[0:00] It is Wednesday, August 19th, 2026. We're going to start out with our

[0:04] committee meetings this morning. Uh we'll start out with the our streets and

[0:08] drainage committee, Mr. T. >> All right. Thank you. This is a

[0:12] resolution 26R43. This is a change order which is uh

[0:17] follow on our previous resolution we had for the paving program this year. uh due

[0:23] to some changes or some some uh late minute uh developments on Enbridge, they

[0:31] found that there's going to be some work done on some of the original roads we

[0:33] were going to pay. So, we opted to pave those next year and select some

[0:37] different roads this year that led to a change order. Uh the original bid is

[0:41] based on quantities with set prices per quantity. uh those uh new roads were

[0:47] broken down to develop the quantities and that uh was how we came out with the

[0:53] change order. So we changed the name of the roads that we're going to pave and

[0:56] then there's a in addition to some of the quantities the roads we're looking

[1:00] at paving and correct me if I'm wrong it's John's donnerwood and pepperage is

[1:06] that and the amount of the change order

[1:11] uh is $15,93960

[1:18] questions from anybody comments Mr. CS, are you okay with Mr. Ross? I know there

[1:25] was some question last meeting with roads and everything.

[1:28] » Right. I I appreciate the strongman reaching out to Mr. Hercules to uh set

[1:33] the record straight as far as roads and what he read off is is exactly correct.

[1:37] Uh so um we had the question with the with the last one um

[1:45] about um uh section one where it says uh

[1:51] authorizes and directs the mayor to approve the change order. Um

[1:57] and the last one we we took out any rents. Uh is that something we want to

[2:01] leave in this time or take it out again? But I think we move forward now.

[2:07] » Well, I think I I don't think it changes whether we move forward with it or not.

[2:10] Just something comes up. It doesn't, you know, he's not locked into it like we

[2:15] talked about last time. It doesn't it doesn't change whether you can do it or

[2:18] not. >> I think we only removed it because of

[2:21] the change. >> Okay.

[2:23] » Yeah. >> Okay. Just asking.

[2:26] » I believe so. Wasn't that why we remove that, Marshall? So that way we knew the

[2:30] change order was coming. We removed that to at least get him started.

[2:34] » Yeah, that was precisely why I removed it.

[2:37] » Okay. >> All right. Anybody have any issues

[2:41] waiting with me? >> With that, I will close the

[2:48] streets and drainage committee at 603. Uh, moving on to laws and ordinance

[2:55] committee. Mr. like to open the laws and ordinance committee at 6:03 p.m. Um, we

[3:00] have ordinance 26003. It is an ordinance amending the new

[3:05] Franklin considated land use code and zoning map.

[3:11] So, there's so much here that we have Fred. I don't know. Fred, do you have

[3:16] anything that or you that you'd like to present or say or

[3:21] » Not really. I'm here to answer any questions and uh and maybe there's some

[3:27] questions at the public hearing that maybe I can try to clear up.

[3:31] » Yeah, there were there was I heard numerous he said he'd get back. Do you

[3:34] have any those or do we >> do you know do you recall questions?

[3:41] » Yeah, the question I think that the mayor sent you a sample letter to the

[3:47] property owners. Um there are prop and right now just on

[3:53] not going into the computer or looking at the digital uh computer with the

[3:58] parcels. There's about 56 to 60 properties that have the tools

[4:05] zone. And and just to to remind you again is that uh what we had is years

[4:13] ago probably in the u early 2000s the city created CDs conservation districts

[4:20] and they b they created a conservation district basically for areas that were

[4:26] wetlands flood planes the heavily wooded areas and so what they ended up doing

[4:31] was basically drawing it on a map you know so it didn't look at parts

[4:36] necessarily look at partial lines in the old code didn't look at partial lines in

[4:40] most cases and so what happened was there were a number of properties not a

[4:46] lot that the the CD zone went somewhere within the property 50% 20% 70% and so

[4:56] what we ended up doing was um we ended up uh looking at those properties and

[5:02] trying to determine you know what was their the appropriate zoning. If it was

[5:07] mostly CD and everything around it was CD, we made it CD. If it was mostly R1

[5:12] and everything near it was R1 and it was small, the property was under 5 acres,

[5:18] we probably made it R1 just to make it easy to uh to interpret and and so it's

[5:25] really hard when you have two zoning districts on a parcel. It's for the

[5:28] property owner, you know, what do I do? What what the staff does? How do we

[5:34] treat setbacks? how do we and so there's a lot of issues that you don't want to

[5:39] do that and so but the main reason was if it was if it met the qualifications

[5:46] sizewise and everything else where on one you have less than five acres we

[5:52] made it on one because if you have a property that's two acres or even one

[5:56] acre it's it's CD then it's it's a nonforming lot so we try not to be

[6:02] nonconforming and then the After council, there was a section that was in

[6:08] um in in

[6:13] this up draw this uh there was a question uh that that

[6:18] Mr. Clusty Mr. Pal had in the um interpretation of the code and there's

[6:26] one section that's typical in most codes. It says in case where there are

[6:30] multiple zoning boundaries on a parcel, the more restrictive zoning district

[6:35] designations and requirements shall apply. And the reason why we have that

[6:40] in there and we we we don't want to take that out is because things could happen

[6:45] in the future that we're somebody could could buy three parcels and two of them

[6:51] are are are R2 and one of them's R1 and they buy it

[6:58] and then they consolidate it and then you have multiples other times. And so

[7:03] what this would say is that okay if you were trying to get around the

[7:07] regulations to higher density is more restrictive than doing so it would still

[7:12] be R1 and not R2. So that's why we have those things in there and and and other

[7:17] issues come up that that we may not know about. A lot of times parcels

[7:23] uh they change and we don't know until you look at the county. The county

[7:28] doesn't necessarily tell us. we have a record of lot splits and in the future

[7:34] with this new map we'll be able to to make those changes in real time but

[7:39] sometimes things happen and the parcel are different than what we have in so so

[7:45] it's a it's a protection thing the other issue came up uh it we intend to send

[7:51] those letters to sample here but what the code says also that any any reason

[8:00] that is 10 watts or less or or 10 watts or greater than 10 watts, you don't have

[8:05] to notify. That's a lot of revised code. It's actually a little bit

[8:11] um and it's the same in our code. We don't say a lot. It's high revised code

[8:17] 713 and 12 requires me notices and ordinance intent to resone for

[8:22] redistrict 10 or or fewer parcels. And so that so what that gets at is that if

[8:28] it's a typical reszoning we have to notify if it's over 10 pars we don't

[8:33] have to notify but there has to be uh some type of public event like what

[8:39] we're doing with the code or comprehensive plan. And so those are the

[8:43] reasons why we we we didn't do that, but we tried to be as as as

[8:51] at at as as appropriate as possible with these partials and that's what they were

[8:55] done. And so again, so things that sort of say what we were doing, we even went

[9:01] a step further and we looked at those parcels and see what was possible. So So

[9:05] that that gets to your question, but uh there's not a lot of parcels after it.

