Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1982 95 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of VILLAGE OF DUBLIN ~6W'1CS Meeting National Graphics Corp., Cols., o. Fonn No. 1097 c(~ II eld October 18, 1982 19 The regular meeting of Council was called to order by Mayor Lewis at 7:30 P.M. with the following members present: Amorose, Chambers, D'Alonzo, Lewis, Maurer, Thornton. Mrs. Headlee was absent from the meeting. Others present were Mr. Sheldon, Village Manager, Mr. Gunner, Assistant Law Director, Mr. Bowman, Vill- age Planner, and Mr. Wolfe, Village Engineer. I Mr. Thornton amended the minutes of the October 4th meeting. He said the para- graph on Ordinance 54A-82 should reflect that a representative from Consumer's Counsel would be invited to attend a meeting of Council and then Council would decide whether or not to request their assistance. Also, referring to the para- graph on Electronic Games, he said his name should not be included with those Councilmembers who felt that there should not be any further action toward amending or repealing the ordinance. Mr. Amorose then moved, seconded by Mr. Chambers to approve the minutes as amended. Vote on the motion was unanimous for approval. Mr. Amorose then moved, seconded by Mr. Thornton, to approve the bill listing for October 19th. Vote on the motion was unanimous for approval. Ordinance No. 56-82 Said ordinance, establishing an Arterial Traffic Plan for Dublin, was read for the second time. The following residents were present to object to the pro- posed plan: Mike Close, 7360 Bellaire Avenue Jim Manus, 7350 Dublin Road Henry Davenport, 4444 Limerick Lane Ralph L. Fisher, 8816 Nairn Court Ted C. Wilkinson, 4445 Limerick Lane The basic concerns were that if the plan were adopted, property values would 'decrease because of the widening of main arteries and scenic roads would be eli- minated. Mr. Wilkinson asked that a public hearing be held. (See further dis- cussion under Council Roundtable Discussion, Mrs. Maurer.) Mr. Thornton expressed concern that the widening of Dublin Road would destroy the scenic character of the road. Mr. Chambers said he would suggest eliminat- ing the line between Dublin Road and Riverside Drive indicating a bridge cross- ing. Ordinance No. 53-82 Said ordinance to amend the Traffic Code regarding mopeds, etc., was a tabled item. Mr. D'Alonzo moved, seconded by Mrs. Maurer, to remove the ordinance from the table. The ordinance had been amended by Mr. Smith to include provi- sions for motorized bikes. Vote on passage of the amended ordinance was unani- mous for approval. Ordinance No. 02B-82 Said ordinance regulating the use of geothermal wells was read for the third time. Mrs. Maurer said she has reviewed the revised ordinance and would like more time to more thoroughly examine the contents. Mrs. Maurer moved, seconded by Mr. Amorose, to table the ordinance. Vote on the motion was unanimous for approval. Ordinance No. 54A-82 Said ordinance to set rates charged by Columbia Gas of Ohio was read for the third time. Mayor Lewis reviewed the status of the ordinance from Columbia Gas, 54B-82, and Council's ordinance 54A-82. He suggested Council table Ordinance No. 54A-82 so that further negotiations and considerations could be discussed Mr. Chambers moved, seconded by Mrs. Maurer,to table the ordinance. Vote on the motion was unanimous for approval. 97 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of VILLAGE OF DUBLIN ~.b Meet ing National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 1097 "'~ 11 eld October 18, 1982 1~ Page Two Mayor Lewis then asked that the representative from the Consumer's Counsel, Mr. Paul Centolella, comment on the proposed uniform gas rate possibilities. Resolution No. 22-82 I Said resolution, authorizing the Manager to contract with C&SOE for street lighting was read for the second time. Ordinance No. 58-82 Said ordinance, proposing to rezone a .874 acre tract located at the northwest corner of W. Dublin-Granville Road and David Road, was introduced by Mrs. Maurer and read for the first time. The ordinance was then referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration and recommendation. Ordinance No. 59-82 Said ordinance amending the 1982 Annual Appropriations was introduced by Mr. Chambers and read for the first time. Mr. Chambers then moved, seconded by Mr. i