the total cost of construction for major development projects. This fee was not intended to be a cost for single, residential homeowners.
- A fee for new structure commercial/institutional public use fee.
Councilmember McGowan asked why fees were being reduced. He questioned how much money the Village would be losing by reducing these fees. Planner Terry indicated that she did not know the amount of revenue that would be lost in regard to the reduction of the BZBA and Planning Commission fee reductions. She indicated that the current $500 BZBA variance fee was onerous to many small local business owners trying to locate in the Village. She indicated that the removal of the temporary sign permit fee would be negligible as very few people ever pulled a permit. Planner Terry indicated that the removal of that fee was intended to encourage residents to seek permits for those signs as very few temporary sign permits were requested currently, but many signs were posted. There was currently no penalty for posting the signs. Staff generally just removed signs or contacted that poster requesting that the signs be removed. Planner Terry indicated that by removing the fee, the planning department would be proactive in advising organizations of the requirements and process for securing temporary sign permits.
Councilmember Mershon asked the rationale for not requiring a fee for the extension of a zoning fee application. Planner Terry indicated the current zoning code allows the Village Manager to extend the permit for one additional year based on extenuating circumstances.
Ordinance No. 32-11, An Ordinance Providing for the Issuance of Not to Exceed $359,000 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 Acquiring the Mansion building Property Located at 537 Jones Road for Village Purposes
As no one else appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed the public hearing at 7:58pm
Ordinance No. 30-11, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1305.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Amend Zoning Fees was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember Barsky. Second by Councilmember Lerner.
Councilmember Barsky suggested that the language regarding the public utility inspection needed clarification to ensure that enforcement was for major projects, not single, residential projects like sidewalk replacements or installations. Manager Stilwell indicated that the inspection fee was only to apply to development type projects involving municipal connections.
Vice Mayor Herman made a motion to amend Ordinance No. 30-2011 to add the language “excluding maintenance to existing residential sidewalks.” Second by Councilmember O’Keefe.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to amend Ordinance No. 30-2011 to exclude maintenance on existing residential sidewalks: Barsky (yes); Lerner (yes); McGowan (yes); Mershon (yes); O’Keefe (yes); Vice Mayor Herman (yes); Mayor Hartfield (yes). Motion passed 7-0. Ordinance No. 30-2011 was amended.
Councilmember McGowan indicated that a temporary sign fee should be continued. Councilmember Lerner indicated that she felt non-profit organizations should be excluded from a fee. Councilmember Barsky indicated that she preferred enforcement of the code with a penalty attached for violations. Councilmember Mershon suggested that the Village should set criteria, make it available to the community and not require a permit with enforcement for non-compliance. Councilmember O’Keefe commented that there was a proliferation of junky signs. She suggested that the criteria for a temporary sign be included on the Village’s website and permit applicants to apply online. Councilmember Barsky indicated that this information needed to be disseminated to the public. Manager Stilwell indicated that Village staff would make an effort to contact non-profit organization and advise them about the Village’s temporary sign provisions.
Councilmember McGowan advised Village staff that there were two signs in the right-of-way at the southwest corner of South Pearl Street and East Broadway and the northeast corner of Centenary Methodist Church.
Councilmember Mershon indicated his support for an increase in the cost to appeal a decision to Council. He commented that maintaining access to Council was the wrong purpose to keep the cost of an appeal down. The purpose of an appeal hearing was not to take a second bite out of the apple because someone did not like a BZBA or Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Mershon listed that following points as to why the appeal fee should be raised or concerns about the appeal process.
- There are significant additional costs to appeal a decision including legal fees and court recorder costs.
- The Planning Commission and BZBA use their judgment when reviewing an application and making a decision. Appeals should possibly not come to Council as Council could apply non-code views to an application.
- The cost of an appeal could be assessed to the appellant.
- The Planning Commission recommended that Council increase the fee for an appeal.
- The Village should attempt to recover the costs of any action; although, the $500 fee may be a little too high.
Vice Mayor Herman indicated that his position was unchanged and disagreed with Councilmember Mershon. He was not in support of limited a resident’s access to Council, which he felt increasing the cost of an appeal would accomplish.