[9:10] We're going to set up a meeting with our part-time uh intern that's in the

[9:14] service department uh that does the GIS now and we'll get an exact number of

[9:20] those partials uh when we get it into the actual art view program. It'll tell

[9:26] us those partial I did a count just by looking at the math the old map and the

[9:31] new math and I counted 56 parts. So, and and just to interject, not interrupt

[9:37] you, Fred, uh I gave you guys a sample under what we want to send out at least

[9:42] to notify even if there's any that are I would rather over notify than not

[9:47] notify. And you know, I I would even like to take it a step further after we

[9:52] get those notifications out, maybe set up a workshop where they can come in,

[9:57] share their concerns if they have any as we work through this process, just to

[10:02] give them a voice in case they've missed out on some of the other public hearings

[10:05] that we've had. If we did it before the council meeting, whatever would suit you

[10:09] guys, but just to try to include everybody, especially the ones that

[10:14] would go through a change with that. I'd rather uh I know what the OC says as far

[10:19] as notifying, but I'd still at least give them a chance to be notified and be

[10:23] heard if they'd like to. >> Thanks. Thanks for the information

[10:27] there. That's very helpful. One of my questions would be, so if we were to

[10:32] reclassify, reszone an R1 split CV property, does that take effect today

[10:39] when that not today, but the minute it's reszone? So, somebody could be living in

[10:44] a property that they, you know, know to be an R1. What What would be some of the

[10:50] restrictions if they wanted to do some sort of improvement or something to

[10:53] their their property that would be impacted by that change? I mean, there

[10:57] really isn't any I mean, there's still I mean, setbacks are there might be a

[11:02] setback issue potentially, but that was some something we would look at. You

[11:06] know, they in most of these cases when I looked at the property, there were there

[11:12] were a number of really of small lots that were non-conforming. They couldn't

[11:18] meet the R5 uh standards starting with acreage and

[11:24] then setbacks. Setbacks are really great on five acres. And so the R1 is rural

[11:30] residential and and so there are um you know there there less setbacks like

[11:37] that. So in most cases it's not going to affect them but there could be something

[11:42] that would be and al also to remember too is that um you know we talk about

[11:48] trying to keep the density as low as possible in some of these residential is

[11:52] that when you have the R2 if you have 10 acres for CD you can only have two you

[12:01] know two subdivided one so you have two two houses let's say if it was R1 and

[12:08] it's 5 acres or 10 acres, it's double that. So, so it does increase the

[12:14] density when you take something to R1 at CD and we try not to do that, but there

[12:20] there some cases it just makes sense. And like I said, I'm not quite sure. I

[12:25] remember asking Barry when I first was doing the value

[12:30] report is how the C came about. And I think he said that um sometime like I

[12:36] said in early 2000s late 90s maybe after the city u you know either one became a

[12:43] city or village someone said let's let's create this this seating area that

[12:49] protects the land. It's a good idea. But since then, we also have repairing

[12:53] setbacks. We have flood planes. So, a lot of that's being done anyway. But we

[12:57] kept the CD because I question whether we needed the CD because we have all

[13:02] these other things. But we kept the CD uh and so just now when we got into it,

[13:08] we had to adjust the the boundaries because

[13:14] » Mr. Tom asked this these these zoning changes would take effect with this new

[13:20] code >> with the ordinance. Um what if somebody

[13:24] after receiving a letter said wait a minute I don't want to change to that I

[13:28] want to change to this what's the process for for that change to happen?

[13:33] Well, if you want to change to another zone,

[13:36] not our one or CG, >> well, the lot is split and we made the

[13:41] decision that that their lot was now going to be this. They get the letter,

[13:46] they look at it and they say, "Well, I don't want it to be this. I want to be

[13:50] that. I want to be the other." Um, >> well then

[13:54] » if it makes if it if it fits the requirements for that, if the lot fits

[14:00] the requirements for the other, it would go either way. What what is the process

[14:04] then for them to say change it to the other one? Is that a

[14:09] big deal? >> Right now is that we would just go in

[14:14] based on everybody what what we're doing is just go ahead and change that that

[14:18] that partial to ours let's say versus CD >> even if the ordinance is approved

[14:26] they >> no afterwards they have to go to the res

[14:29] this would be prior to the ordinance being approved. So if we send this when

[14:33] we send this letter out they get back to us and say we would rather have it R1

[14:39] than CD, >> right?

[14:40] » Then we would change it to R1. My only

[14:45] the only the only issue that I would have is let's say it's 20 acres and five

[14:52] of it is R1 and 15 of it is CD. is if they say yes, I want to be R1. It's

[15:01] going to take a big chunk of land and it will increase density. That's the

[15:04] precaution you by doing this is it's it's taking all you know I can get more

[15:11] density on my property out. So that's the risk you take doing this. But I

[15:17] think in all fairness, I mean, people out here, they live out here forever.

[15:21] And there's a good good chance that those people that now have a split lot

[15:24] had a single lot when they bought it. And the city came through and decided to

[15:28] make these changes and turned it in, created this problem. And you know, they

[15:33] my concern is with the changing it from an R1 to a CD. As you mentioned, these

[15:37] are changing setbacks. You know, if they want to put a garage or something else,

[15:39] not that it changes where they can't put it. Um if it's going from CD to um R1,

[15:48] those setbacks are going to be less. So it should

[15:50] » Right. But but I thought the CD was more restrictive.

[15:53] » It is. >> So

[15:56] before we're going to automatically make them more restrictive and now we just

[16:00] limited what somebody can put on their property.

[16:02] » No, if this is done now, then that section I rotated won't be split. We're

[16:08] going to make those changes prior to the code. This section I write to you in

[16:13] article one of the procedures that would be something happens after the code is

[16:17] approved. So if we change these that we change something from uh CD to R1 or CD

[16:26] R1 to CD it's changes made in that section I write to you would not

[16:34] isn't per because we've already made that change. So we stop doing something.

[16:38] » And so so the problem I have with that is when you take so much property and

[16:42] you make it more restrictive from a value standoint, you increase the

[16:48] value of the property, right? >> I think as housing people and zoning

[16:53] people, we do not have the right to make their property more restrictive.

