03/30/2006 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Special Council Minutes of 3/30/06 appropriate money and help set priorities, and that should be done in conjunction with the administration. However, when a mayor decides to use something as strong as a line item veto, she thinks that bears some consideration from the members of Council to look into why someone would choose to do that. That is why she requested the Law Dept. to tell her, as a Council member, whether there was a liability issue. The answer was there is not a liability issue. She also spoke to the Safety Director, and he also confirmed there was not a need for another corrections officer at this time. Roll call continued: Ryan, yes, commenting that in the past he has worked at the police station on a daily basis. They need a corrections officer, there is no doubt. Council worked very hard on the budget and came up with a $20,000/$30,0 difference on a $69 million budget, and he would hope that would be respected by Council. Everything was passed by a 7-0 vote. Everybody makes great speeches, but nobody was in that Police Dept. when he was and saw the third shift when there wasn't a corrections officer there and police had to be pulled in off the road. That is one less person patrolling the wards, and that is why he voted yes. The veto was sustained with three yes votes and three no votes. BZD COMMITTEE P~1, ~T Councilman Gareau, chairperson of the Building, Zoning and Development Committee: 1) The committee met on March 28, 2006. Present were Council Members Orlowski, Miller, Gareau, Dailey Jones and Barker; Law Director Dubelko and Planning Director Wenger. He will report out on one of the agenda items: • Ordinance 2005-95, an ordinance amending various sections of Chapter 1138 entitled "Senior Residence District" of the North Olmsted Zoning Code in order to clarify and update development regulations for the Senior Residence District as twice amended. A portion of this was previously reported out, but it was held in committee because there were two particular concerns that were brought forward. One question was brought forward by him as he requested from the Law Dept. an opinion concerning the appropriateness of city ordinances establishing a minimum room size for various dwelling units that were otherwise regulated by the State of Ohio Administrative Code and Revised Code. The other question was brought forward by a potential developer within the community who questioned whether it was appropriate for the city to distinguish between amulti-family residence and amulti-family senior residence. Mr. Dubelko researched that and issued an opinion he did not believe it was appropriate for City Council to, and could not in fact, establish minimum room sizes which were more stringent or stricter than what the State of Ohio had already enacted. Secondly, he had suggested that, with respect to the difference in minimum acreage or minimum lot size for development between multi-family generally, cluster generally and disabled seniors, that he felt there might be a fair housing issue with respect to that. In other words, we could not simply allow for a smaller classification or a larger lot development burden upon a developer for disabled seniors while allowing a lesser burden for those without disabilities. Acting upon that, the Planning Director and Law Director got together in consultation with him and prepared amendments to the code, which are brought forward tonight. The amendments are in two sections: Section 1138.05, formerly area and density regulations, was changed. It now will provide that the minimum development area for Senior Residence District will be 2acres-previously there was an 8 or 10 acre request. The lot area shall not be less than for Single Family Cluster independent living units, 7,260 square feet per dwelling unit. For multiple family residences and residential nursing homes, 2,200 square feet per dwelling unit. It also changed from attached units 2