Ordinance Review - April 12th 2016

ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Mayfield Village
April 12, 2016   

The Ordinance Review Committee met in regular session on Tues, April 12, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center Conference Room. Chairman Bill Marquardt presided.      

ROLL CALL

Present: Mr. Bill Marquardt (Chairman), Mr. Paul Fikaris, and Mr. John Marrelli

Also Present: Mr. Tom Cappello (Village Engineer), Ms. Deborah Garbo (Secretary), Doug Metzung (Service Director), and Diane Wolgamuth (Director of Administration)

Absent: Mayor Bodnar, Mrs. Mary Ann Wervey, Mr. Mark Guidetti (Law Department), and Dr. Stephan Parker

CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: Feb 9, 2016

Mr. Fikaris, seconded by Mr. Marrelli made a motion to approve the minutes of Feb 9, 2016.      

ROLL CALL

Ayes: All                          

Nays: None

Motion Carried. Minutes Approved As Written.

PROPOSALS:

  1. Compliance with Ohio EPA & Phase II (Engineer)
    • Chapter 1128;
      Comprehensive Storm Water Management Ordinance
    • Chapter 1129;
      Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
      Ongoing Review (Required for passage by Dec 2016)
  2. Drainage & Infrastructure Committee (D&I Committee)
    • Ordinance 2015-24; Section 955.07; Funding

OPEN PORTION:

  • New Committee Member Paul Fikaris

Chairman Marquardt welcomed Paul Fikaris who has agreed to serve on the Committee to fill the vacancy caused by the resent resignation of Jim Farmer.

Compliance with Ohio EPA & Phase II
Chapter 1128; Comprehensive Storm Water Management Ordinance
Chapter 1129; Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance

Mr. Cappello states, we’re still working on the ordinances with Chagrin Watershed Partners. We’ll be back to give you a list of what we’ve changed. What they’ve highlighted in yellow has to be changed. Green highlights are above & beyond so we’ll be looking very closely at the green and determine at what cost on any changes. 

Mr. Metzung said, not just in the ordinances, in our actions, we have to meet our Phase II regulations and the TMDL criteria, so some of the stuff in green may be things we want to do to meet this other criteria.

Mr. Marrelli asked, will this affect how people develop on their business properties and residential or just business?

Mr. Cappello replied, what it does is they push certain BMP’s. Now they call them something structural, a different acronym. Basically what they’re saying is we might want you to push more bio-retention instead of infiltration trench. They want more of a specific function where we might want to not limit people to that. Development wise, we’re pretty much developed.

Mr. Marrelli asked, do you have any idea what the cost impact is between where we’re at now and what they propose?

Mr. Cappello replied, no.

Ms. Wolgamuth asked, what’s your deadline for getting this passed?

Mr. Cappello replied, end of the year. Bill, does this have to go on three reads? Chairman confirmed, three reads.

Mr. Cappello said, we also have to get our Storm Water Management Plan updated. We’re doing that with CRWP.

NEXT STEP

Mr. Cappello to continue review of ordinances with CRWP.
Legislation required to pass by Dec 2016.

Drainage & Infrastructure Committee
Ordinance 2015-24; Section 955.07; Funding

Chairman Marquardt states, there was a request made to increase the annual funding from $25,000 to an undisclosed amount. We have a list of D & I Expenditures by Project going back to 2005. The only years the expenditures went over the $25,000 was in 2005 & 2006 (attached). The question is, how much to increase and why?

Mr. Metzung replied, that’s a question for those who made the request.

Chairman Marquardt replied, we did and didn’t get an answer.

Mr. Marrelli said, the numbers don’t justify an increase. If there’s a project that goes over the limit, you go to Council and ask for funding for that project specifically.

Mr. Metzung said, no. If it’s a Drainage & Infrastructure project, you can’t go outside your ordinance.

Mr. Marrelli asked, then what happens if a big project comes up? Generally, you have ‘x’ dollars to work with for people’s backyards. But if a major project comes up, you can amend your ordinance on a case by case basis.

Ms. Wolgamuth said, say there’s a neighborhood project that’s going to affect the whole street, that doesn’t have to come through a D & I application.

Mr. Metzung replied, if the work is done on private property, it certainly does.

Ms. Wolgamuth states, so the theory with the original ordinance was that we wanted to keep to a minimum the number of projects or the amount of money spent on private property.

Mr. Marrelli asked the delineation between a public improvement project and private.

Mr. Cappello replied, public improvement would be in the right-of-way or an easement.

Mr. Marrelli said, a lot of these streams are drainage easements, correct?

Mr. Cappello replied, not all.