[16:57] Essentially, it cost them money.

[17:01] So, I I commend the the mayor and and our legal council marshall for getting

[17:06] us letter prepped so these people come in and talk to us, but for you and

[17:13] the zoning people that were already no longer here just to willy-nilly make

[17:16] these decisions, we're going to change it and then fall back on ROC code that

[17:21] says, "Oh, we don't have to do this unless it's more than 10 or less." But

[17:27] unless it's less than 10 people, it's it's ridiculous. The fact that the mayor

[17:31] and our legal counsel is going out and saying we need to be more open about

[17:36] this. They need to be commended for that.

[17:39] » Just Fred Fred helped us create that letter. She's saying,

[17:44] » also help design these properties more restrictive

[17:49] without seeking input from the people who own the

[17:53] property. And it's not I've been in real estate 30 years. You

[17:58] make a property more restrictive and tell me I can't do more things on it,

[18:02] you decrease the value of my property. Who takes liability for that?

[18:08] » That's correct. I mean, it it does make it because it's less dam. So, a lot of

[18:13] these OC things, you're going to see these in codes, these standard things

[18:17] like the 10 locks. That's pretty standard. Every code I've looked at,

[18:23] my old codes used to have that. this code had. So it it's a standard thing.

[18:27] It just it's just and then the other section

[18:32] it's normal thing. So um there's a lot of things in the codes that are pretty

[18:38] standard because they come from code of what cities can do. Townships have

[18:43] intersections. So a lot of these things come they just

[18:47] be clear. question if I may uh on kind of a

[18:52] different subject. Let's go on on properties. Uh further down Manchester

[18:55] Road, we changed the property code from business to MU-1

[19:00] historic. And as I was looking through that today,

[19:05] um there are some uh places down there that uh have businesses there. So, let's

[19:12] say I own a a shop of some sort. I'm at retirement age. I decide that I'm going

[19:18] to sell my shop. I close my business. It takes me a year to sell my building,

[19:25] but do I can I still sell it to somebody who's going to put the same type of

[19:29] business in there? Do I lose my grandfather?

[19:33] Everything in the MS1 MU1 and these are the MS1, MU2, MS3,

[19:41] everything you're doing today. >> But these particular uh places I looked

[19:47] at um one is a a conditional zoning and the other one is not currently allowed

[19:53] in any one. So, um but you need to look at those

[19:59] things as we went through with the planning commission. Uh in the new code,

[20:03] uh just again, uh conditional use permits did not go to

[20:08] city council. It was something that the commission didn't approve in a new code.

[20:14] Everything's a conditional use permit goes to the city council. So, there's

[20:18] another step, another public hearing process. So, it what was the example for

[20:23] that? in this

[20:25] » body shop. >> Body shop

[20:27] » is not currently committ permitted in the new uh

[20:34] the reason why typically body shops and u they they tend to uh

[20:42] neighboring properties sometimes uh do not like quality shops because of uh

[20:48] paint smells other work being done. And so by putting it through a conditional

[20:53] use permit is that um it it allows for some review of additional standards and

[21:02] that's why you have a conditional use. It's allowed by rights, but now there's

[21:06] a conditional uh use tied to that property that would allow for um for not

[21:15] particularly that hours uh noise things like that. and and so in most cases um

[21:23] body shops if there's conditional use permits have those extra step that they

[21:28] have to do. Now, if you go through that table, you could say, "We don't really

[21:34] want body shops to have the distribution. We can make it permanent

[21:37] use." It's just you need to go through that, make sure you're comfortable with

[21:41] those. But I would just say my experience has been when we have things

[21:46] like shops or or paint shops um is that

[21:54] the smell and things like that have been there for decades. Yeah. Well,

[21:59] there wouldn't be a condition for that. >> All right. So, answer the question then

[22:03] if you would please. I my my building sits vacant for a year because I haven't

[22:08] sold. Somebody comes in and says, "I want I want to I'm a new body guy. I

[22:13] want to go back in here and put a body shop." What steps does he have to take

[22:16] after a year? Is he automatically grandfather because that's what the

[22:19] building was set up for or does he have to jump through a bunch? Um, it really

[22:24] gets into then you're getting into nonconformity. There was a nonconformity

[22:28] section. I'd have to look at that section and see what the limitations is.

[22:33] Typically, and I'm just thinking out loud. I abandon this. I can get back to

[22:38] you on it is typically is if you abandon a place and it electricity turned off,

[22:46] all the utilities are turned off and it stays vacant, then it's loses that

[22:52] conformity and typically you see that in not so much conditional use permits. Uh

[22:57] but if you have it on the market, it's been trying to sell then it can it

[23:02] continues that control. So I guess in that case the body shop tire you try to

[23:09] sell it and another body shop wants to go in it and it's been for sale then

[23:14] they can continue that without changing you know without without losing

[23:19] conformity and just the newspapers run with the property. Mr.

[23:24] Yes. >> Okay. Uh with respect to the this

[23:26] particular question about the the body shop

[23:30] and I want to also look at the uh the code but we have an opportunity here if

[23:34] we don't like our code this is the time that we can change it. Uh but on

[23:38] traditionally on non-conforming uses it is one year. So your example of one year

[23:42] really actually you put it right on the knife's edge. Right. So if it's if it's

[23:45] 364 days it's still okay because you were grandfathered in and he's correct

[23:50] that it that it stops with the use. So once you stop using it, you see this a

[23:54] lot of times. It's actually just the opposite. You've got an agricultural use

[23:57] next to some another in the family farm gets passed along. I just did this and

[24:03] it was um you know did the farm continue to be in use and the question is whether

[24:09] there was still equipment there. So so use is a big question with the that's

[24:14] why it's kind of a nuanced answer. If the body shop still has all of the

[24:17] equipment in it and there's people there that every once in a while will turn the

[24:20] lights on. I mean, you could still say that that use is continued and you can

[24:23] keep keep kicking it out. The other option why is there somebody not here is

[24:27] if you don't like that one-year use, we can always extend the the non-conforming

[24:32] use to two years, 5 years. Um, you know, however you would want to do that, but

[24:37] that's the the non-conforming use question. Eventually,

[24:42] you want to you that's why we have the rules. Uh on the flip side, uh if you've

[24:48] established a use and we change the code on you, you can continue to use that for

[24:52] your lifetime and it will continue to run with the property even if you sell

[24:56] it to the next guy. So in your example, if a young man comes along uh and wants

[25:00] to buy the body shop and it's within 365 days of when the gentleman shut the

[25:04] lights off, he's okay. Uh if he's beyond that period, uh he'll just have to come

