Ordinance Review - October 13th 2015

Oct 13, 2015  

The Ordinance Review Committee met in regular session on Tues, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:05 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center Conference Room. Chairman Bill Marquardt presided.      


Present: Mr. Bill Marquardt (Chairman), Mr. Jerry Catalano, Mr. Jim Farmer (arrived 5:10 pm), and Mr. John Marrelli

Absent: Mrs. Mary Ann Wervey, Mr. Tom Cappello (Village Engineer), Dr. Stephan Parker (Council Alternate), and Mr. Mark Guidetti (Law Department)

Also Present: Ms. Deborah Garbo (Secretary)

CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: Sept 8, 2015              

Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mr. Catalano made a motion to approve the minutes of Sept 8, 2015.              


Ayes:   All                        

Nays:   None              

Motion Carried. Minutes Approved As Written.


  1. Chapter 505; Animals and Fowl
    Section 505.15; Keeping Animals near Dwellings
  2. Drainage and Infrastructure Committee
    Amendment Section 955.04
    Proposed Ordinance No. 2015-24


Chapter 505; Animals and Fowl
Section 505.15; Keeping Animals near Dwellings

Chairman Marquardt called the meeting to order. We have new wording based on what we discussed last meeting;

(d)   In regard to chickens, no person shall harbor or maintain rooster(s) on his property. In order to harbor or maintain hens on the property, the owner shall construct a chicken coop on the premises for such animals which shall be at least 10 feet from any property line and at least 100 feet from any dwelling on any adjacent property.

Is there any concern about “chicken” vs. other birds?

Mr. Marrelli said, we have not in my time period ever had a request for any other kind of birds like pigeons or turkeys. The only request in the past five years has been for chickens, for their eggs.


Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mr. Catalano made a motion to adopt amendments to Chapter 505 Section 505.15 as discussed.  

Chairman Marquardt asked if any other discussion.

Chairman Marquardt said this should now address the proximity to dwellings.

Mr. Marrelli said, it’s 100 feet from any dwelling, that’s yours or the neighbors. That should be enough distance to allay any fears of contamination being airborne.


Ayes:   Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Catalano, Mr. Marrelli               

Nays:   None                                                

  Motion Carried. Recommendation to Council.


955.04 Drainage and Infrastructure Committee
Proposed Amendment

Chairman Marquardt said the next item on the agenda is a proposed amendment. It proposes to change the requirement of the Committee to consist of three (3) Council members, two (2) of which shall be “At Large”.

Chairman states, I feel compelled to throw out the history of this, the rationale for having (3) “At Large” Council members as Committee members. Number one, Drainage and infrastructure was to look at drainage issues as they were brought up and look at them as they impact across Wards, across the Village altogether. That’s one of the reasons for having the (3) “At Large” Council members. The other reason was to avoid any appearance of impropriety where you might have somebody that was requesting something in a Ward and you might have a Ward Councilperson that’s advocating or at least the appearance of that Ward Councilperson advocating for that particular neighbor or that particular person bringing it up. In order to avoid that was to have (3) “At Large” Council people designated to be the ones that were serving on the Committee. It’s the only Committee in the Village that restricts the members on Council. That was the logic behind it.

Mr. Farmer arrives @ 5:10 pm

Mr. Marrelli said that makes sense, so that you don’t have anybody politicking (if you will) for their neighborhood.

Chairman Marquardt said, or at least anybody feeling that someone is politicking. That appearance of impropriety was part of the concern. Not having anybody saying that you had someone that was advocating specifically for them from the Ward. The reason for the request here is strictly for convenience.

Mr. Marrelli asked, in what way?

Chairman Marquardt replied, because the Council President wants to put George Williams on the Committee. He’s Ward 4, not “At Large”. In my mind, that brings up the question of do you change an Ordinance for convenience ignoring the logic that went behind it in the first place.

Mr. Marrelli asked, who has authority to pick and choose the one Councilperson that’s not “At Large”?

Chairman Marquardt replied, the Council President.

Mr. Marrelli said, I’d like everyone to be “At Large”. This is a Village wide issue. It’s not a district specific issue.

Chairman Marquardt said, I don’t know that they have functioned the way it was originally intended. It was to look at these things and say, which of these problems is going to have the biggest bang for the buck with a limited number of recourses. Example is this guy has this problem and it’s going to impact other lay people downstream.

