|
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, June 4, 2007. We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Cicchinelli, Auditor Hamit, Law Director Stergios and Community Development Aaby. On the wall to your left are agendas for anyone who wishes to follow the meeting. Also under item #5 on the agenda is where the public can speak on any item that appears on the agenda and then under item #17 is where the public can speak on any item that does not appear on the agenda. I d also like to remind anyone with a cell phone please turn it off or turn it very far down. 1. ROLL CALL Roll call for the evening found the following Council Members present: Tim Bryan, Kathy Catazaro-Perry, Jayne Ferrero, Chuck Maier, Ron Mang, Paul Manson, Dave McCune, Donnie Peters and Tony Townsend. Thus giving a roll call vote of 9 present. 2. INVOCATION COUNCILMAN MANG – Gave the invocation for tonight. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILMAN MANG – Chairman of the Community Development Committee led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. READING OF THE JOURNAL COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Madame Clerk are the minutes of the previous meeting transcribed and open for public viewing (THEY ARE) Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes. If not the minutes stand approved as written. 5. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS ON THE AGENDA 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Councilman Mang, you have a request? COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, I would like to move Ordinance No. 50 & 51 to be our lead two items on tonight’s agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Any objections to moving those two items forward? If not we will do so. ORDINANCE NO. 50 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Rezoning a certain tract of land from B-3 General Business and I-1 Light Industrial to B-2 Central Business District. The property is located on the west side of Tommy Henrich Dr NW. The applicant is the City of Massillon. COUNCILMAN MANG Earlier this evening a preliminary sketch was passed out to each one of us. It was also during the day Mary Beth sent an email to everybody showing us this. This piece of grounds that we’re talking about is located on Tommy Henrich Drive on the west side and known as Part Out Lot 1020. The zone change is requested from B-3 General Business and I-1 Light Industrial to B-2 Central Business District. The applicant is the City of Massillon; the proposed use the city intends to convey this property for private commercial development as part of the Lincoln Center Phase III project. The total project site is 3.347 acres. We had a public hearing this evening and there was no one here that spoke either for or against this piece of legislation. It is up tonight for its third reading, the first reading on May 7th, the second reading being on May 21st. Members of council have comments or questions on this piece of legislation? COUNCILMAN BRYAN I have a question. First a comment, what we’ll be voting on in a few weeks will be the rezoning of this property which I have no objection to that I know of at this time. I do and when we vote for rezoning again we’re not voting for this particular layout or you know site plan. All that will be handled after the rezoning takes place this is a preliminary site plan I guess just because somebody wanted to see one. But I have a question then for since the engineer’s not here I guess I’d like to ask the Mayor a question about this cross easement parking area. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mayor? Mr. Bryan, you mentioned about voting on this in a few weeks you meant in a few minutes? COUNCILMAN BRYAN Oh, okay, this is up for third reading tonight. (This will be up for third reading tonight, yes) Okay, I thought he said it was up for first reading. I’m sorry. The development, the preliminary site plan does show a parking lot on top of where it appears to me to show a parking lot on top of where the pump station reservoir or pond is right now. Has there been any further conversation about that because at least currently we don’t have funds to do that project. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Mr. Bryan, yes, we’ve had a couple of meetings the engineering department was also of course included in that and we’ve discussed with Mr. Sirpilla and Mr. Deville the need to have that easement to access the pump station. At the present time you correct there will be no large scale improvements of that pump station there will be some cosmetic and some smaller improvements. But nothing substantial and that’s why you have that easement in order to allow the new development to be able to customers from those business being able to park in that area. So you have to have a cross easement. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN MAIER Yes, Mr. Mayor, do we know what’s going in there it says pending restaurant, proposed retail, new building, just do we have any is there some kind of tenant set up for that or is this just speculation? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – In my, well, its further along than speculation even though the site plan that you have in front of you is a very preliminary site plan. But there are some national tenants that they are negotiating with one in particular that they have pretty much wrapped up for that corner at Lincoln Way, but I think that the site plan that was presented to you will end up being what’s probably going to look like. There might be some alterations especially in that third building and it all depends on what they end up doing as far as the building sizes. The one building at the corner will be a stand alone restaurant as its presently planned and then the retail center a lot of times what happens there it could change depending upon what tenants eventually locate in that middle building whether there’s room for a third building or not. But I think that’s very preliminary but I think its pretty close to what will probably end up there. COUNCILMAN MAIER Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN MANG I’d like to go back to what Mr. Bryan had said about preliminary site plan. This really came about is through a question that had been brought up to me prior to our last meeting and it was a developer and it was not Mr. Oser by the way. Mr. Oser, did not question this, this individual may question the fact and that’s why I asked the Mayor I wanted to have a separate drawing is that we are asking proposed developers when they want to rezone a parcel of land at least we ask this in the neighborhoods that they not only tell us what type of building but who’s going to be housed. When I was asked this question here a few weeks ago I didn’t have an answer. So at that meeting I asked the Mayor if he would get me some drawings on this and that’s what you have tonight. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I, too, would like to comment on that. We have given Mr. Oser a very, very, hard time on rezoning his property, making him bring in site plans, telling us who exactly is going to be located in that building and I think its only fair if we’re doing that to this gentleman that we also have some details a little more details for these site plans, Ron. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER If I might partially answer that I’ve sort of made the same comment when Mr. Oser has wanted to rezone is that council’s job is to rezone to a certain classification and it really doesn’t matter what the particular building or the tenant is at any one time. The rezoning to a classification is what matters. I agree that we have asked from Mr. Oser much more than what we ask from anybody else. COUNCILMAN PETERS – I’d like to comment on that and nothing against Mr. Oser or anyone else, but in the past the things that we’ve asked Mr. Oser for was because there was a lot of residential and so forth buildings around the areas he’s trying to develop. This is a downtown area and I don’t see that affecting any residents or whatsoever. So I mean I think we’re talking about two different things completely. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yeah, I want to comment on that too. I know it came it up the last meeting Ron asked me about that and what I thought and I thought personally we didn’t really have to have a site plan because we were talking about taking this down in zoning in my opinion from a B-3 and L-1 light industrial to a B-2 Central Business District. The other part of it is there’s been no objections that I’m aware of so far then if somebody asks for some kind of a preliminary plan. So I don’t think we’re talking about apples and apples we’re talking about some different situations here. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. McCune, you had your hand up? COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Donnie, covered what I was going to say. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO I’d like to bring the Mayor back up to the podium please? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Just so we’re all on the same page here. The ordinance you have before you was a request by the City of Massillon not the developer. It went to the Planning Commission and it was passed there and common sense tells you of course it comes to council for final review. It wasn’t the request of the developer that’s number one, and if you really look at it the industrial zoning that’s presently there certainly doesn’t fit into a downtown area of 2007. Also the land in questions has even been sold to the developer. So it is a different situation it’s not the same type of development where you have a developer come in who owns the property and I do agree that regardless who the developer everyone should be treated the same and we have asked for developers to bring in at least a preliminary site plan which this actually is. But in this case Deville, Sirpilla doesn’t even own the land now that’s in the process I have spoken to the law director just early this evening before the council meeting started. The necessary papers have been filed and his office and in the attorney representing the developer to get this property sold so that is happening and it should be happening here very shortly. I mean we had to take care of this issue before the property sold as well as a plat which the Planning Commission did approve I believe council has approved. So those steps had to be taken and I think you need to understand that this was actually requested by the city. So…. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. Roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 50 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 51 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Rezoning a certain tract of land from RM-1 Multiple Family to B-2 Central Business The property is located on the block bounced by Federal Avenue NE, 3rd Street NE, North Avenue NE and 4th Street NE. The applicant is Mike Boylan. COUNCILMAN MANG This rezoning request has to do with the property 3rd and Federal NE. This was approved by the Planning Commission on April 11th. We’ve had two readings, we had a reading May 7th and one on May 21st and tonight we’re having the third reading. We also had a public hearing at which time we had comments from the developer and we comments from the architect. Now this involves five lots, Lots 369, 370, 371 and 375 and 376. They’re located on the block bound by Federal NE, 3rd Street NE, North Avenue NE and 4th Street NE. Its approximately 0.76 acres