[25:09] back. Uh and this goes to Mr. Pal's question, too. Uh you it's not like he's

[25:13] completely out of the block. uh you can come back and either ask for a variance

[25:18] um or reapply for a uh a conditional use um on that. But the u in the example of

[25:24] the gosh I I can't put my shed out here anymore uh because the setbacks have

[25:29] changed and my expectation was that when I bought this property uh I could put it

[25:34] right here. Uh that is actually one of the it's called the Duncan factors. I

[25:38] don't if you've ever heard of that phrase. So when you are um this is

[25:42] something that our BCA right would normally run into when they're

[25:45] considering a variance there are a list of factors that's named after a lawsuit

[25:49] called the Duncan factors. One of them is whether what your expectation was

[25:54] when you brought the property. So you hit the nail on the head with respect to

[25:57] what uh you know what we're concerned about and what our our people uh what

[26:00] our residents are are thinking. Uh and the law does allow uh for somebody to

[26:05] get a an exception or a variance uh if they come back in. I and I don't want to

[26:10] prejudge every case because you know heaven forbid you know six years from

[26:13] now the VCA doesn't grant variance but I would think that in a context like this

[26:18] where we've changed the zoning code uh in this example where you you know going

[26:21] from half to a whole that the VCA would be open to that. I can't think of a much

[26:26] better example of when a variance would be appropriate.

[26:30] » I think going to the department somebody had on that is is it $400 to do a

[26:34] variance? >> I think when I saw one just recently

[26:37] some I don't know

[26:39] » the split you talking about to reszone. >> No,

[26:44] I think it was >> we be charging them to get variance when

[26:48] we change it >> to the original expectation.

[26:51] » Well, I think you know and that's why I just asked Marshall. I said, "Well, what

[26:56] if we just get rid of the CD district?" And and the scary part of that is

[27:00] they're not scary. I guess I should rephrase it.

[27:04] you know, you talk about then that we don't in fact we lose control of the

[27:07] density, you know, and then we could get into a situation we have a lot of small

[27:12] lots and and if that's what they want to do, they'd have the right to do it. And

[27:18] again, I'm coming at the tail end of this thinking, you know, I how how I

[27:22] would be looking at it um just as a resident, you know. Um

[27:27] » that's where I was asking the last meeting. Instead of opting to make it

[27:30] more restrictive, we we opt to do a more restrictive law. We have to go less

[27:34] restrictive. If it's got two different classifications,

[27:38] toggle it back to less restrictive and we're not harming anybody.

[27:42] » At least on the affected properties, you're talking6

[27:45] properties are going to be more restrictive.

[27:49] » How long would you do the analysis on the 56? We can do the analysis on each

[27:52] of the 56 properties and come back and yes or no more restrictive less

[27:58] restrictive.

[28:01] Well, I I think we just um uh >> question asked for more time on this.

[28:07] » Absolutely. Well, I'm glad I

[28:15] um we get these letters sent out uh with with a date of return, the expectation

[28:20] of having it returned. And if if there's anybody with any concerns, we're able to

[28:25] change it quickly without any big deal uh before we pass the thing. And if

[28:31] there are no concerns, then we can be comfortable going ahead and and passing

[28:35] the the ordinance and uh making those changes. Uh but I think if we like like

[28:40] our concern was to let the property owner know. Um and

[28:46] I don't know if we need to put more in the letter or or less in the letter as

[28:50] far as you know this what this is what it means for you you know for your

[28:54] particular property or call us or you know whatever. We can go through what it

[28:58] exactly means. give give each person the opportunity. They don't need to come

[29:01] through council. We don't need to have public hearing board. It's just you know

[29:05] this is what I prefer and that's you know okay I would rather overcommunicate

[29:10] than a lot of people now and even uh sorry to cut you off Jim even Tony

[29:14] administrator Hitchings and Fred and I didn't speak even

[29:18] Mr. Hitchings said hey I'll go live individually talk to these people if

[29:22] necessary just to make sure we're we're messaging them on top of the letter.

[29:27] I would appreciate that because I don't know how many times I get something from

[29:30] my local municipality that I never just

[29:38] » I was going to say I would like to add in the workshop date into the letter

[29:42] once you put that in there so they have that opportunity to come and talk to us

[29:46] and >> so to piggybacking on that I know we I

[29:49] mentioned last meeting I'd like to have a workshop there's there's six sections

[29:53] in there essentially it's one they're odd number But uh what what would work

[29:58] for you guys to have a date to have a workshop? You guys want to do a a

[30:02] weekend morning? You want to do an evening? What do you guys think? What

[30:05] works best for you guys? >> They can find something for me.

[30:08] » I'll be here whenever. What's the purpose of the workshop

[30:12] » to go through the code? Well, we can all discuss the code individually. It's not

[30:16] a requirement like it'd be good >> whenever

[30:20] » evenings for me especially not Saturday or not like weekend mornings just

[30:24] because of >> how late in the evening

[30:28] » anytime but I probably would say evenings work

[30:33] » at night works best for everybody >> Monday through Thursday

[30:39] » not Friday >> you guys I

[30:42] » I'm flexible >> you time Monday to Thursday

[30:48] for me. >> All right.

[30:52] » Mondays are typically best for me football right now.

[30:55] » Yeah.

[31:00] » And then uh I would ask and just I spoke about that too. Um if you guys do have

[31:06] questions or want follow up, if you wouldn't mind submitting those, email me

[31:10] those over. I'll collect them and we'll try to do those together.

[31:15] So we can kind of just keep chipping away at it and answer everything and try

[31:19] to continue to inch forward. So I want to make sure this workshop is for us to

[31:25] dive into certain ones. Nothing to do with presidents coming here and

[31:30] » they they're welcome to come and observe.

[31:32] » I'm saying the 56 that we do that in an actual meeting.

[31:37] » That's an actual >> Yeah, we would just have come during

[31:40] meeting >> prior to Yeah. Mike and I can pro

[31:43] provide feedback to as we talk to the the residents. Okay.

[31:46] » Like, hey, John Smith at such and such address is would rather

[31:52] say R1 or whatever the case may >> requirement for workshops. I didn't

[31:57] think it was two weeks. I thought it was less

[31:59] » for notice. >> Yeah, I thought it was two weeks.

[32:02] » That's for public hearing work.

[32:07] But the traditional rule is 24 hours because what would be considered a

[32:11] special meeting special? >> So I know is the 24th. Does that work

[32:16] for everyone? That's the next Monday.

[32:26] » What time you guys

[32:31] open for you?