Councilmember O’Keefe commented that the Planning Commission did not make decisions on a political basis. The Commission made thoughtful decisions. Appeals to Council should be a serious matter, not something frivolous. Vice Mayor Herman asked if Councilmember O’Keefe felt that Council had heard any frivolous appeals. Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that Council had not heard any frivolous appeals. Councilmember Mershon commented that he felt the last three appeals to Council were appeals brought to Council in hopes of getting a different second opinion or second guessing the decision made by the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Herman indicated that it was not a good policy to change the fee due to a perceived motivation. Increasing the fee would still be limiting access to government.
Mayor Hartfield commented that appeals to Council provided neighbors/residents a venue when they have different opinions regarding decisions made about improvement projects. Village Council should provide residents the ability to question governmental decisions. The appellant’s motivation was not the issue. The issue was a chance to provide a process to access government.
Councilmember Mershon made a motion to reduce the fee to make an appeal to Council from $500 to $300. Second by Councilmember McGowan.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to amend Ordinance No. 30-2011 to reduce the appeal to Council fee from $500 to $300: Lerner (no); McGowan (yes); Mershon (yes); O’Keefe (yes); Barsky (no); Vice Mayor Herman (no); Mayor Hartfield (no). Motion failed 3-4. Ordinance No. 30-2011 was not amended.
Vice Mayor Herman made a motion to reduce the appeal to Council fee from $500 back to $150. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Councilmember Barsky indicated that she understood the need to cover the costs of an appeal, but it did not seem appropriate to put that additional cost burden on the residents.
Councilmember Mershon indicated that the purpose of an appeal should not be to get seven different people to give an opinion different from the Planning Commission’s decision. The residents who file an appeal should pay the costs of that appeal.
Vice Mayor Herman commented that many costs currently applied to applicants did not cover the actual cost of the process. If the issue was not broke, do not fix it.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to amend Ordinance No. 30-2011 to reduce the appeal to Council fee from $500 to $150: McGowan (no); Mershon (no); O’Keefe (no); Barsky (yes); Lerner (yes); Vice Mayor Herman (yes); Mayor Hartfield (yes). Motion passed 4-3. Ordinance No. 30-2011 was amended.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 30-2011 as amended: Mershon (yes); O’Keefe (yes); Barsky (yes); Lerner (yes); McGowan (no); Vice Mayor Herman (yes); Mayor Hartfield (yes). Motion passed 6-1. Ordinance No. 30-2011 was approved as amended.
Ordinance No. 32-11, An Ordinance Providing for the Issuance of Not to Exceed $359,000 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 Acquiring the Mansion building Property Located at 537 Jones Road for Village Purposes was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Barsky
Councilmember Barsky asked the amount of principal usually paid at the end of the bond year. Manager Stilwell indicated that historically the Village was paying about $100,000 toward principal.
Councilmember Mershon questioned if the Village should just pay the balance of the note. Manager Stilwell indicated that staff had not budgeted funds to pay off the note. He also indicated that the note was due on December 1, 2011, which left little time to determine funding availability. He indicated that staff could include that item as part of the 2012 fiscal year.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 32-2011: Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Barsky – yes; Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; Vice Mayor Herman - yes; Mayor Hartfield - yes. Motion passed (7-0). Ordinance No. 32-2011 was approved.
Resolution No. 11-52, A Resolution to Award the Contract for the Purchase of Water Treatment Chemicals to Mid-Ohio Valley Lime, Inc. was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Barsky
Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve Resolution No. 11-52. Motion carried 7-0. Resolution No. 11-52 approved.
Resolution No. 11-53, A Resolution to Award the Contract for Ultra-Violet Disinfection and Air Piping Systems for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Authorize the Village Manager to Enter into an Agreement for Said Project with Doll-Layman Ltd., Upon Receipt of Funding From the Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Councilmember Mershon asked if the Village would still proceed with the project should the loan application be rejected. Manager Stilwell indicated that with the current aeration leaks and issues with the chlorination process, the Village would need to proceed with the project. Wastewater Superintendent Holmquist added that the replacement of the air piping system was 100% necessary as the Village was currently in violation of Ohio EPA guidelines.
Councilmember Mershon asked the likelihood that the loan would not be received. Village Engineer Turner indicated that he anticipated that the Village would receive the loan, but the process was under a time constraint.
Councilmember O’Keefe asked about the reliability of the contractor. Engineer Turner indicated that he had not worked with this contractor previously; however, he called many references, which provided overwhelming recommendations of the firm.
Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve Resolution No. 11-53. Motion carried 7-0. Resolution No. 11-53 approved.
Resolution No. 11-54, A Resolution to Authorize the Village Manager to Auction or Advertise for Bids for the Sale of Surplus Equipment was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Councilmember Lerner asked the process for residents to view and/or recover lost or stolen bicycles. She indicated that she tried to retrieve a bicycle that was stolen and had a difficult time getting access to the bicycles. The issue was resolved, but it was difficult. Councilmember McGowan indicated that perhaps the Village could provide a day for public inspection. Manager Stilwell indicated that he had not seen the bicycles and was not aware of any issues or problems accessing items in police custody. He commented that he was sure that the police chief had done due diligence in securing any lost or stolen property and allowing time for the public to retrieve that property.
Councilmember Mershon asked if the Village had contacted the individual who was so interested in the Village’s vintage traffic signals or the municipality that was interested in the lights. Councilmember Mershon suggested delaying the approval of the resolution. Manager Stilwell indicated that staff could contact those individuals and set the auction for a time after the next Council meeting. This resolution was only asking for permission to sell the lights. Items could be pulled from the sale should the Village decide to keep them or give them to another municipality.
Councilmember McGowan moved to remove the Crouse-Hinds vintage traffic signals from sale and the resolution. Second by Councilmember Mershon.
Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve the amendment to Resolution No. 11-54. Motion carried 7-0. Resolution No. 11-54 was amended.
Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve Resolution No. 11-54 as amended. Motion carried 7-0. Resolution No. 11-54 was approved as amended.
Ordinance No. 33-11, An Ordinance to Create a Capital Project Fund was introduced and a hearing date recommended for October 19, 2011 by Councilmember Barsky. Second by Councilmember O’Keefe.
Mayor Hartfield scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 33-2011 for the October 19, 2011 Council meeting.
Ordinance No. 34-11, An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 22-10 Providing for Adjustments of the Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year 2011 and Revising Sums for Operating Expenses Related to Establishing a Capital Project Fund was introduced and a hearing date recommended for October 19, 2011 by Vice Mayor Herman. Second by Councilmember Barsky.
Mayor Hartfield scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 34-2011 for the October 19, 2011 Council meeting.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
Regularly Scheduled Meeting of September 21, 2011
Councilmember Barsky made a motion to approve the September 21, 2011 minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember Lerner. Motion carried 7-0.
Economic, Finance, Personnel Committee (Council as a Whole)
Granville Foundation (Mershon)
Light, Safety, Streets/Sidewalks, Utility Committee (Hartfield, Herman, McGowan)
Planning Commission (O’Keefe)
Planning & Zoning Committee (Barsky, Hartfield, O’Keefe)
Granville Recreation District (McGowan)
Councilmember McGowan reported that the Granville Recreation District scheduled a public hearing for October 12, 2011 to hear public input regarding the building of a recreation center and an outdoor aquatics facility. Councilmember Barsky commented that the feasibility survey conducted by the Rec District needed to be a broader representative survey. It was not a scientific survey. The results of their survey did not represent the community opinion as compared with previous comprehensive plan surveys. Rec District proposals were going against recommendations made in the comprehensive plan.
Tree & Landscape Commission (Lerner)
Councilmember Lerner indicated that the Commission was working hard on the fall tree planting program.
Union Cemetery (Barsky)
OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS
Councilmember Barsky reported that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee would be meeting on October 6th to confirm the direction in which the Committee wanted to take. The Committee completed their interview process to select an intern to edit the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee selected Seth Brehm, a graduate student from The Ohio State University. The Committee hoped to provide Seth with a clear direction on how to proceed with the editing process. Seth will be working in an office in Village Hall.
Councilmember McGowan commented that he liked the Manager’s weekly newsletters. He indicated that they were informative in nature.
Councilmember Barsky asked staff if Jurgen Pape had been in contact regarding an additional member to the Tree Trimming Committee. Staff indicated that Mr. Pape had been in contact; however, no information had been received regarding the candidate. Councilmember Barsky indicated that she would contact Mr. Pape.
Councilmember McGowan made a motion to adjourn. Second by Vice Mayor Herman. Motion carried 7-0.