The Chester Township Board of Trustees met in regular
session Thursday, January 20, 2005,
in the Town Hall Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Charles R.
Stevens, presided.
All trustees and the clerk present.
PLEDGE
The Board led the audience in reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PUBLIC HEARING OF Z-2004-1 (CONTINUATION)
2005-33. Mr. Stevens opened the public hearing of
Z-204-1. Mrs. Mula seconded.
Vote: Unanimous.
Motion passed.
Mr. Stevens explained to the audience that the
reason for the continuation of this public hearing was due to the concern
expressed by the residents.
Senator Grendell did arrive later in the meeting last week and said he
is working very hard to have legislation passed that would give townships power
to regulate gas and oil wells.
Margaret Muehling,
Chair of the Zoning Commission, explained the reason why the Zoning Commission
removed the section in the Zoning Resolution. It
was on the advice from the Planning Commission and the Prosecutor’s Office.
Steve Markowitz, 13000 Cassie Lane, he has not felt well and has had a
headache since the problem arose with the well being drilled on Cassie Lane. They have twin boys who are two and one-half
years old; God knows what will happen in the future.
Michelle Allen, 12965 Cassie Lane, she also expressed her concern over the
incident on Cassie
Lane
which occurred last week.
Greg Soukup, 12840 Cassie Lane, he expressed his concern about taking the oil
and gas well regulations off the books. What
happens if there is a problem and there are no regulations?
Ron Cotman, Winchester Valley, stated that at the last meeting, the Board
was going to request guidance from the Prosecutor’s Office. Has
this information been received?
Mr. Stevens said the Board has not yet received
a response to their request from the Prosecutor’s Office.
Mrs. Mula said she did have a verbal
conversation with the Prosecutor’s Office and will share this information with
her fellow trustees after the close of this public hearing.
Mr. Cotman said he would hope the Board told
the Prosecutor, this is what we want to do and could they tell us legally how
we could accomplish it, as opposed to asking if it is okay to leave it on the
books.
George Goodrich, a
Chester Resident, said 10 to 12 years ago when the matter went to the voters,
the vote was to put it on the books to protect the landowners. Here
we are now with new people looking at it, who are not acquainted with how it
came about at that time. We
certainly don’t want a well near a school where it could jeopardize the
children.
James Drockton,
8886 Ranch, asked if the Board plans to go into an Executive Session after the
close of the public hearing.
Mr. Stevens said all discussion by the Board
will be in public session.
Mr. Drockton said he
spoke with a Township south of Chester who said they would consider also leaving
the section on their books. He
encourages the Board of Trustees to obtain an opinion from legal counsel
regarding what the legalities are of leaving the section in the Zoning
Resolution. He
has also had conversation with an attorney, who specializes in zoning, who said
the regulations can be left in the Zoning Resolution because if you remove it,
then you will have to go through the procedure of putting the regulations back on
the books. The
section can be marked “not enforceable”.
Charles Miner,
12414 Stockbridge, from what he has heard, he feels the zoning regulations
should be left in place.
Tom Drockton, Carmichael Drive, it would seem counterproductive to remove
those regulations from the Zoning Resolution because of all of the research
that went into that amendment. Secondly, if Mr. Grendell is working on reversing this, meetings
would have to begin all over again to put the regulations back in the Zoning
Resolution.
Libby Drockton, Carmichael Drive, just to reiterate, she does not see the
purpose of removing the regulations from the Zoning Resolution.
Judith Schwed,
12249 Lake Forest, she is very much against having the regulations removed from
the Zoning Resolution and explained what transpired when this amendment was put
into our zoning regulations which included trips to Columbus, Ohio, to testify
on behalf of the regulations.
Tom Drockton, Carmichael Drive, he is concerned about future wells, one of
which may be placed on school property which West Geauga owns.
There is a petition at the School Board Office to respect the wishes of
the people who voted for the amendment in 1991 and be considerate and not put a
well on school property.