[32:36] Mondays for men

[32:43] through 6:30 >> and that probably won't give us time to

[32:46] get on to >> Right. Yeah.

[32:49] » Actually, yeah, that's not what we're going to talk about.

[32:51] » Yeah. Yeah. No, that's fine. >> Those are where my questions are. This

[32:56] is both really for Fred and and the administration. Do we think that we're

[33:00] ready? We've identified the 56 slots. we have the addresses and are they ready to

[33:04] go out and if the answer is that is yes then I would ask council what date do we

[33:08] want to offer them how many different hearings do we anticipate I think we

[33:13] might I think what I heard was before >> but not really on a special date

[33:22] » do do we need do we need council to be involved I my thinking is we we send a

[33:27] letter out and if we tell somebody uh we're we're zoning your entire property

[33:31] B instead at B and C and they come back and say I'd rather it be C. I think we

[33:37] just make that change for them. It's their property. I don't think they need

[33:40] to come before council. I don't think I don't think we need to have any public

[33:43] hearing that we'll get from, >> you know, just just, you know, if if

[33:48] they if they have an objection to it and they want the other district that's

[33:52] already on their property. Okay. I I I don't see where there

[33:56] » you want to make sure they understand the letter or like Kevin said, they open

[34:00] it. I think it's an acknowledgement that hey, I got this. I understand.

[34:03] » Well, like not that they didn't throw it in the trash. But I mean, we can only do

[34:08] so much. >> Well, you'll be sure to follow up with

[34:13] I'm agreeing to start I I mean, I like Barry, I hesitate to tell people what

[34:19] they should do with their, you know, >> I don't want to restrict their property

[34:23] more than >> I just think if they say they want to do

[34:27] it this way. Okay. So, I'm just talking about,

[34:31] » right? But >> what about if 90 95% of it was seed and

[34:38] they knew that going in. We're just saying and it's a 15 acre 20 acre lot.

[34:43] Now we're just going to make all 20 acres because of that 5%.

[34:48] » They could have bought that property 30 years ago and it wasn't

[34:50] » it wasn't anything. Okay. Yeah, that's >> that's my point. mention it.

[34:55] » So yeah, it could be 5% R1 and you know 95% CD,

[35:03] right? So that's my point there. Well, as far as I don't know that we need you

[35:07] here because I think what we're going to do, and I appreciate you offering to I

[35:11] think we're just going to have our discussions internally, compile a list

[35:14] of of concerns, questions, get that over to the mayor and let the mayor get that

[35:18] over to you and that way you can work on that and instead of just wasting your

[35:22] time, ask your but it sometimes it's better, not that I

[35:28] want more meetings, is that if you have a question, it's easier for me to answer

[35:34] that question going through the code and so if you

[35:38] don't you only got you know be here but um I probably should just answer your

[35:46] question just in case that's there were two questions here that just came up I

[35:50] think had a question about what was the what was

[35:58] things moving to CD or >> how many were affected

[36:02] I don't when I look at this map because I identified it. Most of the properties

[36:08] are going from CD to an R1 uh or in some cases over two because it

[36:17] was just a sort of edge of the property that someone decided it was near near

[36:24] the river, the Tus River, things like that that they thought, oh, it should be

[36:29] it's probably plain wetlands and it should be seated. And so in most cases,

[36:36] this is unscientific until we get the jazz is probably 60 to 70% from CD to R1

[36:44] because that CD was created to protect certain more than that. And then um the

[36:52] question you just had it was about the something else

[36:59] was it somebody was 95% C and then they and we just automatically say, "Hey,

[37:04] it's cool." What are the ramifications of

[37:08] » the ramifications are? If it was it would just be high,

[37:15] » right? And what what Kevin, Mr. Powell said was maybe that person that CD

[37:21] wasn't even in there, right, prior to when they purchased the property and we

[37:25] threw that upon them. Sometimes I we had a property that was

[37:32] came in for a various partially in a CD. It was Tom Zelly's

[37:40] property and they didn't realize that there were two zoning districts on there

[37:44] CD by one because that CD was created on there and so we had to work through that

[37:49] issue. It was a plan commission. We had to work through what the setbacks were

[37:53] on that. Um, so there could be a case where people don't even realize that

[37:59] they have this bill. >> So that group, we don't know though, but

[38:03] that group may have just arbitrarily said this is CD.

[38:08] » We don't know how it was done. >> Yeah.

[38:10] » And the Dell property so large that you know

[38:14] » well that's really a flood area through there has been for a long time.

[38:20] And you have to remember too is that flood planes repairing if there's a

[38:25] subdivision or something you can't really go in the flood. You could but

[38:29] your insurance rates as well and we're not going to let you go into a repairing

[38:34] either. So uh so there are some restrictions in addition to the zoning

[38:39] and the repairing probably I thought it was probably created after the season.

[38:46] Well, I'm pretty confident that when we send these lenders out and u uh contact

[38:51] uh all these property owners, I'm pretty confident that one maybe two might have

[38:55] an issue. Most people aren't going to have an issue, but you know, as as Mr.

[38:59] Schaefer has said, we need to give them that opportunity. You know, let them

[39:03] make that decision. Uh we're looking at the workshop on Monday. Yes.

[39:08] » At 6:00. >> I just want to

[39:14] time

[39:18] Okay. Uh, anything else or can we table that to the workshop this

[39:25] anything pressing while we have Mr.

[39:32] » Yeah, please. Um, was there any uh more information

[39:39] about what seems to have been added in between the family zoning public hearing

[39:44] and uh councils the uh attached single family adding six units

[39:55] » that was added I believe prior to that. And the only real change I didn't go

[39:59] through the code. The only real change was the data centers because at that

[40:04] planning commission public hearing uh there were more questions on data

[40:09] sensors and so it made the more reserved. Um but the six units I believe

[40:16] that was changed prior to that that >> it wasn't in the version that was given

[40:21] out to the public. Well, I can't, you know, without looking comparing, I can't

[40:25] give you. But if it was, then we added it the six units in the mixed juice, not

[40:31] in the R3 and the R.

[40:39] » Okay. >> All right. I think we will uh

[40:42] » Marshall has one question about the special meeting, but

[40:46] » just to make sure we >> So for a for purposes, I don't know how

[40:50] we do in the past. until why we're talking about it. U this is a spe it'll

[40:55] be considered a special council meeting, but it'll be a workshop. Our I did look

[40:59] at our rules. It is a 24-hour notice. Uh there are several different ways that

[41:03] we're going the council can call a special meeting. One of them is to call

[41:08] the mayor, which is the easiest as an administrative matter to handle it. We

[41:12] don't have to like vote on it or we don't have to give four signatures or or

[41:14] or so on. So, I don't know how we >> I've never advertised for a workshop,

[41:20] » nor do I take minutes for a workshop. >> I know Katie's put stuff out before.