Thornton, to dispense with the three-time reading rule and pass the ordinance as an emergency. Vote on the motion and the ordinance was unanimous for appro- val. Ordinance No. 60-82 Said ordinance to control establishment and operation of heliports and helistops in the Village was introduced by Mr. D'Alonzo and read for the first time. Columbus representatives - Re: Sanitary Sewer for Columbus Zoo Mr. Sheldon reported that he and Mr. Wolfe met with representatives from Colum- 'bus. He said he is waiting for additional information concerning this project and would bring it back to Council at a later date. Council Roundtable Discussion Mrs. Maurer asked that a public hearing be held on the proposed Arterial Traffic Plan, Ordinance No. 56-82. It was the general concensus of Council that a meeting should be held in which the public could attend to express their con- cerns and/or grievances. Mayor Lewis set the meeting date for November 8th at 7:30 P.M. He added that no action would be taken on the ordinance until after that meeting. He asked Councilmembers to consider suggestions which would make the meeting most productive. Mr. D'Alonzo gave a report on the meeting with School Board members as follows: 1. They announced plans for construction at the Middle School site in September 1984 and would~ like the Village to gi VB consideration to~ closing the road .that runs behind the school. 2. They plan to vacate the old section of the Middle School in the future. Mr. D'Alonzo said it is possible for the Village to make a proposal if they had a use for the building. The Board would like Council's support of the Bond issue and operating levy. 3. The Board would like Council's support of the Bond issue and operating levy. Mrs. Maurer moved, seconded by Mr. D'Alonzo, to support the operating levy and bond issue. Mr. Thornton said as a Councilmember he objected to being asked how he was going to vote on various issues. Mr. Chambers suggested that two motions be made, one to support the bond issue and one to support the operating levy because he plans to support the operating levy but not the bond issue. Mayor 103 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of VILLAGE OF DUBLIN national graoo/CS Meet ing National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Fonn No. 1097 c~J;~ II eld October 18, 1982 19 Page Three Lewis suggested the motion be changed to read Council encourages Village resi- dents to study the two school issues thoroughly before going to the polls. Mrs.1 Maurer indicated she wanted the motion to remain as originally stated. The motion failed with the vote as follows: 2 Yeas - D'Alonzo, Maurer; 3 Nays - Chambers, Lewis, Amorose; I Abstention - Thornton. Mayor Lewis adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. ~ )JJ.~ Clerk of unci! Bill Listinq - October 18, 1982 P.E.R.S. Leslie Edler Key Blue Print, Inc. Columbia Gas of Ohio Gordon Flesch Co., Inc. Ace Portable Toilets Bricker & Eckler Polar Water Company Midwest Chemical & Supply Northern Family Physicians The Kroger Company Xerox Corporation City of Columbus Mrs. Harold Wellinger Columbus Citizen-Journal David Esis Columbus Junior Theatre Christine Norris Nancy O'Hearn Chicago Bridge & Iron Weithman Brothers, Inc. Dublin Abbey Players Wilt Auto Parts BancOhio National Bank Harry T. Greene Dublin Hardware & Paint Rick's Automatic Car Wash Delaware County Materials Franklin Co. Sheriff's Department Dan Tobin Chevy-Olds Photographic Perspectives Medusa Aggregates Central Ohio Welding Co., Inc. Armstrong & Okey Corna & DiCesare Builders Crown Battery Mfg. Co. Fifth Avenue Lumber J. E. Schreiner B. F. Goodrich J. D. Equipment Franklin Co. Engineer C&SOE 3,001.92 89.19 18.41 18.04 121. 55 110.00 612.90 18.35 63.00 56.00 38.92 40.00 3,673.28 10.00 35.55 150.00 133.00 5.00 25.00 39,908.00 69,837.20 27 .00 36.03 83.85 4,068.00 34.75 9.90 19.38 160.00 36.00 37.35 30.32 10.80 33.00 90.00 46.94 60.69 68.02 394.4d 103.51 147.75 3,100.03 Employer's Portion Dinner for Sr. Citizens Saturday night before Play Street Maps Gas Service at 129 S. High St. Paper for Copier Portable Toilets at Scioto Park Prepare Notes for Glick Road Rent Water Cooler for Maintenance Dep t . Trash Can Liners for Parks Physical Exam for Susan Huffman Sr. Citizens Luncheon Maintenance Agree. for Xerox Copier Third Qtr. Sewer tap rebates Reimbursement for Rose bushes Ad for