Mr. James Drockton said the brine is very
dangerous to the ground water and explained how the groundwater could be
affected along with his personal experiences with damage to his water. It
was only through public pressure that the amendment passed in 1991.
Zoning Inspector
Mike Joyce said in his conversation with Rebecca Schlag, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, she informed him that any change in any verbiage would have to go
back to the public hearing process. You
would have to go back and do it all again. At
last night’s Zoning Commission meeting, Chair Muehling said she would support
the decision of the Trustees. Both the Planning Commission and the
Prosecutor’s Office recommended removing the language.
Mrs. Mula explained that if a caveat goes on the
section, the process the Township would have to go through is that the whole
amendment process would have to begin again.
Mr. Stevens said the Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, Rebecca Schlag, advised him today that it would be wise to take the
information off the books.
Mr. Montague said if the average resident came
in, did not read the caveat and decided to drill a well, then the Township is
open to liability to that resident. It
is not the well drillers you have to worry about.
Mr. Montague said he wants it understood that
it is not this Board of Trustees who wants to take it off the books. It
is the State and the Governor who signed the House Bill that states that the Township
has no authority in these matters any longer.
Question raised
from the audience as to why this section cannot be removed at the County level?
Mrs. Mula said it has nothing to do with the County. It
is at the State level.
Linda Grimm, Rust Drive, asked if the public hearing vote could be delayed.
Mrs. Mula said normally the Board is required to
vote on a public hearing in a timely time frame. The
Prosecutor’s Office has advised the Board they cannot postpone the vote for
more than thirty days. This
requirement is in the Zoning Resolution.
Steve Markowitz
said he had called the Police Department at 3:00 a.m. about the noise and was told there was
nothing the Police Dept. could do about the noise.
Marguerette Morris,
Martingale, explained the history and time spent on the regulations which were
put in place in the 1990’s and the many hearings which were held.
Irene Wright, 12930
Stockbridge, questioned the process used for suggested removal of this section
in the Zoning Resolution.
Mr. Stevens explained the direction came from
the County Planning Commission per the direction of the State. The
Zoning Commission then acted based upon this advice from the County Planning
Commission including the Prosecutor’s Office.
A resident said
that once the Board closes public comments, then there is no recourse for the
residents to speak on the issue.
Mr. Stevens said that is the procedure and that
at some point, the Trustees have to stop the input and the Board has to make a
decision.
A resident
requested that this hearing be continued to next week so more people could read
about this in the newspapers. Then, the Board of Trustees will not make a
decision you are going to regret.
Ron Cotman said he
heard that a zoning specialist suggested leaving the amendment on the books which
would result with very little or no consequences. Chair Muehling has told him that there are
many laws on the books that are not enforceable. He
suggests continuing this matter to seek other legal advice.
A resident said the
Board’s responsibility is to represent the residents; obtain a legal opinion in
writing from the Prosecutor’s Office.
Mrs. Mula referenced all of the hearings from
ten years ago on oil and gas well drilling. The
written opinion is from the Geauga County Planning Commission which states the
language has been deemed unenforceable and should be removed.
Mr. Montague said each individual Board members
decides on his/her own decision on which way to vote. All
facts must be presented of all possibilities that may happen, but that does not
mean that a trustee has a preconceived idea of how to vote.
Jim Drockton feels
strongly that the Board should obtain an attorney who specializes in this type
of law for a written opinion.
Don Schwed, Lake Forest Drive, what if an attorney is hired and they lose. Then
what?
Kurt Fiegle, 8406
Cedar. The
Board should represent its constituents and not worry about the
County’s
recommendations.
George Goodrich. The
Board of Trustees is elected to represent the people and they should abide by
that.
Dottie Mathias, Caves Road, there are teens here having their first
experience at a township meeting. Ten years ago, the Prosecutor’s Office was
not in favor of the laws regarding gas and oil wells, referencing to the
arduous task of all the past public hearings. We
are all in the same boat.
Greg Soukup, Cassie Lane, referenced House Bill 248 and our
legislators.
