_____________________________________________________
Legislative Committee Minutes
JANUARY 14, 2008
Municipal Council of the City of Vermilion
Municipal Complex, 685 Decatur Street
Vermilion, Ohio 44089
In Attendance: S. Holovacs, F. Ostrander, B. Brady, M. Rossini, H. Strickler, D. Roth, J. Gabriel, G. Fisher, Mayor Anderson, D. Squires, C. Schmidt, W. Hamilton, B. Kish.
Call to Order: J. Gabriel, Chairperson, RESOLVED THAT this Legislative Committee comprised of Heidi Strickler, Vice, and Barb Brady, Member does come to order.
TOPIC ONE: STORM WATER ORDINANCE
D. Squires reviewed the revised storm water ordinance as submitted by Kenneth Cassell. He was concerned with items referred to in page 13 where it stated that the developer shall have the option of owning the Storm Water Management Control Facility or dedicating it to the City of Vermilion along with other city utilities. The City shall accept the Storm Water management Control Facility with additional requirements before the facility shall be dedicated. He said the way he reads this is that he has to accept it. He said it could be as simple as saying the City may accept it. He said he has the law director reviewing this.
B. Brady said she attended this meeting with the developers and it seemed that Oster Construction was comfortable with not putting this in. He said in other communities it remains the responsibility of the homeowner’s association or the developer to maintain those. She said this idea came from Mr. Cassell and it really puts a tremendous burden of responsibility on the city to maintain these retention basins. She said there could be some major maintenance with no additional income to take care of them. She didn’t see how council could justify this.
J. Gabriel said if it was to be turned over they would be assessing two additional dollars on the storm water fee totaling a $5 a month fee. B. Brady said this is only on the new ones, but on the existing ones he would want to turn over he didn’t think that would be possible. J. Gabriel asked if the existing ones were part of this discussion. D. Squires said no it would be here on forward. J. Gabriel said if a developer turned this over and the city accepted it then the city could then add another $2 and put it into a fund to maintain it.
H. Strickler said that she didn’t mean to be rude or disrespectful but questioned why the city is allowing developers to write legislation that governs them. She said it is okay for them to give the city input and is glad that they did, but its council’s responsibility and they have to look out for the city. She said that she doesn’t like any of this.
F. Ostrander said he didn’t have a problem with Mr. Cassell writing this but the thing they have to consider is that not every homeowner’s association is going to be around in five or ten years after the subdivision goes up. He said in the early 60’s there was a homeowner’s association but once the developer left then the owners really lost interest in the pool. He said not all developers are as strong as Oster where they have a community building and a strong homeowner’s association. H. Strickler said that they should not be forced to accept this and why should they have to accept the word “shall.”
Skip Griffith of Timberview Drive says when they are talking about a homeowner’s association and if the developer wants to have a strong water system that is regulated by the storm water system, then that is entirely separate from the city, and there should be no city funding of it nor maintenance or repairs. He said the upkeep is the responsibility of the lot owner’s association and they shall be forced to fund their own projects. He said that storm water systems and the sanitary systems are the cities.
Ed Cyrek of 837 Dogwood said that they have a detention basin behind his condo and the concern is that the homeowner’s association may not be around for a long time. He asked what they would do 10 to 20 years down the road if they didn’t have a homeowner’s association. B. Brady said they can deed common land to the homeowners. Ed Cyrek said the storm water management requires the detention basins.
Mayor Anderson asked what kind of tap in fees the city has for developers in new homes. She thought the city was going to look at these fees. She said for the city to pick up the cost of the maintenance of this infrastructure years down the line without really having a funding mechanism is very difficult. She agreed with H. Strickler on the word “shall”. She said there should be some subjectivity involved in this decision making process. She said she would be leery of picking up all the maintenance without having something firm in place to pay for it.