Mr. Marrelli agreed. You want to get the biggest value you can out of any given project.

Chairman Marquardt said right. That way, if you have “At Large” Council members, theoretically they would be looking at the Village as a whole as far as determining the bigger picture. That was kind of the intent of the thing.

Mr. Marrelli asked, are we being asked to review the wording of the Ordinance or the intent of the Ordinance?

Chairman Marquardt replied, the change request.

Mr. Marrelli states, my opinion is it should stay at (3) “At Large”. Drainage and Infrastructure is throughout the Village, not Ward specific. Not that anybody in a given Ward would make it more specific. I think the original design as you stated Bill was so that the (3) “At Large” could represent the entire Village fairly. Jim, the gist of this is they want to take the (3) “At Large” and make it (2) “At Large” and one appointment. It’s the Council President’s choice which Councilperson he would appoint.

Chairman Marquardt said, the way it was originally set up, there isn’t a problem.

Mr. Marrelli agreed. The (3) “At Large” removes any possibility of impropriety or favoritism.


Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mr. Farmer made a motion to deny the change request and keep at three (3) “At Large” Council members, the way it was originally designed.    

Chairman Marquardt asked if any other discussion.

Mr. Farmer asked, is our Legal representative going to be here tonight? They may have some reason, but I don’t know what it is.

Mr. Marrelli replied, no.

Chairman Marquardt said I did talk to our Council President. He wants George Williams on. There was no rationale relative to the logic of the Ordinance. It was more a matter of convenience.

Mr. Farmer states, that’s not a reason to change.

Mr. Marrelli states, let me offer this. Because we don’t have Legal representation tonight, if the Legal department comes back with a further explanation, this could be re-visited.

Chairman Marquardt said, I don’t think they were planning on passing it without three readings.

Mr. Marrelli said, without somebody coming to us and saying this is what’s going on, this is why we’re doing it and here’s the reasons pro & con. Without that, I don’t think this should be changed.

Chairman Marquardt states, this is nothing to do with George Williams or any other Council person.

Note: Mr. Marrelli states, I reserve the right to re-visit this if the Law Department comes back with some substantiation that would be any different than a matter of convenience.

Mr. Farmer notes a typo in Ordinance No. 2015-24, Section 3, directed to forward. The word to needs to be inserted.


Ayes:   Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Catalano, Mr. Marrelli               

Nays:   None                                                  

Motion Carried. Recommendation to Council.



Chairman Marquardt asked if there’s any other matters for discussion.

Section 505.131;
Maximum Number of Dogs Permitted: Prior acquisition not affected.

Mr. Marrelli said a question came up today on something we had done previously. I couldn’t answer it. We passed an Ordinance in 2013 on the number of dogs allowed in a home. We were asked to look at the animal section back then and we came up with an amendment that any homeowner could have no more than 3 dogs. The wording also said “prior acquisition not affected”. There’s no explanation as to what prior acquisition means. Somebody has 4 dogs and wants to move into the Village. They would qualify as having the prior acquisition, but they are not a resident yet. They want to buy a house here. Their deal is on the table and they have 4 dogs. What do we do? I’m pretty sure we never intended on having anybody have to get rid of one of their dogs to make that number.

Mr. Farmer states, what would prevent somebody that has 10 dogs from moving into the Village? This isn’t a good precedence.

Mr. Marrelli agrees.

Chairman Marquardt said, I’ll throw another question out. What if somebody has 3 dogs and they acquire another one and you find out. How do you enforce it? How do you prove when they acquired it?

Mr. Marrelli replied, that’s a minor misdemeanor. That could be a $50 fine possibly. I’m going to approach the Law Department tomorrow for their opinion on this burning issue. It’s under General Offenses which is enforced by the Police Department.

Mr. Farmer said there’s other examples of limiting, not just in talking about dogs.

Mr. Marrelli said we have an occupancy limit. We have a number of persons per so many square foot in a dwelling. If you have 12 or 14 people in your extended family and you’re going to move into a 1500 sq. ft. ranch, it probably wouldn’t work because you’re overcrowding a house.


Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mr. Catalano made a motion for adjournment.


Ayes: All                                                 

Nays: None                          

Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Deborah Garbo
Executive Assistant
Building Department