Zoning Inspector
Mike Joyce said the Board of Trustees sent him to Columbus to argue against House Bill 248. He
did not see any other zoning inspectors at that hearing.
Mr. Montague asked the Zoning Inspector if this
is kept on the books and Senator Grendell was successful with his upcoming
legislation, public hearings would have to be gone through again to remove the
language which was added that the section was unenforceable. He
will not vote for the amendment if there is no caveat on this section in the
Zoning Resolution because we are opening ourselves up to liability.
Jim Drockton said
if that were done, the only thing the public hearing would have to address
would be to remove the caveat.
Mr. Montague explained the procedures for a
public hearing even just to remove the caveat. The
process would have to begin all over again with hearings.
Jim Drockton said
there is no reason to put the caveat on.
House Bill 298, Section 8, read by Mr. Drockton at this time regarding a committee
which will eventually be put in place.
Mrs. Mula thanked the Drockton family on all of
their research; however, that proposed committee is not going to be effective. At a
meeting, she asked who was on that committee and was informed the
representatives from ODNR said they will take into consideration the Board’s
recommendations and our regulations including the 750 foot requirement but that
the drillers only have to follow the regulations which are on the book from the
State of Ohio.
Mr. Drockton said with both Grendell and Dolan
on the committee, there is a better chance.
Faith Whitcomb, 9615 Mayfield Road, felt that the residents should be
cautioned that the well drillers do not always follow the rules and regulations
in place even by the State.
Ron Cotman feels
that some language should be left in the Zoning Resolution on Z-2004-1 so there
might be some regulations on our books when the well drillers get the
regulations from ODNR, that our regulations could be used as a comparison with
ODNR. It
is possible that could result in some requirements on the driller.
Kathy Cotman
referenced the disclaimer which Mr. Montague suggested and said she has uneasiness
with. You
could create another entire chapter, make it a Zoning Amendment, not just for
the oil and well gas drilling chapter but for the entire Zoning Resolution,
which states that State or federal laws supercede any regulations within the
Zoning Resolution and that specific resolutions shall be deemed unenforceable. Then
you get away from opening up the specific oil and gas well section. That
may be a consideration as an alternative.
Marguerette Morris
asked how many wells are being drilled at this time?
The Zoning
Inspector explained the locations of the five wells being drilled.
2004-34. Mr. Stevens moved to close the public portion
of the meeting. Mr. Montague seconded.
Vote: Unanimous.
Motion passed.
Mr. Stevens thanked all of the people who have
come to the hearing this evening and also last week.
Mr. Stevens said for this Board to review all
the different possibilities that can come from this recommendation is prudent. On
one hand, we have our legal counsel recommending strongly that we go forward
with the course of action recommended by the County Planning Commission. On
the other hand, we have many people, both lawyers, non-lawyers, and residents
recommending that we don’t follow that advice.
Personally, he feels we should be sending this back to the Zoning
Commission stating that as it is, it is not appropriate for our Township. He
would like to see some wording that this is not enforceable that anyone picking
up a Zoning Resolution would see that, yes it has been left on the books, but
at this point in time it is not something that can be enforced. To
take it a step further, he feels we should develop a fact sheet that we can
provide to the home owners and developers that explains what we had on the
books, why we had it on the books, and why it is in our best interest to work
with the driller or someone else stating some of the things in place before
allowing a driller to come onto that property. Past
discussion included putting an ad in the newspaper.
Also, he would suggest that a letter be sent to all surrounding property
owners in the area where a well is being drilled along with a fact sheet. He
is not comfortable leaving this section on the books.