[41:24] » You've had You've had workshops. >> Yeah, Katie put something out.

[41:28] » We just simply have to post it. There's not necessarily a um any other than

[41:34] wherever we typically post our notices like on our website or whatnot. And then

[41:38] there will be a however we schedule any other uh special council meeting whether

[41:43] it's a workshop or whether it's not if there's a form that we use that's what

[41:47] we should do and if we don't >> is it going to be considered a workshop

[41:51] or a special meeting there is a difference a special meeting then yes

[41:56] there are minutes taken for that if it's a workshop then no

[42:00] » choose a workshop >> so it sounds to me as if it's a workshop

[42:04] amongst the seven of Um, >> no decisions will be made.

[42:09] » No decisions being made. Therefore, no minutes to file.

[42:16] » That's why I >> Yeah, I um

[42:23] we should talk about that later. >> Okay. Kevin, you've had prior workshops.

[42:27] » Oh, yeah. Katie just put something out that we were having workshop because I

[42:30] know we had people show up. >> Okay. I've not attended those.

[42:34] » I don't think you should have to attend them. I'm not I'm not suggesting uh

[42:37] that. >> But I mean it's your special meetings.

[42:39] We I have to take minutes and it has to be

[42:42] » if there's a council meeting. >> Yes. If it's a special meeting a

[42:46] different day that's a diff that's different than having a workshop.

[42:51] » So that's why I was just concerned how you're going to phrase that because if

[42:56] it's a special meeting then yes I need to be there. So if it's a workshop no

[43:00] it's amongst the seven of them. Well, we're not going to make any

[43:04] decisions. This is more of getting our questions together to present to get

[43:08] answers. So, this could be just the workshop.

[43:12] » Yeah, we're just going to compile a bunch of information. I can actually

[43:14] forward over to the mayor, too. >> So, I understand. I will need to look at

[43:18] our rules and whether or not because we do have the ability uh as a charter

[43:22] community to opt out of the state rules uh and change the the rules, but unless

[43:27] we have specifically a rule that says workshops uh we don't need minutes or

[43:32] something to that effect, then it's still considered a public meeting. Uh

[43:35] the public is permitted to attend like you have and we are required to uh

[43:40] provide notice. Um, and we would uh we would have minutes, but you could do a

[43:46] recording. I don't think that the report has to be there. I don't think that's

[43:49] required for workshop. Uh, it's just whether or not we have a a process, but

[43:53] the law requires uh any doesn't matter what we call it. If it's a meeting of

[43:58] more than a quorum of the members of council, it's a meeting. We'll we'll

[44:03] document what we're talking about whether it's in a spreadsheet form or a

[44:07] reporting. And that way we have record of the discussion and topic about it.

[44:11] » And it can be really I mean it can literally almost look like an agenda. It

[44:14] does not have to be and I'm not suggesting that detailed business are

[44:17] required at all. I'm just saying that our notice requirements are required.

[44:21] » The public is allowed to attend but they're not necessarily permitted to

[44:25] participate. >> Correct.

[44:27] » Okay. >> That is correct.

[44:28] » They can observe >> which is which is typically how

[44:30] workshops are >> hand council meetings we allowed

[44:34] workshops. We don't because it's really is kind of a workshop

[44:36] » discussion. I just want to make sure we're doing it illegally.

[44:40] » Exactly. >> Not to throw you out there.

[44:42] » No. Sure. >> There's no meetings in here for you,

[44:48] right? >> No.

[44:49] » Okay. >> Nothing.

[44:52] » Yeah. No, you're good. >> All right. This will conclude the laws

[44:56] and ordinance committee meeting at 6:45 p.m. All right. We'll call order our

[45:02] schedule. Council meeting.

[45:06] I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[45:11] republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[45:18] justice for all,

[45:22] please. >> Mr. C,

[45:23] » here I am. >> Mr. Schaefer,

[45:25] » present. >> Mrs. Jones,

[45:28] » present. >> Mr. Pow,

[45:29] » present. >> Mr. Py,

[45:31] » present. >> Mr. Pres

[45:34] question for Marshall. Can I do the approval for the minutes for both

[45:39] together since one of the public hearing last?

[45:43] » They can be together. >> All right. I'd like to make a motion for

[45:46] approval of the minutes from the public hearing on August 5th, 2026 and the

[45:52] regular scheduled meeting of August 5th, 2026.

[45:55] » I'd like to make that motion. >> Second,

[46:00] » Mr. Schaefer. >> Yes. Yes. Mrs. Jones,

[46:02] » yes. >> Mr. Powell,

[46:03] » yes. >> Mr. Cliy,

[46:05] » yes. >> Mr. Wolf,

[46:06] » yes. >> Mr. Fox,

[46:07] » yes. >> All right. The next thing on the item is

[46:11] the approved financials of July 2026, but those came out this morning. So, I'm

[46:15] going to ask for time. Anybody have any? >> Okay, moving on. Uh, time for public

[46:22] comment. Uh, please address your comments to council and stand and state

[46:27] your name and address.

[46:31] My name is Jerry Rob, husband 10 Rob, and we live at 6211 Cornell Drive. A few

[46:38] of you know why I'm here. My husband would have been here. He's under the

[46:41] weather. Um, we have an issue in our backyard that is deteriorating our

[46:47] property. And I have pictures of when the trees for the park and before

[46:54] the pickle ball courts went in. And I'm not opposed to the park. I play pickle

[46:58] ball all the time, so I love the sports up there. I need help. I've been to a

[47:04] few other meetings. I have just been advised, this is the meeting I need to

[47:08] be at. Um, I would like to show you the pictures of before the trees came down

[47:16] and a picture of just a few days ago. I'm waiting for someone on a raft to

[47:21] come down through my yard because the ditch is now this deep. I could step

[47:26] over it before the trees. I can't anymore. I have to climb down in it and

[47:33] come up the other side. And it's not like it goes down just between two

[47:37] properties. It comes between our yard and the neighbor's yard. And it goes at

[47:42] an angle across our property. It is deteriorating the value of our property.

