Special Council: January 9th 2017

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL
Reserve Hall – Mayfield Village Civic Center
Monday, January 9, 2017 – Immediately Following Caucus

The Council of Mayfield Village met in Special Session Immediately Following Caucus on Monday, January 9, 2017 in Reserve Hall at the Mayfield Village Civic Center.  Council President Saponaro called the meeting to order at 8:39 p.m.

ROLL CALL: 

Present: Mr. Jerome, Mr. Marrie, Mr. Marquardt, Mrs. Mills, Dr. Parker, Mr. Saponaro, and Mr. Williams

Also Present: Mayor Bodnar, Mr. Wynne, Mr. Diemert, Chief Carcioppolo, Mr. Marrelli, Mr. Metzung, Chief Edelman, Mr. Thomas, Ms. Wolgamuth, and Mrs. Betsa

Absent: Mr. Cappello

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was given.

  • Motion to amend the agenda to include an expenditure not to exceed $10,000 to KD Flooring for the carpet replacement in Civic Hall and ramps to offices.

Dr. Parker, seconded by Mr. Jerome made a motion to amend the agenda to include an expenditure not to exceed $10,000 to KD Flooring for the carpet replacement in Civic Hall and ramps to offices.

Roll Call:

AYES: All
NAYS: None

Motion Carried. Agenda Amended.

  • Motion to approve an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $10,000 to KD Flooring for the carpet replacement in Civic Hall and ramps to offices.

Dr. Parker, seconded by Mr. Jerome made a motion to approve an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $10,000 to KD Flooring for the carpet replacement in Civic Hall and ramps to offices.

Council President Saponaro asked, discussion?  Is there anyone who wants to speak regarding this expenditure in the audience particularly?  Any discussion on the floor of Council?

There were no comments.

Roll Call:

AYES: All
NAYS: None

Motion Carried. Expenditure Approved.

Open Portion:

3-minute limit imposed by Chair. Those who wish to speak must first state their name and address (The public is requested to limit their discussion to agenda item only.) This is limited to discussion on Ordinance No. 2016-20

Ken Fisher

I am the attorney for Dr. Moyal who is seated behind me in the audience and owner of the property located at 730 SOM Center Road which is the subject of Ordinance 2016-20.

On November 7th, members of Council will recall, there was a public hearing on this Ordinance.  It was a little over 2 months ago.  I will briefly summarize from my client, Dr. Moyal’s perspective of the salient issues, again to request us to allow the electors of the Village to decide whether the subject property located in a single family U-1 district directly in front of property located in the office/laboratory district known as University Hospital Mayfield Health Center, aka Georgian Medical building, should in fact be rezoned to the requested office/laboratory district use.  It is the property owner’s position that his property cannot be economically developed as zoned single family residential and again the request is to allow for economically viable use of assisted living.

Briefly, the subject property is adjacent to non-residential properties which include Fisher’s Tavern, the Village Fire Department, Village Service Department, Ken’s Auto and unimproved property owned by the Village.

The proposed use is identical to Governor’s Village Assisted Living Facility, 280 North Commons Boulevard, which is located in the office/laboratory district and operates as an assisted living facility pursuant to a conditional use permit that was issued by the Village as settlement of a lawsuit.  Presently, no zoning district in the Village’s Codified Ordinances allows the proposed use of assisted living.

On August 1st, Planning and Zoning Commission deadlocked in a motion.  They tied and therefore took no action on recommendation whether to allow this matter to be placed on the ballot for the electors to make a decision.

The request presently is to allow the electors to decide on May 2nd whether or not the property should in fact be rezoned.  If rezoned, the Board of Zoning Appeals, by use variance pursuant to a recent amendment to Section 12 of the Charter to allow for the proposed assisted living use to be developed.  If rezoned on May 2nd, a completely new process would be required including the use variance application to the Board of Zoning Appeals, a Development Agreement and exhaustive administrative review of all plans including drainage and zoning issues.

The revised development plan submitted to the Village was requested by Mayor Bodnar’s predecessor going back to Mayor Rinker and reduces what was previously submitted many years ago in 2003 and did not go on the ballot.  Dr. Moyal at that point made a decision not to proceed.  As everybody’s aware, he does in fact own the University Hospitals’ Mayfield Village Health Center immediately behind the subject vacant property.  My point is, from what was originally submitted back in 2003 based on discussions with Village officials, we have two stories presently reduced from three stories, 52 units reduced from what was previously submitted as 80, 45,000 square feet reduced from 75,000 and there is a State requirement of 100 foot setback from the gas well.  I understand having been here before and also in front of Planning and Zoning Commission that there are development concerns.  All of those issues will be addressed assuming that we go forward with the vote and the vote is affirmative.

That is the request.  We suggest respectfully that it is the proper request and should be seriously considered.

Council President Saponaro asked is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this?  Please state your name and address for the record.