Mrs. Mula said she is having a problem with this
since the amendment was a long, hard process. It
is still up to the people who own the property whether they sign leases with
drilling companies to drill on their property. If
people wouldn’t sign the leases, drilling wouldn’t continue. On
the parcels that are larger than 20 acres, there is no worry; the combining of
the smaller lots is the problem. The Prosecutor’s Office has recommended the
language not stay on the books. They also said the formal zoning process
would have to begin for a caveat to be placed in the Zoning Resolution. She
does not have a lot of faith in the proposed committee. There
are no time constraints on the committee members; they are only recommendations. The
members will have no voting power and no restraints. We
could obtain all of the legal opinions in the world and get ten different opinions. The
bottom line is the Prosecutor’s Office is our lead counsel; that is according
to the ORC. If
we modify any other type of language to be included, is it more than a
modification to the existing zoning we have?
The request is to delete the language. If
not, it would have to go back to the beginning process. It
would be a stall tactic because the Prosecutor’s Office and the Planning
Commission would not recommend it.
Mr. Montague said the Board could send it back
to the Zoning Commission and go through the whole procedure again. It
also gives the residents an opportunity to speak up at the Zoning Commission
Meeting. If
it ends up back to the Board with a caveat that the Prosecutor and the and the
Planning Commission all agree on, the residents would be able to see again if
it would be accepted or rejected. Go ahead and agree to remove it as the Zoning
Commission has recommended. The
Board could also ask for a written opinion from the Prosecutor’s Office.
An ad in the
newspaper advertising a meeting would work as a method of communication.
2005-35. Mr. Stevens moved to deny the proposed
amendment Z-2004-1. Mrs. Mula
seconded. Roll
call vote: Mr. Montague, yes; Mrs. Mula, yes; Mr. Stevens, yes.
Motion passed.
Mr. Stevens said the Board would have a letter
ready for next week’s trustees meeting to be sent to the Zoning Commission with
the Board’s recommendations.
ROAD DEPT.
Road Superintendent Chuck Mascella said both the 2005 Road
and Culvert Inventories are complete and are on file in the Town Hall. He has been in contact with the Dept.
on Aging and a date between June 18 – 20 will be announced as the clean up day
for senior citizens. A list of the households has been prepared by
the Zoning Inspector which will be forwarded to the Dept.
on Aging so all residents who qualify will be notified of this service.
2005-36. Mr. Stevens
moved to approve $12,252.00 payable Universal
Oil, Inc.,
Cleve.,
Ohio, for $1,452.00
from Fire Dept. Fund #2111-220-420-0400;
$10,800.00
from Road Dept. Fund #2031-330-420-0000
for 7,000 gallons of Marathon Supreme Diesel fuel. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.
2005-37. Mr. Stevens
moved to approve the replacement of rear springs on Road
Dept. truck #3 for up to
$1,400.00 payable to Cleveland Spring, Cleveland,
Ohio, from
Fund #2031-330-323-0074. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.
Mr. Mascella requested
permission of himself and his Assistant to attend a leadership and supervision
training for public employees. They plan to use a township truck to travel
to the seminar.
2005-38. Mr. Stevens
moved to approve up to $120.00 payable to
SMSO, Akron,
Ohio, for leadership and supervision training for public
employees to be held on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, from 8:15 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m.
for the Road Superintendent and the Assistant Road Superintendent from Fund
#2031-330-599-0000. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.
Betty Roach, Harold Drive,
requested a sign be installed at the intersection of Herrick and SR 306 indicating
our Police Dept. is on Opalocka Drive.,
if people driving through Chester Twp. from
other communities have an emergency situation.
Mr. Montague asked the Road
Superintendent if ODOT would be willing to install the sign. Mr. Mascella
said he will contact ODOT and get back to the Board with an answer.
ZONING DEPT.
Zoning Inspector Mike Joyce was present at the public
session of this meeting.
POLICE DEPT.
Chief Orosz said they have put together a strategic plan for
2005 which they have presented to the Board of Trustees for review. A history of the needs of the community,
since the Chief began, is addressed in this report. There has been a reduction of vandalism in
the Township.
Duties of dispatchers have changed. At the time of the theft, we were forced to
go with the Geauga County Sheriff’s Dept. for
one year, during which they provided excellent service to our community. With changing times, the police department has
had a handle on their financial budget. By discontinuing our dispatch services and
having the Sheriff’s Dept. provide those
services at no charge, we could do other things like hiring more police
officers.