J. Gabriel said if there was a development going in and the city was no part of the retention and they decided it was the developer’s responsibility, and then the company goes under, this isn’t too uncommon in an industry. He said if the city ends up with the maintenance then what will they do because there is no legislative mechanism right now to address that concern. He said in this scenario they at least have $5 a month coming from each of those homeowners.
Ed Cyrek said the reason Ken Cassell put the word “shall” in the ordinance is due more to a time frame assuming that the city was going to accept it before the facility was dedicated. J. Gabriel said in the long run for these basins to be properly maintained at some point the city will have to play a role and come up with a figure that they can spread across these new developments that will permanently enable the city to enforce.
Skip Griffith said anybody that puts in a sanitary sewer system or storm sewer system has to meet certain standards and once the builder puts them in then the city accepts them. He asked why would the city have a problem now with charging them the current storm water fee of $3, whether they have a storm sewer or not. He said if the $3 doesn’t cover a project then there is a forced assessment where the city can go in and repair and charge those people who directly benefit. He didn’t see a major failure in the storm sewer system. He said the city has been accumulating $3 fees and the city hasn’t spent a dime in 40 years, other than a few catch basins in the Valley View area. He didn’t see no reason why there should be a lot owners association involved in storm sewers in any manner, shape, or form.
H. Strickler asked if the city engineer has looked over these revisions. D. Squires stated that the engineer sat in on the meeting but didn’t get his response.
This issue was referred to the next Utilities meeting for further discussion. The committee also asked for the engineer’s opinion on this matter.
TOPIC TWO: GREASE TRAP ORDINANCE 2007-104
D. Squires reported that he followed up with the EPA office regarding the EPA mandates for the CMOM program. He said the city has an overflow and needs to reduce the amount of grease in the sanitary system. He said this ordinance is one way they can monitor it and enforce the restrictions and specifications on the grease traps. He said in a letter to them he addressed Section 3.6.2 whereby the CMOM program requires the City of Vermilion to have a grease trap ordinance. The ordinance has been prepared and has had two readings. However, the city is still unsure if an additional ordinance is needed since we follow the Ohio Plumbers Code. He felt that the city does need the ordinance but asked them to confirm. In response, the Ohio EPA stated that the Ohio Code provides several options of traps that are allowable while the city may have more selective criteria. Basically adopting an ordinance is the city’s chance to put in place requirements that go above and beyond the Ohio Building Code in such a way that will provide a greater confidence of success in their CMOM program. D. Squires felt this response was still ambiguous, so he sent another email asking them if the city would be in violation of our mandated CMOM components. He said he hasn’t got this response but once he does it he hopes it will settle this grease trap ordinance.
J. Gabriel didn’t think council was against the ordinance but felt there were some modifications before it was put into place. H. Strickler said if the EPA says following the plumber’s code is enough then there is no sense in over legislating this issue. B. Brady felt they were worried about the cost to the restaurants. S. Holovacs said he doesn’t have a problem with this but his concern is getting the word out to the businesses before passing an ordinance. He felt they should be given a time table of when they need to get this done. He didn’t think a lot of the restaurants even knew the city was working on this.
This issue was referred to “Old Business” at the next council meeting. NOTE: This matter was later referred to the Utilities meeting of January 28.
TOPIC THREE: Definition of Empty Lots (Recommendation of Planning Commission)
J. Gabriel stated that he put this item on the agenda as a housecleaning matter from the Planning Commission. He said there was a recommendation from Planning Commission which asked council to consider changing a single word in the description under the definition section of Chapter 1260.06(1). He said that Planning Commission felt because of a legal decision that there was mention of the definition of it being vague, therefore, they asked that the word “main” be replaced with the word “permitted”. J. Gabriel said there was law ruling which originated from issues down at Anchor Point. He said according to code it is a single family residence and if you have a house you can have a secondary building. The house is the permitted use of the land but because the law director said the word “main” they have a dock there and the dock could be the main use of the land. He said in his view and the view of the Planning Commission members they felt for 40 years this had been enforced one way, and they felt the intent was one way so by changing this one word they feel it will clarify the definition so it isn’t vague.
