Ordinance Review - September 9th 2014

ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Mayfield
Village
Sept 9, 2014   

The Ordinance Review Committee met in regular session on Tues, Sept 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center Conference Room. Chairman Bill Marquardt presided.

(Print friendly/PDF document)

ROLL CALL

Present: Mr. Bill Marquardt (Chairman), Mrs. Mary Ann Wervey, Mr. John Marrelli, and Mr. Jim Farmer

Also Present: Ms. Diane Calta (Law Department), Ms. Deborah Garbo (Secretary), Gino Carcioppolo (Fire Chief), and Ted Esborn (Economic Development Director)

Absent: Mr. Jerry Catalano, Dr. Stephan Parker (Council Alternate), and Mr. Tom Cappello (Village Engineer)

CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: Nov 12, 2013             

Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion to approve the minutes of Nov 12, 2013.          

ROLL CALL

Ayes: All                              

Nays: None                          

Motion Carried. Minutes Approved As Written.

PROPOSALS:

  1. Temporary Signs
    Section 1185.14 (e)(3)
    (Planning Department)
  2. Department and Positions Established
    Section 141.01
    (Fire Department)
  3. Discussion Only
    Chapter 1377 Smoke Detectors
    Photoelectric vs. Ionization Type Smoke Alarm Devices
    (Fire Dept. & Law Dept.)

 

ORGANIZATIONAL:

Election of Chairman

Chairman Marquardt opened the floor to a motion for Chairman of the Ordinance Review Committee 2014 nominations.

Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made the motion to nominate Bill Marquardt.  

Chairman Marquardt asked if there was any discussion. There was none.

The nominations were closed.

Chairman Marquardt asked for a Roll Call on the nomination.  

ROLL CALL:

Ayes: All                              

Nays: None                          

Motion Carried. Bill Marquardt to serve as 2014 Chairman.

Election of Planning & Zoning Representative

Chairman Marquardt opened the floor to a motion for Planning & Zoning Representative to the Ordinance Review Committee 2014 nominations.

Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made the motion to nominate Jim Farmer.   

Chairman Marquardt asked if there was any discussion. There was none.

The nominations were closed.

Chairman Marquardt asked for a Roll Call on the nomination.  

ROLL CALL:

Ayes: All     

Nays: None                          

Motion Carried. Jim Farmer to serve as 2014 P & Z Representative.

OPEN PORTION:

Temp Signs - Section 1185.14

Mr. Marrelli said we’ve been bouncing this back & forth in the Planning Dept. This is in response to the issues we have on the back of the Beta Dr. buildings. They’ve been requesting some kind of copy area on the back of their buildings to show to the freeway. The Law Department drew up criteria for discussion today.

Mr. Esborn said this actually started in the Board of Appeals. It gained steam when multiple properties were looking to do the same sort of thing, so we wanted to move it from a “conditional use permit” to “permitted by right”.      

Chairman Marquardt asked, what’s the criteria for acceptance and continued acceptance of the sign?

Mr. Marrelli replied, there’s a maximum size and a maximum time limit depending on if the sign is made of material that’s durable and maintained in a neat & orderly fashion. Otherwise, I can ask them to remove it. Multiple occupancy buildings will always have space for lease. The applicants have been coming in, asking for a sign for lease, and we’d have them take it down after one year. It became real cumbersome, and they were pretty much rubber stamped every time they came in. At that time, we didn’t have any durability or size standard. Since then, we’ve adopted a standard so the square footage, height & area will fit into the façade. There are 6 properties on 1-271. I think only 3 of them would have multiple occupancies that need to be leased. Preformed and Mayfran are single occupant buildings and wouldn’t have need for the sign.

Chairman Marquardt asked, does this restrict the hotels?

Ms. Calta replied, we’re trying to limit it to rent, lease or sale signs. The idea wouldn’t be to advertise. There was discussion about not letting these turn into advertisement. We came up with a 25% coverage limit on identifying who it is. There’s a bunch of revised code sections about brokers and realtors and identifying who you area. Technically, there’s a requirement that they do that, and most of these buildings are represented by property managers and brokers and so forth. So their name is required to be on these sort of signs. Collectively we thought if we limit it to 25%, it’s really just to identify who you are, not for advertisement purposes. But, there’s nothing to preclude somebody from driving down 1-271, seeing the sign, calling the number and also getting information about other buildings in other communities.