BZA meeting Drafting services for street improvement map Instructor fees Change of Class - O'Hearn to pay Chris Norris Refund Registration fee Progress Payment on Water Tower Application /16 Tickets to Matchmaker - Sr. Citizens Tail lights & Misc. parts for Trucks Payroll processing for September Set stakes for Glick Road Tools for Maintenance Department Wash cruisers for September Blacktop patching Jail fees for September Removal of Police Radio from Trade-in Film & processing for Police Dept. Cul-de-sac at Trails End Rental of oxygen & acetylene cylinders for Maintenance Dept. Report proceedings for BZA meeting Refund Sewer Tap Fee - Overpayment Battery for Cruiser Lumber for frames - Cemetery Lumber for signs in Parks Safety Spot Applications, misc. office supplies Tires for cruisers Parts for tractor mower Repair traffic lights Electricity for street lighting & tra ffic controls Bill Listing - October 18, 1982 (Page 2) National Inst. of Mun. Law Offices Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund Charles E. Headlee Leo Meyers BancOhio National Bank Capital City Excavating John Strutner R. E. Hutchinson Central Ohio Inspection Sera Corroon & Black Payroll Account Payroll Account Softball Supervisors & Umpires TOTAL 170.00 9,391.89 338.25 66.45 11,200.00 145,608.63 221.00 4,070.02 247.10 8,676.00 21,007.99 1,058.00 662.50 329,280.94 Membership for Law Director Employer's portion - Third Qtr. Various office equipment & nameplates (CIC) Uni forms items for new officers Bonds & Coupons due 11/1/82 Est. #4 - Frantz/Post/33 inter. Travel Expenses for ICMA Unleaded gas & motor oil for veh. Electricl Inspections Gen. Liability, package insurance Payroll for full-time employees Payroll for part-time employees Recreation and Park maintenance Softball League Fees DISCUSSION OF BILLINGSLEY OITCH - October 19, 1982 Council Meeting (Residents were present to show slides and to speak to Council about the damages that have occurred to the residents in this area.) Mr. Jezerinac: . there are a couple of solutions the residents have come up with. One is to first of all ask Columbus to come up with more storm water retention ponds. Second,/~g~t~~ltng another down pipe that runs along Sawmill on the east side of Sawmill and it dumps into the 1-270 ditch that goes to the Scioto River.. We could provide bigger ditches bigger culverts in our own area on our own roads and I guess we feel that isn't justified because what we are concerned about is having a ditch that might be 12 feet deep that might be a hazard to children and it would cer- tainly be an additional cost to the Village. . . Steve Smith: I have a few comments in fact a number of comments since I was asked approximately one month ago by Mr. Shawan and the rest of this Council to look into this matter. Since that time Mr. Sheldon scheduled a meeting with the City of Columbus which Mr. Shonkwiler and Mrs. Clymer and some other people attended along with Mr. Wolfe, our Engineer, and I believe one Engineer from the City of Columbus. Since that time Mr. Sheldon has walked the entire ditch with our Engineer, I have been notified as recently as today that there may be some documents in the City of Columbus' offices that indicate their planning and zoning commission equivalent to our P&Z Commission voted against the development in that area. I was just notified of that today. I put a call into Mr. Lachutka's office and I will probably be speaking with him tomorrow. In addition I put a call into Mr. Chalmer Wylies' office today to attempt to hurry up obtaining what I have been advised by the residents is a code of Engingeer study cross section study which has been done on the ditch. I have not seen it. Our Engineer wrote for it approximately two or four weeks ago when Mr. Shawan requested. We have not heard from the corp of Engineers so I felt that perhaps a call to Mr. Wylie might help us. Approximately three days ago, two working days ago, I received a number of cases from Mr. Clymer's offices who lives down there to assist us in our research. I have indicated to Council in a pre- liminary memorandum my thoughts at this time on the matter. We were asked as I say as an administration Mr. Sheldon and myself to look into the matter approximately four weeks ago. I am moving as fast as I can. I am not ready at this point in time to say to Council Dublin should do nothing. My