the zone change is requested from RM-1 Multiple Family Residential to B-2 Central Business District. It’s a proposed development of 13 residential townhouses with possible mixed businesses. The reasoning for the rezoning even though it wouldn’t have been necessary other than setbacks and whatever the Planning Commission says “all the property is currently zoned multi family residential the proposed housing development does not easily fit within the zoning requirements of RM-1 district.” “The urban style townhouse development being proposed would not comply with height setback, density or lot size requirements within the RM-1 district. Too many variances would be required in addition the developers wants to preserve the option of allowing for mixed uses within the development such as coffee shop with a dwelling unit above or a professional such as an architect having a studio or a workplace along with a living area”. “For these reasons the developer has applied for zoning B-2 Central Business District.” The development has been presented to CHARM Association I think we’re all familiar with CHARM and the Fourth Street area and who’s officials have spoken in support of the proposed development provided that the structures will blend with the surrounding neighborhoods. As I stated we had some comment and some questions and I would like further that those questions because I think I personally thought at the time that this project was going to be started that I was looking at a project that was going to be completed. 13 units was going to be built at one time and through the conversations that we’ve had tonight its going to be a spec thing to start with which meaning they will build one unit and sell it and then build another unit and another unit. I’m not opposed to the project the whole project my concerns are that if the development does not take over or does not start or does not go forward or something happens that we may have one unit, we could have two units and nothing happens. I’d like to talk about it in that area what are the provisions that we have is this something that happens in the site plan review plan committee where does it happen in affect the architect in his statement and something about in other cities where units like this have been proposed and built they put some type of I don’t want to call it a limitations on time but I guess in fact that’s what he said if these units were not built in x amount of time that the property would revert back to whatever. I think you know these are some of the questions that I have and I kind of think that these might be some of the questions CHARM might have had if maybe they knew if it was going to be a spec built, but that’s general comments through council I guess its up to you to get more questions and get more answers or am I in the wrong page here. But that’s my personal thoughts I’m not against the project, I think the project overall is a fine project. I’m a little bit concerned about the spec built. COUNCILMAN MAIER Yes, this building is in the second ward. I’ve got some concerns about that also I did get a couple of phone calls you did mention CHARM has no problem with it. I did get a phone call or two a couple of phone calls from people that were not involved in CHARM that had concerns about maybe ending up as rental properties and the developer or builder has assured me that’s not what their intent is here. These are to be townhouses that are two, three stories. If the development goes away its planned and scheduled I would have no problem with it. COUNCILMAN BRYAN It would be okay for us to ask the developer or his representative to come forward so I could ask him a question or two. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Sure, Mr. Mang? COUNCILMAN MANG No problem. Mr. Boylan or the architect or both of you come to the microphone and then introduce yourselves first. MIKE BOYLAN – With Barton Homes and Progressive Urban Real Estates, 1727 Sedwick Avenue Perry Township. JACK HAWKE – 151 Wilbur Drive North Canton, Ohio. COUNCILMAN MANG Okay, now Tim, you have…. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Mr. Boylan, I understand from a little bit of research that I did about the company that you are part that you have done these projects in other cities and you’ve done other projects similar and different projects is that correct? MIKE BOYLAN – Yes, sure in Cleveland, Ohio City, Tremont area done many projects like this with the real estate company and marketed those properties and sold them. COUNCILMAN BRYAN So they were townhouses and condominiums? MIKE BOYLAN – Town homes, yes. COUNCILMAN BRYAN And in these other markets first of all how many when you say many others what are you talking about? MIKE BOYLAN – Our company currently markets 74 different projects in the City of Cleveland within the city limits of Cleveland. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Okay, so quite a few. MIKE BOYLAN – Yes. COUNCILMAN BRYAN So, what percentage of these other projects have been handled on a build a spec and then build another contract or sell a contract build a townhouse type bases. MIKE BOYLAN – I’d say quite a few I don’t have the numbers but most people can’t afford to just spend a few million dollars and build them all at once. You build them a couple at a time, a few at a time. As they sell… COUNCILMAN BRYAN People will go through the spec and say “this is nice but I’d like one with an extra half a bathroom can you build me one like that”… MIKE BOYLAN – When we first put it up we put up the shell and then somebody can come along and say “I would like my walls here, I would this bedroom bigger than that bedroom” and we finish out for them. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I read and heard about this. What the finished cost on the units what’s the ballpark for them. MIKE BOYLAN – We thought a two story unit will probably sell for about $200,000.00. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I guess that’s off the subject, but my point I guess I’m making in other markets in Cleveland and other cities done similar projects and you’ve sold them. MIKE BOYLAN – Yes, our real estate company is 20 years old and in the last 20 years Ohio City Tremont and the City of Cleveland they’ve turned things around they recently sold a condo for I think $940,000.00 so the prices keeps going up on what people are willing to pay. But they mix a lot of new construction in with the older homes in the downtown areas and throughout the city. Yes. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I that’s all my questions is just one quick comment I think it’s a really exciting project and you know I’m going to vote for it. I understand the concerns and that’s understandable, but despite those concerns I’m going to vote for it because I think this is the kind of thing that will really you know help our downtown area. If this sort of thing catches on and we get middle income and upper income housing downtown I think that will be a great thing. MIKE BOYLAN – If I could comment we have every intention on building all the units we’re going to do all the infrastructure for all the units and spend all that money upfront to do all the units. So our marketing works and we’re very confident that we’re going to be able to sell them all. COUNCILMAN MANG Back that up again. MIKE BOYLAN – Yes. COUNCILMAN MANG Give me that again. MIKE BOYLAN – When we put the infrastructure in the sewer, storm, the electric that has to be done all at one time for all the units. COUNCILMAN MANG Okay, all your infrastructure will be done for all 13 units. MIKE BOYLAN – Yes. COUNCILMAN MANG But you will spec each unit. MIKE BOYLAN – Yes. COUNCILMAN MANG Will you only build only one per spec or will you build two or three. I think what has happened here is at least what has happened to me is I visualized this all being built at one time. Right, wrong or indifferent and the few people that I’ve had the opportunity to talk to about this apparently visualized the same thing. It does change it a little bit from the stand point of this project is going to take a little longer than what some people thought that within a period of a couple of years they would see this block developed. MIKE BOYLAN – And I believe that to be true. COUNCILMAN MANG Well, I won’t argue that point because its an unknown thing. But the known thing is that we’re going to do this a little bit differently. Most projects that I’ve been aware of that we’ve done in the city we’ve never done something like this. We’ve had spec development in many housing developments which is quite necessary, but our condos have all been built 30 units or whatever at one time and this is different. My point was I just want to make sure that everybody is aware what your intentions are and like I said now some people may have had the foresight to realize that you were going to build one or two units at a time. I did not and the people that I talked to did not. I’m not against this project I think it’s a great project my concerns was is that everybody realizes that its going to be spec building and it could be something that’s completed in a couple of years or it could be something that expands beyond that. That’s my commentary. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Gentlemen will you please state again as you did in the public hearing as you do spec out these townhouses that you’re going to make it the property around it astatically pleasing for the community. MIKE BOYLAN – Yes, that’s absolutely true we’re going to keep it all looking nice so people will buy it and clean up where we’re putting the infrastructure. Yes, absolutely. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE In the past when you’ve built these type of units and you’ve done it on a spec basis lets say for a 13 unit like your proposing here what would be the timeframe typically on average for filling them. MIKE BOYLAN – I’d say a year to 18 months. COUNCILMAN MANG I am definitely going to support this project and I ask you to support this project. I just thought there was some things that had to be brought out so that we were all understanding as to how this project was going to be developed. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. Roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 51 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 64 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to enter into a purchase agreement for the sale of a 0.220 acre parcel of land owned by the city to Elum Music, Co. COUNCILMAN MANG Ordinance No. 64 started back about the same time the theatre started. Matter-of-fact in the discussions with the theatre is when the discussions revolved around the area behind Elum Music Co. and the area proposed a problem for them to get the vehicles in and out of the back of the property without going on someone else’s property. So back then it was pretty much decided or it was decided actually that when we were able to get clear title to all the land that was involved back there that the law director would write up an agreement to sell this parcel land to the Elum Music. As it was point out in our work session by Mr. Aane Aaby that the sale of this land was sold at the same price as the land was sold to the theatre. So we’re selling land to the Elum’s at the same price as we sold land to the Great Escapes. I don’t see that there’s any reason for me to hold this piece of legislation up it will be up to council, but I would at this point if there’s no questions I would be asking for suspension of the rules. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 64 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 65 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 132 – 2000, and rescinding the Enterprise Zone Agreement with Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. COUNCILMAN MANG This is something I don’t like to see us have to do. I don’t like to see us have to rescind an enterprise zone because you always hope that when you establish an enterprise zone that the individuals coming in their intention is to stay forever. But back in 2007, the Rayco people did receive a 100%, 10 year tax abatement and with the separate compensation to Perry Schools. In addition to that the city provided Rayco with a $10,000.00 economic development inducement grant to assist the company locating in Massillon. It’s now quite well known that Rayco has decided to close their facilities in the City of Massillon and move elsewhere. I have been told by Aane Aaby and the law director that there will be a letter if it’s not already in process or some means will be to address this issue of the $10,000.00. I’m quite certain that the Rayco people have already been told that we expect this $10,000.00 to come back into our community development committee. There’s no real reason for me to hang this out on the line for several readings so I will be asking for suspension if there are no questions. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 65 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 66 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Authorizing and directing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon to acquire three (3) parcels of land from ODOT located on the north end of Neocom Industrial Park. COUNCILMAN MANG Ordinance No. 66 and Ordinance No. 67 are companion pieces of legislation. At our work session Mr. Aane Aaby explained the steps that would be required for us to acquire these three parcels of land that the Massillon Development Foundation is asking us to do. They’re asking us really to buy these three parcels of land of which they will then reimburse us or they will give us the money first really the $39,000.00 some odd dollars so we can buy these parcels of land. This will actually give them a better access to the property that they presently own. We will purchase the land with the money that is given to us by the Massillon Development Foundation and that will happen in Ordinance No. 66. Ordinance No. 67, we will convey those three parcels of land back to the Massillon Community Improvement Corporation. I do have believe there will probably be another piece of legislation somehow to come out of the finance committee. I could be wrong, but there seems like to me there has to be another paper trail. But I think it was well explained by Aane as to what they would like to see happen and early on I heard some numbers of what initially ODOT wanted for this. I think they’ve done an excellent job of getting down to the number of where it’s at. From some of the conversations I heard I think they were afraid to go much further they were afraid they were going to say no and stop this whole thing and they don’t want that to happen. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 66 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 67 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Authorizing and directing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon to convey three (3) parcels of land located on the north end of Neocom Industrial Park to the Massillon Community Improvement Corporation (CIC). COUNCILMAN MANG In Ordinance No. 67 we will be conveying the three parcels of land to the Massillon Community Improvement Corporation. In Ordinance No. 66, we were purchasing the land with the money given to us from the Massillon Development Foundation. Again, I will be asking for suspension of the rules. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 67 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 68 2007 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to enter into an agreement to arbitrate an ongoing dispute with Kokosing Construction concerning issues with the sewer plant upgrade. COUNCILMAN MANSON first reading. We are going to have the engineer in to discuss this some more next Monday. ORDINANCE NO. 68 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 69 2007 BY: HEALTH, WELFARE & BLD REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Amending CHAPTER 351 “PARKING GENERALLY” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, and enacting a new Subsection 351.21 “FRONT YARD PARKING” and 351.22 “OFF-STREET PARKING IN RSIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OR ANY PARCELS USED FOR DWELLING PURPOSES” of the CHAPTER 351 ‘PARKING GENERALLY”. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO I am going to be giving this first reading as well and plan on discussing this at our work session on June 11th. ORDINANCE NO. 69 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 70 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the Economic Development Fund and the General Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Mr. Mang, you were correct here is the appropriation of the money for that property $39,435.00 from the balance of the Economic Development Fund into an account entitled Services and Contracts. Section 2 is $5,010.00 and that’s from the General Fund to an account entitled Services and Contracts and that’s for the firefighter’s exam, psych evals, legal advertising, Massillon Cable internet service and miscellaneous office expenses for the Civil Service Commission budget. If there are not questions I’m going to move for suspension this evening. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 70 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS 1. NORLSON - $277.06 COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move that we pay the bills, seconded by Councilman Bryan. Roll call vote of 8 yes to pay the bills. 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY PERMIT REPORT FOR MAY 2007. COPY FILE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move that we accept the auditor’s report, seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote of 9 yes to accept the auditor’s report. 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Committee meetings will be next Monday, June 11th starting at 5:45pm. I think Mrs. Catazaro-Perry mentioned a special meeting tomorrow. Any other reports of committees. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILMAN BRYAN I have just a suggestion from you know maybe long range we created a few years ago a zoning district for condominiums specifically and it’s worked pretty well. One of the nice things about it is if someone’s proposing a condominium development and want to get the property rezoned to that district they have to show us you know what the site plan is and what they’re pretty much going to build there. Now tonight we had this request and we passed it to rezone the B-2 Central Business District for this project over on Federal Street which is you know good I think but what would have been better is if we had a zoning district that this would have fit in more precisely. If we could create a mixed you know townhouse and business zoning district then we could control some of those elements like what kind of businesses you could have in it for instance the gentleman mentioned an architect’s office and you know we’re all find with that and a coffee shop these are all nice things. But if we create a new zoning district we can control that and make sure that its not going to be something else that we wouldn’t like you know that wouldn’t maybe allowed under B-2. So it’s just a suggestion maybe something that we and the planning department and city administration can work on towards the future. I think it would be a good idea. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, thank you. Mr. Mang, that falls under your committee’s responsibilities so we’ll leave that to you to follow up. COUNCILMAN MANG Very good comment Tim and I think after tonight I think its well worth. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yeah, this along with that a little bit. I know Mrs. Ferrero and I had a little discussion on it before the meeting and Ron you brought it up about a timeframe maybe on some of these. You know, this is something at least since I’ve been here we’ve already said that we can’t put timeframes on it and have it revert back on the zoning. So maybe we need to have that as part of our discussion all of these things brought together. Take a new look at the way we should be zoning or to accommodate these types of developments. Some towns are doing away with much of their zoning and going to more of these mixed things. You read about it in any of the city magazines that you get you know monthly, that’s all. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I just wanted to publicly comment that Tim Bryan and I will be meeting with the Auditor tomorrow to we’ve tweaked the report for the department heads and I just wanted to publicly announce that we have notified the press within the 24 hours. 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS – Was already taken care of. .SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 61 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the Capital Improvement Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Yes, we gave this first reading on 5/21 because council approved that we would not spend any capital improvements dollars until after June. So it is now June 4th this $6,000.00 will come from the Capital Improvement Fund to an account entitled County Collection Fees. This is for the fees we pay to the county for collecting our inheritance tax. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Bryan. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 61 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 16. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS .REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA CAROLE CLARK – 702 Young Street SE in Massillon. I’m here representing Young Street Neighborhood Association and we’re here to request that you would I understand their having some houses on Young Street that one is spotlighted to be demolished. We would like for you to make that a priority on the list this house is a predator’s dream house. It’s dark in that area there’s a lot of there’s a couple more vacant houses in that area and we would like to get our street cleaned up. I would ask the people that came from Young Street to represent this request to stand please. We would appreciate you know if you could make this a priority on the list. I believe the house is 613 Young Street that is to be demolished and we would ask that you would please let this be a top priority on the request list. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, do I understand you correctly it is on the list you’ve been notified of that? CAROLE CLARK – Well, it was in the paper. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Okay, but it is on the list you’re asking that it be given top priority. CAROLE CLARK – Yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, thank you very much. REVEREND REGINALD HYE – 620 Young Street, certainly I would like to put emphasis on that it’s our community, our street in which we live. There’s a number of homes on that block that are actually abandoned, the grass has grown up, old cars are there, drug dealers are on the street it’s attracting different people there that area. If you look from 629 where I live and some of the other residents and go pass 629 it looks as though it’s a third world country. It drops off that bad and it’s really unacceptable and I would hate to think that it would be a double standard that this is not taken as a serious matter in our community. I do have photos of those that are our concern you can look at them. I have a photo as well of my home where I live and you can see that all the homes in that area are not in this condition. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Reverend Hye, are you giving those to council? REVEREND REGINALD HYE – You can have them, you can do what you want with them. I just would like for you to see the condition of these homes that they’re in. Thank you. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I’d like to bring the Mayor to the microphone, please? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER If I could just for one moment is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak? This will be you’re last opportunity to come forward. Alright, thank you all for coming we appreciate very much having you bring your concerns to council. Mr. Mayor? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – I do have an update on the two requests that Mrs. Clark and Pastor Hye mentioned. The 613 Young Street SE is on the top of the list just so everyone knows our homes are torn down, the homes that are needed to be torn down are done through our Community Development Block Grant monies. They come in July, August, and September depending on when HUD releases them and approves the project for that particular year’s budget. We know the home on Young has been a headache for not only the residents that live there, but also a headache for us. So it’s on top of the list and we will be tearing that down this summer. The other home and I have the work order here if any of you folks can come up and look at it afterwards so you know how the process works as far as weeds and overgrown properties. Both 613 and 623 have already been given proper notification their given five days and then after the five days if the property is not cut and groomed properly then we go in and we do the job and then of course attach to their taxes. Now this year, in previous years the city did the cutting we’re doing it a little bit differently this year we have subbed that out to a private contractor and that private contractor is doing the cutting. But we’re still involved directly in the loop so we know which properties are put on that list and which properties have been properly cut and then we take them off the list. Quite honestly there’s been more properties on the list this year compared to the previous years. So bare with us if the property isn’t cut within that five days then we’ll take care of it and we’ll get to it. But we are I think being rather diligent in getting this problem taken care of. Any other properties on Young Street that you feel need attention it certainly sounds like it please turn those in to the administration and of course, Mr. Townsend also being the ward councilman but you need to make sure that we get those issues and those complaints known to us. That’s how these things are done. The folks that do this work work for the administration and that’s why we have to know what’s going on. So just like code enforcement both those gentleman work within our building department and we have to know if there are some additional complaints in addition to what have already been discussed here tonight. But I have 613 and 623 if there’s any additional homes let us know. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I guess my major concern is we discussed these homes back in September 2006 and back then it was stated that there was money set aside to tear down the 613 and four other homes within the ward four. But then time went on the homes didn’t get torn down and then I was told that we ran out of money. I guess one of my concerns is will that happen again because we now have nine homes on that list compared to last year we had five. So will we run out of money again, you stated that to me maybe a couple of months ago that we ran out of money so we have money now. But my biggest fear are we going to run out of money again and then we’re going to have nine and this wasn’t on the list at the time so that’s ten homes… MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Which one are you talking about? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – 623. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers 9 and… COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Well, I got 9 from the newspaper five from last year at the town hall meeting that we had at Franklin School in ward four. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, Councilman Townsend, keep in mind here that the way we tear homes down we go through a process and we make sure that it’s a comprehensive process because in reality we don’t want to homes down unless that’s the last resort. You know the philosophy of this administration because we do feel some of these homes a little tender loving care. That all being said this home needs torn down because I’ll agree that but the way we tear them down is through our Community Development monies however you as a legislator at any time can ask the finance committee to appropriate money from a different source to tear a house down. We just have seen fit tear the homes down using our community development monies. But the final decision making process is this council, so if council wants to tear any home down at any time you need to appropriate the money from a different source and tear it down. What I told you last year is we have homes we have to tear down rather if they’re and sometimes because of an emergency arising another home takes the place and actually moves up depending on that situation. The house on Young Street was always a high priority but there’s only enough money from community development that we put aside and we set aside for these houses. If you want to come up with another source of revenue and not wait for these dollars that’s fine. We’ll tear it down the house is being ready is in the process I mean it’s ready to come down. So I don’t know where they got 9, but I’ll check that out tomorrow it seems to be a little high. Now the house at 623 who says it should be put on the list to tear down? Is that the code enforcement officer saying or is that you talking? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – No, I’m saying 613 was on the list. (That’s coming down.) Okay, 613 was on the list now we have another one and like I said my biggest concern is that money ran out leaving it was five at time the Cleveland home on 16th Street got torn down. It left four then all of a sudden you know we ran out of money my biggest concern will we run out of money again before we can even get to this home? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – No, the house on Young 613 Young is at the top of the list and will be torn down this summer I guarantee you that. But like I said if you can come up with an alternative funding we can tear it down tomorrow. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – If I was able to do that we would have torn down the four in 2006. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, you should have as a legislator you can do that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are you finished Mr. Townsend? (Yes.) Mr. Bryan? COUNCILMAN BRYAN I think it’s a relative point and a question. First of all, there won’t be any money available in CDBG until July 1st which the Mayor says this summer that certainly within this summer. But so everybody knows that not until July 1st will there be any money in CDBG. However, my question is and maybe Mr. Aaby or maybe the Mayor can answer this I don’t really care which one. One of the reasons that there wasn’t enough money or as much money last year as we would have liked is we had to tear down that apartment building that burned up on 6th Street. So we used our demolish funds to tear it down because there was no insurance, but we did ask the gentleman who owns the apartments to pay us. I understand that’s in process now have we made any progress on collecting any money from the gentleman that owned the property. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – That is still in process and we’re attempting to get our money back and we’re going to attempt to continue to Tim, we have not received the money. COUNCILMAN BRYAN And I understand that may be difficult, but you know at least to bring it up because if we do recover those funds I think it was in the neighborhood of $12,000.00 or $14,000.00. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Which is actually three times normally what they are to tear down. You are correct. COUNCILMAN BRYAN That will allow us to some more demolish so. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – That’s what I meant by moving something up. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Maybe tomorrow while you’re checking on these other things Mr. Mayor, maybe you could check on that process just to make sure that it’s where it ought to be. COUNCILMAN MANSON – So you’re saying this 613 is a priority? (It’s at the top of the list.) But also you’re saying that if there are 9 or whatever the number we arrive at some that are down the list if we have an emergency arise some could get bumped off that list right, it is possible? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Depending just like a fire. COUNCILMAN MANSON – If we have the same type of incident happen. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Could happen, but believe me Young will be the first house once the money comes because I agree we’re frustrated just like the folks that have to live around it. COUNCILMAN MANSON – I do not recall how much money we have in the CDBG for that particular thing. ($25,000.00) $25,000.00 that would do about five, four to five homes. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – We’ll check that out. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Mr. Mayor, could we get a copy of the list of the homes that are to be demolished/ MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Sure, that’s through the building department but I can get you that. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Thank you. COUNCILMAN MANSON – Just one last comment, I had one in my ward that I live in ward six it took us nearly two years to get it down. We thought we had it down one time and it still ended up going like a two three months it is a frustrating process sometimes. I just wanted to make that clear. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I can attest to that. Mr. Peters, can tell you there was a house I worked on for about two years and Mr. Peters for about a year and a half until it finally came down. Private property and private homes have to get a lot of legal loopholes before you’re allowed to go in and tear it down. We can’t put it on paper and tear it down and almost four years for that one. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – And if sometimes and that’s what happens with some of these homes. They file some sort of legal action holds it up in court and it’s certainly not the city holding it up, but it’s a process that sometimes can take a little longer. But Young’s being torn down guaranteed. 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMAN MANG – I move that we adjourn, seconded by all.
|
©Copyright 1998 - present City of Massillon.
All Rights Reserved
Designed and Maintained by Imaging
2000 Web Design