Ms. Calta continues, I think this gives John flexibility. The reference is in compliance with 1185.15(f) which would be a more permanent type sign. That is that you’re not going to be looking at something that potentially is of a material that can get ratty. A complaint we had was after 6 months, a year or a really bad winter, the sign looked bad. This buckled up when there was a variance request, and there was some back and forth between property owners that felt one person got the variance, so the other should too. This is meant to take it out of that whole realm of requesting a variance. This is limited to just that part of Beta and just that visibility to 1-271. The next step is to talk about Beta Dr. frontages.

Mrs. Wervey comments it’s written well, easy to understand.

DECISION:

Mrs. Wervey, seconded by Mr. Farmer made a motion to approve Temporary Signs Section 1185.14 revisions as discussed.  

Chairman Marquardt asked if any other discussion. There was none.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Mr. Marquardt, Mrs. Wervey, Mr. Farmer, Mr. Marrelli      

Nays: None                                                  

Motion Carried. Recommendation to Council.

**************************************************************************

Department & Positions Established - Section 141.01

Chief Carcioppolo explained, we don’t have a defined age requirement for purposes of hiring full time members. This is something most other municipalities have in place. The State Law right now is 18 – 41 years old. Per Ohio R. C. Section 124.42, if you want to make it less than 41 years old, it has to be approved by Council. Rationale is, if you start in this field at 41 years old and have to put a minimum of 25 years in to be eligible to retire, that puts you at 66 years old working as a line Firefighter. It’s a hard job at 66 yrs. old.

Chief continued. Diane drafted language. It sets a minimum of 18 years which is in accordance with the Law. It sets a maximum of 32 with no time in the Pension System. It permits for someone with time in the Pension System to enter into our force as long as their time in the Pension System would have been obtained at age 32, so 32 + 25 = 57. That’s comparable to the work force we have exiting now. Our Organization size is smaller, larger departments are able to place you in different spots that don’t require you to be a line Firefighter, you can do a desk job or drive a truck.

Chief said I need this to be passed because we need to give a test. We’ve been running two short.

Ms. Calta said this is being done in conjunction with the revisions to the Civil Service Rules. We have a lot of potential for lateral transfers of part timers coming in. We have a department that’s age wise kind of lopsided right now. There’s projected to be a significant amount of retirements in a very short period of time in the future, just based on ages. If you bring in everybody at the same age, you’re going to have the same thing. The way the department functions, you don’t have a lot of different positions that can be filled. With this, you can allow some flexibility in people coming in that are already paying into the System.

Chief Carcioppolo said it’ll tier the workforce. I feel I need to fix this so this doesn’t happen in the future, so there’s a constant transition of people coming in and going out. Examples of other community minimum & max age requirements:

Aurora: Max @ 36, no full-timers over 40 as long as they have 4 years in the System.

Berea: Min @ 18. It allows the Civil Service Commission to prescribe other max age limits for particular positions.

Lyndhurst: 31 years old with no one over 36.

Highland Hts:18 - 41

Eastlake: 18 - 31

Lakewood: 21 – 31

Rocky River: 18 – 36

Ms. Calta said this gives you the opportunity to get a diverse pool. This (h) will be the only change. We also added in (g); shall be pursuant to the Village Ordinances.

DECISION:

Mrs. Wervey, seconded by Mr. Farmer made a motion to approve Department and Positions Established Section 141.01 revisions as discussed.  

Chairman Marquardt asked if any other discussion. There was none.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Mr. Marquardt, Mrs. Wervey, Mr. Farmer, Mr. Marrelli      

Nays: None                                                 

Motion Carried. Recommendation to Council.

****************************************************************************

ANY OTHER BUSINESS:

  • Photoelectric vs. Ionization Smoke Alarm Devices
  • Point of Sale Inspections – Fire Dept.

 

Ms. Calta said this came about as a result of the changes in the Fire Code provisions for new construction that require certain types of smoke alarms. We made the changes in 2011. You might remember, Lt Girbino showed a video. Many communities in the area and throughout the State made the similar changes. I believe it was South Euclid that called the Board of Building Standards and asked if they can do this. As a result, they started reviewing everybody’s local ordinance. They found all these local ordinances, including the Village’s in conflict with the Ohio Building Code, only as it applies to new construction or additions.  