[47:48] It's dangerous. Somebody's going to get hurt. The kids from the park come down

[47:53] through there. They jump it with their bicycles. The edges of it is it's

[47:57] deteriorating. Um, it's time to do something. We are

[48:02] trying to be very patient. I know you are just recently new into this, but we

[48:09] have been asking for years for help. We have been told it's a wet plane. I have

[48:14] contacted uh the Wilmington district in West

[48:17] Virginia and I have names of people I have spoken to. It is not wetlands. We

[48:22] got a letter and we were told previously we can't fix it. It's our property and

[48:28] they're telling us we can't fix it at that point. We were going to fix it on

[48:32] our dime. That ship has sailed. Our dime is no longer available. I am asking you

[48:38] guys to fix it. You guys, the park has created this. We have two pipes. Now, if

[48:45] I go up that ditch and there's not two black culvert pipes,

[48:50] then it's natural. But I go up the ditch and where the ditch ends, there's two

[48:54] 15-in pipes dumping water in our yard from where the runoff comes from the

[49:00] park. Now, now you're talking about putting a walking trail in that's going

[49:04] to create more runoff into those same uh detention ponds. They're not retention

[49:10] ponds. If they were retention ponds, that water wouldn't have come through so

[49:14] fast. Before I leave, I would love for you guys to look at the video I have of

[49:19] the other day. neighbor's yard is completely underwater and we've got

[49:23] white water rapids coming down through our yard through this ditch. Um, I have

[49:29] done some research. I have one more thing to look at and I just haven't

[49:32] gotten to it yet and then I will be 100% sure there was not an easement taken out

[49:38] for these two pipes to be run into my backyard and there was not written

[49:43] consent or permission from the property owner. So, if those if this last thing

[49:48] that I look into is what I think it is, what has been

[49:52] done is illegal up there. And I think it's time to change what has been done

[49:58] to our property. Um, again, it's it's deteriorating. Even if you pipe it in,

[50:03] our value of our property goes down because that land where that pipe goes

[50:06] through is nonusable for anything. Can't put a garden in, can't build on it, you

[50:11] can't do anything. It's just grass that we mow. Right now, it's nonusable

[50:16] because it's a deep and wide ditch that water goes through. Um,

[50:23] got a bunch of things here. See if I can remember. I would like to

[50:29] see if there was an easement if you guys have it for the storm water

[50:33] drainage. I don't think you do. I would like to see if the EPA approved

[50:41] those pipes to be put there. Um, and I would like to see what the

[50:46] Summit County engineer has on that. And if I need to set up a time to come in to

[50:52] speak to you, Mr. Richtor, I will. >> I mean,

[50:56] » let me see if I can get those answers. >> I'm willing to work. We're being as very

[51:03] » as we can. But at some point when somebody gets

[51:07] hurt, guess who's getting sued? Because it's our property. And you guys are

[51:13] telling me I can't make it right. I got a letter here from the previous

[51:18] mayor saying I cannot make it right and that they will not help us. So, it's

[51:26] like I said, it's time, you know, and

[51:32] there is drainage infrastructure put in there because I looked into it and you

[51:37] guys put um rip wrap and and undercuts in there. That's all drainage

[51:44] infrastructure in the park. But you put no drainage infrastructure on my

[51:49] property where you're running the water, you know, and you put a lot of money

[51:55] into that those courts. And you know, you got to come up with

[52:00] some money to fix what the courts have created. And again, I am not opposed to

[52:04] the walking trail. I am not opposed to the courts. I love having the park

[52:09] behind our house. I just don't like what has been created.

[52:16] So, >> what is your address again? Your house

[52:18] number >> 6211 Pernell Drive.

[52:21] » Our backyard basically ends into the courts,

[52:24] » right? >> And I know you guys have been out there

[52:27] walking uh for the walking trail, you know, observing and trying to take into

[52:32] account. Let me tell you one other thing that's going on because of these pipes

[52:36] that are draining through our yard. There's a gas line that goes between our

[52:42] house and our neighbor's house. It's supposed to be 3 ft underground, under

[52:46] surface. It's about this, this much. I could find it. I could take my hand and

[52:52] dig it up for you guys. And this has created that. That's a danger. And

[52:56] that's against the law because law says those high pressure gas lines have to be

[53:02] 3 ft under surface surface dirt. So now we're talking a different story

[53:10] here. not just deteriorating our property.

[53:14] » Sure. >> It's it's it's a huge hazard right now.

[53:18] » Mayor, is there a way we could get maybe Mr. Mobile in get a few of us to go out

[53:23] there, Mr. Just kind of walk and look at the area?

[53:27] » So, I've I've talked to Mr. Noble about it. I'll let Mr. Now, obviously, Mr. and

[53:32] I weren't here when that was put in, and I don't know if that was done properly

[53:36] or with the easements or it was just ran. So, we're I'm going to

[53:40] out there. I've done some pretty deep digging and like I said, there's only

[53:44] one other place for me to look and I think if it was there, it would have

[53:48] already popped up on what I've looked into

[53:51] » and Mr. Kley and I have been out there. We've set eyes on it when that's worse

[53:56] now. >> Yeah, I think with all these rains we've

[53:58] had been it's been even worse and >> I have an elderly neighbor and he has a

[54:05] young kid across the street mow for him because he can't do it anymore.

[54:09] that kid's going to end up in that ditch on the with the mower on top of

[54:14] so and I try and keep him away from it. I try and mow it myself, but how long am

[54:19] I going to be able to do it? >> Yeah, if we could get something I'd be

[54:24] more than happy to to attend as well. >> Kevin's

[54:28] came up with some suggestions. He's just working through the logistics of it. We

[54:31] would have to engineer it and um and figure that out. And when it comes to

[54:36] the all the other things was it properly signed off on where you know what I mean

[54:41] going through the EPA >> when you could well director pitcher not

[54:45] having quite the agenda tomorrow he's coming down but maybe we'll start

[54:48] looking into that tomorrow from the legal side of things

[54:51] » and again I I I don't want to feel I don't want to be that

[54:56] person but I just feel like the can keeps getting kicked down the road. It's

[54:59] been years. >> No, I put eyes on.

[55:02] » Well, I know. And you're new to this whole thing, but again, we've been

[55:08] trying to get help for a lot of years and

[55:12] it's just getting worse. >> Um, but yeah, I I Kevin more than happy,

[55:19] see it, and see if this was properly done in the first place.

[55:26] mayor. It has deteriorated.

[55:31] » She's been to she's been at several parks meetings. She I've talked to him

[55:36] before. We spoke about this. Um I remember in the past that there was a

[55:43] squabble amongst the city and the school about whose fault this was

[55:48] and that was between the school and the city.

[55:54] probably asked for that letter you received.

[55:59] » Okay, thank you. >> I can make a copy of that, too.

[56:06] » I'm unaware of any letter that the previous mayor sent to you.