position to Mr. Clymer and I've said it to him privately and I'll say it here publicly is the test for injunctive relief is tremendous. It is irreparable harm on behalf of the parties seeking the injunctive relief. It appears from the photographs that you've circulated and slides that you've shown that it is very possible that a resident may have suffered or may suffer irreparable harm A resident of Dublin. /~u~m not sure that that gives Dublin legal standing to seek injunctive relief. I suggested to Mr. Clymer and I am suggesting again here tonight and my opinion may change when I see the corp of engineer studies or documents of Columbus. That the residents immediately seek injunctive relief and join us as a party we will assist them. I do not think the Village of Dublin at this time with the evidence I have and I do not have any engineer- ing evidence available I have been advised there is engineering evidence available I have not seen it. I have asked/88~hengineer and Mr. Clymer if that stuff is available, if there is documentation if there has been a study done if I could have it. You must understand that with an injuctive relief there will have to be experts that will testify that the only way to solve the problem is an injuction and that no amount of damages and no other relief weighs enough to out weigh an injunction so very well tested principle on irreparable harm. Basically that's where I am with it. I don't know if Mr. Sheldon has anything to add or not. Mrs. Maurer - h w 0 . . . . have you organized as a group to have persons/are In a position of leadership think about what you ought to do as private citizens. Have you thought about getting your own resources together to hire a private attorney to represent your interest because its clear that you have an interest. If your property is being damaged, you are the appropriate party to file a law suit in court. Now have you consulted an attorney? Mr. Chambers: To begin with in the strongest possible terms, allow me to disassociate myself from the comments of Mrs. Maurer with respect to the responsibility of the Village toward its citizens. A Village is nothing but land and people and when an outside force of any kind is causing damage or injury to the land and the people, then I would expect the community to mobilize to do something about it. That is what government is. A way of protecting people from other people and that's just about all it is although we try to make it more. O.K. that is enough philosphy and specifics. In this particular case the fact that exist and the only fact that seems to exist is we've got a heck of a problem. It's apparently getting worse. Now whether the answer is through injuctive relief or whether its a suit against specific developers or individuals, LATTER PART OF THE BILLINGSLEY DITCH DISCUSSION - OCTOBER 19, 1982 COUNCIL MEETING Mr. Chambers - To begin with, in the strongest possible terms, allow me to dis- associate myself from the comments of Mrs. Maurer with respect to the responsi- bility of the Village toward its citizens. A Village is nothing but land and people and when an outside force of any kind is causing damage or injury to the land and the people, then I would expect the community to mobilize to do something about it. That is what government lS. A way of protecting people from other people and that's just about all it is although we try to make it more. O.K. that is enough philosphy and specifics. In this particular case the fact that exist, and the only fact that seems to exist, is we've got a heck of a problem. It's apparently getting worse. Now whether the answer lS through injuctive relief or whether its a suit against specific developers or indivi- duals in Columbus, whether the answer is to do engineering of our own to try to make agreements with Columbus to assist them with their engineering. What- ever it is that needs to be done, it should be done in my opinion. Because the problem is just beginning. Sawmill Road is not completed yet, its hardly begun. Land is still being sold on the east side of Sawmill Road for develop- ment and so the problem is clearly going to get worse and I would like to recommend to this Council that the administration be directed to pursue many courses of action here, all the possible courses of action, if injunctive relief to give us time to do something else, what the