We spent a day in Columbus end of Aug with the Residential Construction Advisory Committee (RCAC). This Committee reports to the Ohio Board of Building Standards who is in charge of writing the Ohio Building Code and adopting the ICC Codes. We asked them to reconsider their decision that the Village was in conflict with the Ohio Building Code. They still deemed it in conflict. There were many members that struggled with it. There was one in particular that thought there was conflict. We’ve appealed it to now the Board of Building Standards. I’m not anticipating we’re going to get anywhere with it. They like to hold the line.

Chairman Marquardt asked, is ours more stringent?

Mr. Marrelli replied, this is about the photoelectric vs. ionization smoke detectors. All of the evidence we’re seeing shows that one works most of the time, the other one hardly ever works. We’re trying to be pro-active.

Ms. Calta said they all meet the UL Standards.

Mr. Marrelli said the standard is 30 years old.

Ms. Calta said the Committee kept saying, you could do something with your existing code because you can do whatever you want when it applies to your existing housing stock. You can certainly make sure that everyone in your existing homes has photoelectric smoke detectors. The way to do that would be a mechanism to put in a “Point of Sale Inspection”.

Chairman Marquardt asked, how about if we don’t do anything, if we think ours is better. 

Ms. Calta said there’s two components here, dealing with Columbus and dealing with the new construction. The Village doesn’t have a lot of new construction. We’ve gone around and around, the consensus has been, what are we really fighting about if we don’t have a lot of build-out in the Village. On the other hand, we can do something with the existing housing stock. So, how do we educate everyone that they should have these smoke detectors that function in a way that ensures a heightened level of safety vs. these ionization detectors that have false alarms.

Mr. Marrelli said there’s another issue. New construction requires hard wired battery back-up smoke detectors. Ninety-nine percent (99%) of those are already photoelectric. It almost doesn’t come into play on the new stuff. It’s really the old stuff.

Chairman Marquardt asked about additions.

Mr. Marrelli replied, the way our ordinance reads now, if you put an addition on your house, and it requires a smoke detector in the housing code, we’d tell you to put in a photoelectric type. They’re all required to be hard wired, but you might be able to find one that’s an ionization.   

Chief Carcioppolo said one of the guys at the RCAC has all ionization detectors spected. He asked if he came here if he would have to put photoelectric’s in. Diane’s answer was based on his square footage, yes. There’re still builder’s specting homes with ionization detectors. The ultimate goal is for the safety of the residents that live in the house and their neighbors. The earlier detection we get the better our odds are of being able to extinguish the fire before it consumes the house or the neighbor’s house. Their whole thing at the RCAC was; you guys don’t need to be down here talking to us, go worry about your houses that are already built because that’s where 70% of the fire victims die, in those homes. Only 30% of the fire victims die in new construction.

Chairman Marquardt asked, what’s the urgency?

Ms. Calta doesn’t think there’s an urgency. It’s just to let you know that it’s coming down the pike. We’re going to be looking to draft something. Shaker Hts. has a program already in place. A lot of communities have Point of Sale Inspections but they’re not targeted necessarily as Fire Code.  

Mr. Marrelli’s concern is an all pre-sale home inspection with numerous areas of concern.

Ms. Calta re-assured John we’re not going down that path, we went down it a few years ago.

Chief Carcioppolo said if you look at our build-out here with the older homes, a lot of them most likely don’t have (a) appropriate detectors or (b) detectors at all. According to the U.S. Fire Administration, 22% of detectors are not active because people disable them because of nuisance alarms which is prone to ionization sensing technology. Shaker Hts. just did a big smoke alarm installation program. They went into over 750 homes. Their numbers with disabled alarms were 30 – 35%. We believe that’s a more accurate depiction of how many homes don’t have a working smoke alarm because the U.S. Fire Administration’s data is derived from our fire reports that don’t include any check boxes for smoke detectors.

Ms. Calta thinking as a point of sale inspection, on average there’s maybe 50 – 60 houses that transfer per year.

Chief Carcioppolo said it’s more so just to make sure they have a working smoke alarm or detector in their home.

Ms. Calta said it’s an educational component too.

NEXT STEP

Law Dept. to draft language for Point of Sale Inspections to be added into the Fire Code.

***************************************************************************

Chairman Marquardt asked if there’s any further business to discuss. There was none.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mrs. Wervey, seconded by Mr. Farmer made a motion for adjournment. 

ROLL CALL

Ayes: All                                                        

Nays: None                            

Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Deborah Garbo
Executive Assistant
Building Department