David Hoehnen
750 Robley Lane

My wife and I have lived here for over 50 years.  We love it here.  We would like to see it stay as much as it is now in the future.  I am not here to argue the pros and cons of rezoning the property in question.  I am here to address those of you who have already made the decision to oppose the rezoning.  I ask you to make your decision clear tonight by voting against Ordinance 2016-20.  The voters of this Village including myself would like to know how each of you stands on this issue as it progresses through Council meetings, etc.  We need to know now how you stand.  This is the best way for you to tell us.  Vote against this Ordinance tonight. The property owner as his lawyer has mentioned has other options available to him.  As you all know, he can circulate a petition to get the voters of this Village to vote on whether or not it should be rezoned.

I don’t think Council needs to help them along. I think Council needs to stay neutral and if you do pass this Ordinance tonight, my feeling is that a significant number of Villagers will think Council approves the rezoning.  We don’t want that to happen.  You should not.  I ask you to bear that in mind when you vote this evening.  Thank you.

Council President Saponaro stated, thank you Mr. Hoehnen.  Is there anyone else that would like to be heard?

Sara Calo
6801 Eastgate Drive

I am a licensed realtor in the State of Ohio.  I also serve on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.  We have heard some of this discussion at our Citizen’s Advisory.  I would like to address this gentleman.  Thank you for your commentary.  You presented what I would call a contingency plan and that is that you are not going to tell us about those gas wells and the sewer drains and all that stuff until it is approved.  I am thinking, I would want to know those things before it is approved. I would like to know that answer if that makes sense.

When I took my oath of office as a realtor, 18 years ago, the land and all there is, the highest and best use.  I am always looking at things from the perspective of the highest and best use.  The concerns I have are regarding the gas wells, the drainage, the sewer, the sewer lines.  The last item is traffic. We already have some traffic concerns on Route 91.  I would like to know about those things.

If you were to ask me at this moment am I opposed?  Yes because I do not have all of the answers.  Given more information, perhaps a different perspective is taken. Thank you.

Council President Saponaro stated, thank you for your commentary.  I appreciate that.  Is there anyone else that would like to address Council regarding this matter?

  • Third Reading of Ordinance No. 2016-20, entitled, “An Emergency Ordinance Revising the Zoning Map of Mayfield Village so as to rezone 2.084 acres of land located on the west side of S.O.M. Center Road and North of Wilson Mills Road and known as Permanent Parcel Number 831-15-003 from its current classification of U-1 Residential District to Office-Laboratory District; and to submit the same to a vote of the Electors.” Introduced by Mayor Bodnar and Council as a Whole. (First Reading – 8/15/16; Second Reading – 9/19/16; Third Reading – 10/17/16) (Building Department)

Mrs. Mills, seconded by Dr. Parker, made a motion to enact Ordinance No. 2016-20.

Council President Saponaro stated, let’s have a discussion on this.  One of the reasons why we held off on making a decision on this was all Council members were not present at the meetings.  We wanted everyone to have the opportunity to have a discussion or hear all of the information.  Being as we are all present today, I would put to Council and Administration to discuss any issues as they come up.

Mr. Marrie stated, I mentioned it once before Joe.  My concern is this.  I believe they would do a good job of the building and maybe that is the best use.  I am not perfect on that either.  But my concern is this.  This will open up Pandora’s Box for rezoning a whole part of SOM Center Road. I realize and I am glad that people have the vote, but that is my big concern.  Because we have had other people over the years here and there at different spots along SOM try to get into rezoning of that.  I am afraid that if we do this that it opens up Pandora’s Box.

Mr. Williams stated, I was a client at the UH facility there last year.  I was very impressed with the operation and the fact that it was well run and well managed and clean.  When I heard about the new facility I thought about the current facility and how it is being run. At the same time as a business owner I thought about the fact that the owner has invested heavily over the past few years in that location and that the property in front has sat vacant and I am sure it has been some of a financial strain to the owner after hearing his presentation.  I have empathy toward wanting to use at the property.  At the same time, I am also feeling very sympathetic to the needs of the community.  We should recognize that this owner has a huge investment in the Village.  He pays taxes.  But I do recognize the community’s concerns.  I will make my decision based on the community.

Council President Saponaro asked Mr. Diemert, one of the audience members brought up our vote here.  I just want to clarify that Council voting in favor or against is voting in favor or against these individuals having the opportunity to put it on the ballot in front of the voters?

Mr. Diemert replied, that’s correct.  That’s all a yes vote tonight would do is put this on the ballot for the voters to make the decision.  Once they did, then all of the other ramifications and concerns would have to be met, debated, approved by Council, all at a later date. This would only allow a vote for rezoning, period.  Not even this particular use.  It would be for office/laboratory use, the adjacent use to the rear.

Council President Saponaro asked, when is the last time there’s been something that has come to Council of this very nature?  Do we have any historical information?

Mr. Diemert replied, when Deacon’s rezoning was on the ballot.  There’s been multiple others.  I just don’t recall them all.

Council President Saponaro asked, do we have any sense of where Council has come on both sides of that in terms of requiring or allow the individual to go to the electorate?

Mr. Diemert replied, as in the Deacon’s case, the electorate became very well informed.  I don’t think how Council voted had any influence.  The same with other issues down SOM Center Road when we were involving Progressive in other matters. I don’t recall anything that had to go to the voters.  Again, the voters were pretty well educated on everything.