other legal avenues might be if that proves impossible, what the engineering solutions primarily would be, and I don't think it makes much difference how much work that takes Charlie, and [what] whether those engineering solutions are east of the river or west of the river doesn't really make any difference to me. We've got to find the solution and persuade somebody to do it or do it ourselves. After the discussion I will make that in the form of a motion Mayor Headlee. Mayor Headlee - Mr. Shawan do you have your motion ready? Mr. Shawan - I intend to disagree also with Mrs. Maurer on this basis that perhaps as the new areas in Dublin develop they will be using Dublin's method of retention of water. Whether it works or not, it's probably the best we know at this particular time. I think we have to bear in mind that a great number of residents across the river didn't have the Dublin priviledge of water retention before they annexed so they have a special problem which is II 2 Mr. Shawan (con'td) completely different from any of the new developments over on this side. So I am going to move that the service of our legal counsel be loaned to the Billingsley Ditch residents [I'll call them that] so that they may file an injunction. A legal cost to be split with the residents on a 50-50 basis to a maximum Village cost of $3,000. I further move that this injunction not be filed until after Columbus City Engineers walk the ditch next week, which they promised, and more importatnly, the Village Attorney Smith is satis- fied that all preliminary research is completed. Mayor Headlee - is there a second to that or any further discussion? Mr. Geese - I would like to have one discussion, all documents before me say that an injunction against the shopping center is not the solution. Now have I head someone say Mr. Shawan - Could I, could I point out that Mr. Smith only said that the Village is not the proper party to seek injunctive relief but damaged residents are the people who should seek a relief with the Village joining that suit. I believe I am correct Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith - Yea, what I said Ronnie is that we, Dublin, would not be successful in obtaining an injunction. That's all I said. The residents, the party seek- ing an injunction is that party, a private citizen or a body of private citi- zens who can prove they have been irrevocably harmed. Mayor Headlee - Is there a second to that? Mr. Lewis - I'll second it. Mayor Headlee - Is there any discussion? Man from Audience (resident of Billingsley Ditch) - First of all if this country were being attacked by the Russians, O.K., and they attacked in Cali- fornia alright and you know I'm here on the other side well I would say I really don't care much about that problem over there so (inaudible) over there to help them. Now Mr. Shawan brought up a point that (inaudible) O.K. let's say the problem was out in California we're being attacked so the residents of California pay 50% of the cost to cut them off. You know you are saying two different things there. You know we're asking you as we proposed our position you know to (in~udible) out something. You know I lucked out once before. I just don't understand this 50-50 you know we'd 3 Man from audience (con'td) be very happy to donate our time and have your engineer come out and go indi- vidually (inaudible) I don't understand. one person is saying one thing about this one part of Dublin and another is saying about well we all ought to go together as a group and I feel that's right and I feel that if that whole area has to be (inaudible) by the property owners as 50% (inaudible). Mayor Headlee - Mr. Smith do you have anything to say? Mr. Smith - Mr. Shawan discussed this with me earlier today and what I said is if I had no conflict of interest which I don't feel I do, and if the resi- dents in total those that I would be representing, or our firm would be repre- senting, wish to sign an agreement to hire our firm, that we would be willing to handle the case since we would probably be in the case anyhow for Dublin and that Dublin would then share the cost. I'm telling you that Dublin cannot and will not on my recommendation and my office seek injunctive relief. I am also telling you that I will continue to do everthing as Mr. Chambers and everybody else on this Council has suggested to help