Skip Griffith felt it would behoove council to find out what the method of appeal is of a law director’s opinion because this would not hold water five minutes in a court. He said this ruling is so far out of whack it is pathetic and he doesn’t think council should be bound by an assistant law director or law director’s decision that is this far off base. He said this decision was wrong the day it was made and it will be wrong 10 years from now. He said there should be some method to appeal this whether it would be through the county prosecutor or State Attorney General. H. Strickler agreed.
J. Gabriel MOVED; H. Strickler seconded to have legislation prepared to change the word “main” to “permitted” in Chapter 1260.06(1). Discussion: H. Strickler felt it was absolutely ridiculous that council has to change their code because of a law ruling. She said if this keeps it with the intent of the code then she will do it. Mayor Anderson said pursuant to the codes there is a lot of gray language and it has been recommended to her from other officials in other cities that they put time and energy into the codes and eliminate some of things that are gray and redundant. She felt they should go through the codes and clean them up and make them solid. She said she would like to plan for this in the budget by having somebody go through the codes. J. Gabriel said that this is exactly what the Planning Commission is for and it is their intent. He said when there are periods of no meetings they should address these issues instead of cancelling the meeting. Skip Griffith said that before he would spend a minute on changing any of the zoning codes which have been on the books for a good many years, and that have been enforced religiously through this period until now. . . He said the city has a building inspector who will find more excuses not to enforce the code then he does to enforce. He said if the city spends anytime at all revising the code they are wasting their time because you’re not going to get any enforcement. He said, “That man does not intend to enforce our zoning code.” He said the city has an assistant that helps him not enforce it. He said he could show council yards with two or three boats sitting on property lines on the same lot. He said there are three or four cars parked in a yard and you can’t even tell it’s a yard. He said there is not an ounce of enforcement in this town as it goes with the zoning code and the whole code can’t be bad. He said the responsibility sits with the Mayor and the Service Director. S. Holovacs said in 2005 he sat on the legislative committee and they did a lot of clean up on the codes and new codes were passed. He said in the Zoning Board they would come across two codes that were conflicting. He said the old code was never taken out. He said one of the guys that would find these was the building inspector. B. Brady thought the idea of the Planning Commission looking at the code would be a good starting point. Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
TOPIC FOUR: Vermilion Shores PUD Proposed Modification
G. Fisher reported that the city is waiting for additional information that is required from Harry Giltz before proceeding with the scheduling of the public hearing. She said the city engineer and building inspector’s approval is needed as well. She stated that notices will be sent to the property owners of the public hearing date.
F. Ostrander said that since the PUD was originally created and since this is a condominium now, the residents who have bought units should be part owners of this property and feels that more than one person should sign the application because these people are now owners of the common land. B. Brady said she understands that the only lands turned over to the association are the ones that are built on. The lands that are undeveloped are owned by the developer and these are the lands they are talking about for the six story buildings. F. Ostrander thought these people owned a percent of the common ground including the road coming in. He said that once they change the density they change the ownership. B. Brady stated that the six story buildings are owned by the developer and are not part of the association. F. Ostrander thought the law director should look into this.
B. Brady thought the impression of the PUD was to pass it the night of the public hearing, but found this not to be true. She said she would like to take time to discuss this issue after the public hearing before voting on it that same night. G. Fisher noted that they would have to table the third reading that night if this was the wish of council because it would be on the agenda for a third reading that night.
TOPIC FIVE: Gene Rigby – Underground Utilities
D. Squires reported that Mr. Rigby had to leave due to the late meeting night. He asked Council to refer this issue to “New Business” on January 22.
No further discussion was heard, therefore, Chairman Gabriel adjourned the meeting.
Next Meeting: February 11, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Note: Unofficial meeting minutes. Changes may be pending.
1/23/08
_____________________________________________________