If we stay as we are with dispatch and the number of officers presently
in the department, the department will have to go for a new levy or at least a
replacement levy in 2006. By discontinuing dispatch, we will eliminate
the need for a levy in 2006. He spoke with the Sheriff, and they have
agreed to provide their dispatch services at no cost. Our dispatch cost us in excess of $200,000.00
in 2004.
We no longer do emergency medical dispatching or any dispatching for Chester
Fire Rescue, Inc. The officers are downloading their own
reports right in to the computers and eliminating the need for dispatchers to
do that work.
The tax dollars will be maximized.
Mr. Montague asked why this
timing was chosen to eliminate dispatch.
The Chief said one dispatcher is retiring and one left for a
new job, which is an opportune time to do it. We would need to hire additional dispatch
personnel.
The dispatch equipment will be maintained and the sale of the equipment
will be reviewed at a later date.
Mrs. Mula asked if there
was a time frame with LEADS to establish this.
Captain Purchase explained the time frame with LEADS.
Mr. Stevens asked if the
LEADS would be discontinued.
Captain Purchase said we would look at maintaining a
terminal which means just being able to read the information for court, checking
people’s license plates, etc. It would be read only.
Mrs. Mula asked about
status of portable computers for officers?
Chief Orosz said that may be a possibility for next year and
they are evaluating to see if the cost of $3,000.00
for each laptop computer would be cost effective for five or six officers.
Mr. Montague asked if there
were any disadvantages in disbanding dispatch.
Chief Orosz said he does not see any disadvantage. Explanation was given of the process in place
right now for emergency calls. Some programs that could be added are crime
protection, senior citizen safety, safety town and having officers attend the
police academy which are programs we cannot provide at this time.
Mrs. Mula said she was not
in favor of bringing dispatch back to the township but leaving it at the
Sheriff’s Department two years ago. The 24 hour service at the Police Dept.
was a consideration at the time. What about a local phone number?
Chief Orosz said a local phone number will be provided for
use to the residents, not a 285 number. They did learn from the last time.
Mr. Stevens asked about
people picking up reports, etc. after 5:00 p.m.?
Chief Orosz said an officer could drop the report off or the
report could be picked up during the day hours when the station is opened.
Mr. Montague feels from his
past conversations with the Chief and the Captain, a lot of thought has gone
into this decision. We need to set a public meeting that the community
can come to so that the Chief and Captain can explain this to all residents. Put something in the Chesterland News on what
the Chief is planning. The Board should set up an open meeting to
the community to discuss this matter. This situation can be compared to ambulance
billing because until people understand what is being done and why it is being
done, the people will not see the benefit(s) to our community.
The Board concurs that the Police Chief, Sheriff, Fire Chief
and Captain should all be present to answer questions from residents. All concur that February 10th is
the date for this meeting to being at 6:30 p.m.
with the regular meeting to be followed by the meeting regarding dispatch at 7:00 p.m.
at either the Geauga West Library or one of the meetings at the West
Geauga High School
or the Middle School.
The Chief answered miscellaneous questions from the audience
at this time.
The Board thanked the Chief and Captain for their well-done
presentation.
CLERK’ S FOLDER
2005-39. Mr. Stevens
moved to approve and sign Payroll Time Sheet for Road
Dept. employees dated January 2, 2005. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.
2005-40. Mr.
Stevens moved to approve and sign Payroll Warrants #PY 46716 through 46786. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.
Clerk’s Note: The
ending number used on 1-13-05
was UAN #46014; the beginning number used on 1-20-05 is OTAS #46716. The ending # on 1-6-05 was OTAS #46715.
2995-41. Mr.
Stevens moved to approve and sign letters addressed to computer
companies who have expressed interest in proposing to the
Board of Trustees regarding
updating of the computer system. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.