Mr. Metzung referenced Dr. Pastouk on Echo. He had a tree fall, he’s getting some erosion. We’re looking at it now, but I don’t know where that falls.

Mr. Marrelli asked, is that an easement?

Mr. Cappello replied, no, the stream is located on private property. The drainage area is less than 300 acres so NEORSD does not maintain that stream.  The Chagrin River’s is not located in an easement, nor is Beecher’s Brook. The Sewer District takes care of the streams that have a drainage area 300 acres or more. This stream on Echo is under the 300 acre limit, but is that person responsible to handle the water coming from upstream? I think not. The law suit with Beta Dr. proved that. We might have some responsibility to do some of the work in these things.

Chairman Marquardt asked, how much?

Mr. Cappello replied, we had a meeting. Did we determine if we have a budget?

Mr. Marrelli said, what I recall is Councilman Jerome said there might be a big project at some time and we wouldn’t be able to fund it because we’re limited to $25,000 so it should be raised. But he didn’t say to what.

Mr. Cappello said, to Doug’s point, if you have something over $25,000 on private property, it would have to affect multiple people. Do you go back to Council and amend the ordinance at that time?

Mr. Metzung said, I don’t know what mechanism we have, unless we get an easement.

Mr. Marrelli states, maybe we re-classify it as a public improvement.

Discussion ensued if the annual allocated $25,000 accumulates.

Ms. Wolgamuth states, this is a discussion for the Law Department.

NOTE: Following meeting the following discussion points were clarified:

  • The Drainage and Infrastructure Committee shall limit any one project to $10,000. Projects that serve multiple improvements may exceed $10,000 if specifically approved by Council.
  • Finance Director verified that the $25,000 allocated per year at present, does not accumulate and roll over if not used. (attached)

Mr. Cappello said, this goes back to the area behind Thornapple and Walnut. When that subdivision went in, there was no platted easement through there. Their rear yards are real wet. We looked into obtaining easements from everybody. When subdivisions Aintree North and SOM Court went in and Hanover with all the ditches, we platted drainage easements. It’s meant to collect off site water.

Mr. Marrelli said, when a development goes in and you review it. Tom said, we would make sure there’s a drainage easement.

Mr. Marrelli said, there’s a storm sewer in the street, but then there’s also a storm sewer but it’s not enclosed, in the back. Tom said, or a ditch.

Mr. Marrelli asked, so if you have a storm ditch, an unenclosed storm sewer that blocks and causes havoc on a development, why isn’t that a public improvement?

Mr. Metzung & Mr. Cappello replied it is, but we have an easement.

Mr. Marrelli asked, if there’s an easement, you can call it a public improvement?

Mr. Metzung replied, yes. We wouldn’t go through D & I. We do that as a Village function. To Paul, in your back yard, there might be a drainage easement for your little section, but not where it comes through from Mr. Cunningham’s yard.

Mr. Metzung states his opinion. I wouldn’t allocate a dollar amount in the ordinance and instead, I’d have it as a budget number. The way I would work D & I, you put your application in, they come to the Committee, the Committee works on them until January, then that budget number can go to the Budget Committee and say these are the projects we’re looking at and this is how much we’d like to have budgeted for them. 

Mr. Marrelli said, I just can’t understand how the properties were developed with streams going through them and no easements.

Mr. Cappello said, I’m not sure if you can put an easement on these streams.

Mr. Metzung said, I would think the Council Members that brought this to your attention would be the ones to say what they’re after.

Chairman Marquardt said, they didn’t say the reasons or any amount.

DECISION:

Mr. Marrelli, seconded by Mr. Fikaris made a motion keep the Ordinance as is, as noted:

  1. If a major project comes up, we deal with it on a different level.
  2. Get a ruling from the Law Department if we can re-classify certain larger projects as public improvements if they affect and benefit multiple properties.
  3. Recommendation to Finance Director that the allocated $25,000 per year accumulate for the use on projects to be determined by the Drainage & Infrastructure Committee.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Fikaris, Mr. Marrelli                   

Nays: None

Motion Carried.
Ruling from Law Department pending. 
Recommendation from Finance Director pending.
Recommendation to Council.

  • Procedure for Request to Ordinance Review to review and/or change an Ordinance.

Mr. Marrelli states, because of the way this thing materialized from a comment on the floor of Council, I think procedurally, if somebody wants something changed and wants our Committee to review an ordinance, I think it should be sponsored and they should represent their point of view.

Chairman Marquardt and the Committee Members concurred.

ADJOURNMENT:

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

ROLL CALL

Ayes: All                                                

Nays: None                        

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

Enclosures:   

  • Sections 955.05 & 955.07
  • D & I Expenditures by Project