Council President Saponaro asked, who else has any comments?

Rick Christian
501 SOM Center Road

Several years ago, there was an issue put on the ballot to rezone the new Northeast Quadrant to residential.  It passed. It was all supposed to be zoned residential.  It was taken to Court and the Court threw it out because the property owners had bought it as commercial property.  It was not allowed to be rezoned residential.  Now you are telling us that the residential property can be rezoned commercial?

Council President Saponaro stated, we are not telling you anything.  They want you guys to make the decision.

Mr. Christian continued, if you pass this, it will go before the whole community, not just the people it is going to effect on SOM Center Road.  Take that into consideration.

Mr. Diemert stated, just a correction on that.  Twenty some years ago, the vote on certain layercake zoning along SOM Center was being proposed to rezone all of the office/laboratory where Progressive is now to residential, the Court actually sealed those ballots.  I am not sure any of us knew the results of that election.  We never received an official election result. The Court and the Court of Appeals ultimately decided we could not, as a voting public, rezone that property to all residential.

Council President Saponaro asked, does anyone else have any comments?

Dr. Moyal

Thank you Council, thank you Mayor, thank you citizens.  I own the medical building.  It is not a jailhouse. It is an assisted living, a medical facility for people who cannot function at home.   To hear this is scary.  Progressive is far larger.  It’s a huge facility.  We are here to help the community.  We have worked with the community for years.  So to hear this is concerning.  It’s an assisted living.  It’s a medical facility.  For our loved ones.  Thank you.

John Michalko
6852 Wilson Mills Road

I just wanted to piggyback on what Tom had said about opening up Pandora’s Box.  We want to remain as a Village, correct?  What is the residential number we have to stay below to stay as a Village?

Mr. Diemert replied, 5,000.

We are picking up 52 more residents and as Tom says about the Pandora’s Box, all these other vacant properties, if someone else wants to build something like an apartment complex, we would get even more residents.  We want to stay as a Village.

Council President Saponaro stated, I understand where you are coming from.  The issue I have is that it takes the vote away from you in one respect.  I thought the whole point was you guys wanted the vote in order to decide whether you wanted this or not.  What Mr. Williams said is true, Dr. Moyal has been here for a very long time and has been a good part of the community.  All we would be doing is allowing you all to make that decision.  Hopefully they will inform you better because to me it seems there is a communication gap.  I am struggling with that.

Mr. Michalko stated, we want to remain a Village.

Council President Saponaro stated, I understand that.  I think we are all on the same page when it comes to remaining a Village.  We absolutely are.   I appreciate your comments.

Mr. Marquardt stated, if we do not vote for this, it still does not stop them from putting it on the ballot.

Council President Saponaro stated, absolutely.

Mr. Marquardt stated, all right, so we are not stopping them.  We just need to say yes or no.

Council President Saponaro stated, right.  Exactly.  That is true.  We are not stopping the process.

Chief Carcioppolo

Again, I would just like to address everyone that there were a lot of different points brought up by the residents but I would like to again emphasize that even though the law does permit the 100 foot distance from the structure, I cannot advise anyone here that it is a good idea to put an assisted living facility with 52 beds within 100 foot proximity and will go further to say that there are provisions of the law that won’t let a new building be built within 200 feet of an existing well unless the property owner agrees to do that in an urbanized area.  With the property owner being a controlling interest, he can choose to do that in an urbanized area.  I am not opposed by any means. I do just want to emphasize the importance of a gas well having proximity to a structure such as that one.  That’s another concern to think about.  Potentially if it were to go forward, my recommendation would be that the gas well should be capped.

Mr. Diemert stated, but that is discussion again at the Development Agreement time and plan time.  It’s really not the issue now.  We can mandate conditions to any use variance.

Mr. Mills stated, what the problem is when Judge Krenzler did his rezoning he was very diligent in what he did.  He presented everything to us.  We knew exactly where he was coming from, what he was going to do and how it was going to happen.  We have too many unknown things right now.  I understand the process. If we don’t give them the ability to go before the electorate, they are going to go get petitions and put it on the ballot anyway and they will probably get enough people to sign the petition to put it on the ballot.  Are we risking a lawsuit in the process of this?  It’s going to cost us maybe a lot of money. I am not for this building.  I don’t like the concept.  I think the suites are too small.  I would not want to live in a little place like that.  It’s not as big as one of my smallest bedrooms.  I am not really in favor of it, but we have to use our common sense on this.  They are going to pursue it one way or the other.  Let’s try to do this as diligently as we can.

Council President Saponaro asked, anyone else?

There were no further comments.

ROLL CALL:

AYES: Mills
NAYS: Jerome, Marquardt, Marrie, Parker, Saponaro, Williams

Motion Carried. Ordinance Failed.

ANY OTHER MATTERS:

Council President Saponaro asked if there were any other matters.

ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Mills, seconded by Mr. Jerome, made a motion to adjourn.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.  The next Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2017 at 8:00 p.m.