12005-42. Mr. Stevens
moved to approve and sign a letter addressed to Governor
Taft regarding House Bill 148 and S. B. 18 expressing the
Board’s concerns. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed. Mr. Stevens
read the letter addressed to Governor Taft.
Mr. Stevens explained there
is an Ohio Township
meeting which is very informative which he would like to request attending.
2005-43. Mr. Stevens
moved to approve up to $675.00 for Trustee
Charlie
Stevens’ attendance at the 2005 Ohio Township Winter Meeting
on February 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.
Mr. Stevens said all
trustees have visited the property at 9144 Mayfield
Road. Now the Board needs to make a decision
whether to proceed with the steps that are in the evaluation.
Mrs. Mula feels the Board
should review the entire file on this parcel and to enter that as part of our
record.
2005-44. Mr.
Stevens moved to continue to evaluate insecure, unsafe structurally defective
buildings per a nuisance complaint complied with the steps set forth in the
procedures that we used in the nuisance complaint on structurally defective
buildings.
Mrs. Mula seconded. Vote:
Unanimous. Motion passed.
Mr. Stevens said a letter
has been sent from the Geauga County Auditor regarding House Bill 352 which is
an amnesty provision for tax exempt properties.
Clerk Austin
asked the Cotmans’ about their project of completing applications for tax
exempt properties. Four have been received and still waiting on
two.
The applications were done for six properties.
Mrs. Mula noted that the
Assistant to the Clerk provided a listing of the properties to the Board last
week.
This matter tabled to the next meeting.
Mrs. Mula addressed a
request from the Assistant to the Clerk for overtime when she took sick time
during the same week.
Mrs. Mula is not in favor
of paying the overtime since the Assistant to the Clerk did take sick time during
the same work week. A suggestion is to permit the Assistant to
the Clerk to leave 30 minutes early on January
21, 2005, to compensate for the 30 minutes she took off on January 19, 2005, and which she used as
sick time.
Discussion ensued regarding comp time.
Clerk Austin said the Assistant to the Clerk had a doctor’s
appointment on January 19, 2005, and has requested 30 minutes of overtime in the
same week, to be paid as regular time as she had sick time since she had to
work until 5:30 p.m.
to complete the agenda on January 20,
2005.
Mrs. Mula said sick time
and working overtime is not inter-changeable. She suggests that the Assistant to the Clerk
take off 30 minutes on January 21,
2005, to compensate for the 30 minutes she had to stay over.
Mrs. Mula said there is no
policy in place for comp. time in the
Personnel Manual.
The Assistant to the Clerk did revise her sick time request
from the morning doctor appointment on January 19th and did request overtime
for the 30 minutes she worked to complete the agenda for this meeting from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Stevens concurred with
Mrs. Mula.
2005-45. Mr. Stevens
moved to allow the Assistant to the Clerk to leave at 4:30
p.m. on January 21, 2005, for her one half hour worked
over on Thursday, January 20, 2005. Mrs. Mula
seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr.
Stevens, yes; Mrs. Mula, yes; Mr.
Montague, no.
Motion passed.
Clerk Austin
questioned if the Administrative Assistant gets Board approval to be paid for
the times she works over.
Mrs. Mula asked if this were
for zoning meetings?
Clerk Austin
replied, it is for trustees meetings and trustee work.
Mr. Montague said if the
issue comes up in the future, the Chairman will bring the matter up and the
Board will deal with it.
Clerk Austin
informed the Board that the State Auditors are in, and they have advised her
that the audit will be done for 2002, 2003 and 2004. January
27, 2005, is the pre-audit meeting date with the Auditors and the Trustees. Brian Huff, the field auditor, who is performing
the field work, has informed her that they will be confirming the January 27th
date with the Board of Trustees as soon as he has the approval of his
supervisors.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, Mr.
Stevens adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
_____________________________
Charles R. Stevens,
Chairman
Karen M. N.
Austin, CPA, Clerk
______________________________ _____________
Patricia M. Mula,
Vice-chairwoman
Approval Date
______________________________
James A. Montague, Trustee
KMNA\mlf