solve the problem whether it be through a damage suit on behalf of Dublin against the developer or through some type of other action. But, I'm telling you Dublin will not be successful in an injunctive suit but that a resident might be and Mr. Shawan is trying to give you an out. He's trying to find a solution for you to work with. That's all I can say. Mayor Headlee - Mr. Shawan do you have anything further? Mr. Shawan - No. Thi s is the motion, its been seconded. I'm not particu- lar! y in "love" with the 50-50 but it did seem fair. Since this is a, it needs to be a residents suit and I think we're gi ving a rather sizeable amount of talent in the Smith and Gunner firm because they've been involved in this water problem in the Village for some period of time and don't have to do an awful lot additional research to bring forth some adequate solu- tions for us. Mr. Chambers - Starting from now assuming that this motion passed, how long might it be before injunctive relief is granted if it ever was? 4 Mr. Smith - Well realistically Mr. Chambers, first I have to have a group of clients known as some association or some individuals that ban together. And they have to do that. O.K. And I don't know if that will take them a week, or a month, or two weeks or ten days. Let's assume that it takes them a month, and let's assume we prepare a complaint for injunctive relief on their behalf and with Dublin named as a party plaintiff. We won't get an injunction at least, we won't even get an injunction hearing for at least 30 days after we file because the rules of Common Pleas Court require answer day which is 28 days after a party's been sued before they even schedule a hearing. However, realistically, until I have engineering studies and expert testimony, there won't be a hearing because I won't schedule one. It could be six months Mr. Chambers. (i7audible) Mr. Chambers - In the meantime the shopping center . . . is that a fair state- ment. What I am really getting at does this course of action offer us enough protection or should we also preceed along engineering lines to find solutions. Mr. Smith - Absolutely. Mr. Chambers - Would you entertain adding that to your motion sir (Mr. Shawan)7 Mr. Shawan - Absolutely. Mr. Chambers - In other words, every course of, I'll put it in words to be added, that every course of action that seems to offer any potential solution will be pursued by the Administration. Is that too broad? Mr. Geese - Well, as far as I am concerned, I think that the Engineering studies and things ought to be funded by the Village of Dublin entirely. And I'd like to think that our staff could be in the position to dedicate alot of time towards this and if not, use outside engineering firms. But I think that that issue is totally Dublin's and is not the residents. And I for one think that Dublin's the blame for some of it or when we annexed it and took it that we didn't solve our problems. So I think the engineerings ours. I'm concerned that this Council has suggested to our City Engineer, Mr. Wolfe,that he starts tomorrow and I want to leave tonight that he starts tomorrow and gives us some plan of action that he can do it quickly. And I would like to vote for the issue on the legal and a separate one for the Engineer. 5 Mayor Headlee - Mr. Lewis did you second the motion? Mr. Chambers - No, we can't entertain the second motion Madam Mayor while we have an active question on the floor. We can entertain an amendment. Mayor Headlee - Would you care to amend the motion? Mr. Shawan - As Mr. Geese mentioned [IJ that has nothing to do with the 50-50 split (inaudible) 100% Mayor Headlee on the engineering cost. Mayor Headlee - Now Mr. Lewis would you amend? Mr. Lewis - I'll second the amendment to (inaudible) motion. Mayor Headlee - O.K. Vote on the motion. Shawan - Yes Maurer - No. I can't agree to the legal portion of that. I would agree to the engineering portion. Lewis - Yes Headlee - Yes Geese - Yes Chambers - Yes Mr. Geese - I would like to make sure that a Councilmember and Mr. Jezerinac to report to write a summary of what's gone on in the last two weeks, a written summary. Do you have any problem with that Sherm and Charlie. Mr. Sheldon - No. (inaudible) Mr. Smith - Mr. Jezerinac, if someone from your group would contact my office tomorrow we would be happy to get you in and discuss which way we're pulling.