[56:09] » Well, he was supposed to sign it. That's why I just asked,

[56:13] » but it came to I was told twice that it was on the mayor's desk waiting for a

[56:19] signature and it appears um in my mail or however it came. I think I had me had

[56:25] to sign for it. >> Certified as well.

[56:27] » Yeah. And he never signed it >> partially due to because he was good

[56:32] friends with my husband and I don't think he wanted in that swallow.

[56:38] He wanted to distance himself because there was limited time that he was in

[56:42] that seat. That's my personal opinion. >> What's the date of that left?

[56:46] » Looks like it's the basically the postage stamp is ironically August 19th

[56:53] uh 2022. >> We are four years ago. Exactly.

[56:57] » So the drainage is tapped straight into the creek that runs next to your house.

[57:01] » Yeah. Yeah. If you if you get in the ditch and you walk, all of a sudden it

[57:07] ends. So, it's not natural. There's a pipe coming this way and a pipe coming

[57:12] this way. >> There's also

[57:16] a resident on Manchester Road that feels some of the water problems when we got

[57:22] the rain. Probably starts there and makes it all the way down to Manchester

[57:26] Road. He comes over to my shop quite a bit too and talks about it. He's been

[57:31] told that he's been talking to it since

[57:38] » last time.

[57:45] » So, no, no, that goes under the rail. It comes up this way.

[57:55] » Yes.

[57:59] I would like before before I leave though I would like to show you a couple

[58:03] pictures to us now.

[58:10] » Okay.

[58:14] » Okay. I'll just do it from my phone. Um

[58:21] » yeah, >> this is what it looks like now. And if

[58:25] you look, that's the drain pipe that goes under the road right there. It

[58:29] should be 30 in or plus. It's about this big now.

[58:35] » That's between the two properties. >> I've been listening to you. I

[58:38] surprisingly I was I was >> That's a current one.

[58:42] » Yeah,

[58:46] » that's why I've been hesitant to talk much about the trail. Can we resolve

[58:49] this issue going forward? I would like to show you one picture and it hasn't

[58:55] turned and gone in between our properties yet. Let me see if I can that

[59:00] is through my backyard. >> Then there was no water like that

[59:04] previously. >> I'll show you what was there previously.

[59:11] Trying to hurry.

[59:20] That was previous that one and that one. >> Okay.

[59:27] » Yeah. This was previous.

[59:31] » So that's when this is >> still there.

[59:33] » Yeah. >> Okay. Previous.

[59:35] » That's when you first start noticing the problem.

[59:37] » The problem was there before, but it Yeah.

[59:40] » Yeah. And let me get >> So there was a problem at that time.

[59:46] » And that's when we tried to get help.

[59:50] Um, here's what we have now.

[59:56] » That's between the two properties. I see that.

[59:59] » Yeah, I saw that. >> Okay.

[1:00:05] » Yeah. I can contact former mayor Anderson. You haven't even seen what

[1:00:11] it's doing to my neighbor from that water running down the park to

[1:00:17] his property.

[1:00:27] » That was the one thing I was going to do today.

[1:00:33] » Look at the neighbor.

[1:00:39] for the process,

[1:00:42] » right? But like I said, that was the one

[1:00:48] really easy on the site. >> It wasn't there then. It won't be on.

[1:00:54] » It wasn't there. >> Yeah, I exhausted everything I could do

[1:01:00] on the >> It would be it separate document.

[1:01:06] It would file.

[1:01:10] » It would be in your title search when she purchased the property.

[1:01:16] Do >> you have Do you have your owner's

[1:01:17] policy? >> Probably.

[1:01:20] » Look on your owner's policy. There should be an easement. It will reference

[1:01:24] the >> There should be something with uh filed

[1:01:27] with Summit County also. >> Correct. Correct. But it will not be

[1:01:29] under warranty. >> Okay. We didn't get a warranty. It was

[1:01:34] excess the house. Is that a limited warranty?

[1:01:38] » I don't know. >> It was too long ago.

[1:01:40] » Did you get title insurance? >> It was too long ago. I don't remember.

[1:01:45] » That title search. >> You had a title service. It would show

[1:01:49] an easy. >> Okay.

[1:01:51] » But if it was purchased as is a lot of times they don't

[1:01:54] » obtain title insurance. So it would be you would not have an owner's policy.

[1:01:59] I'd have to look when I get home at the >> county.

[1:02:05] That was the one thing I haven't done is physically go down to Summit County on

[1:02:11] downtown. That was hopefully tomorrow.

[1:02:15] » Okay. Any other public comment? >> Seeing none, uh we'll uh go to

[1:02:24] resolution 26R-43. Mr. Pow.

[1:02:30] I'm sorry. >> A resolution approving a change order to

[1:02:34] the city of New Franklin 2026 KB project and declaring an emergency.

[1:02:40] » Thank you. This resolution was assigned to the streets and drainage committee.

[1:02:44] Uh as we discussed in our workshop or committee meetings earlier, uh this is a

[1:02:49] change order to a previously big contract that uh due to some changes in

[1:02:54] uh the roads we're going to pave, uh they re We recalculated the quantities.

[1:02:59] Uh the change order amounts to difference of 15,93960.

[1:03:08] Uh if any anybody have any problems waving the three? Do I have a motion to

[1:03:12] wave the three? >> Second. Have a first and a second.

[1:03:19] » Mr. P. >> Yes.

[1:03:20] » Mr. Py. >> Yes.

[1:03:22] » Mr. Wolf. >> Yes.

[1:03:23] » Mr. Cox. >> Yes.

[1:03:24] » Mr. Schaefer. Yes. Yeah.

[1:03:28] » Do I have a motion to accept resolution 26R43?

[1:03:32] » I'll make a motion. >> Second and second.

[1:03:36] » Mr. Pow. >> Yes.

[1:03:37] » Mr. Pie. >> Yes.

[1:03:39] » Mr. Wolf. >> Yes.

[1:03:40] » Mr. Almond. >> I'm sorry. Mr.

[1:03:45] » Yes. >> Mr. Schaefer.

[1:03:46] » Yes. >> Mrs. Jones.

[1:03:47] » Yes. >> Resolution 26R-43

[1:03:51] passes 6 to Z. Uh, moving on to ordinance number 26-03.

[1:04:00] Okay. >> An ordinance amending the new Franklin

[1:04:03] consolidated land use code and zoning act.

[1:04:07] » Uh, this was brought before the laws and ordinance committee. We'd like to ask

[1:04:11] one more time as requested. Time is granted.

[1:04:15] Uh, we have no more readings tonight. We'll move on to the mayor's report.

[1:04:19] » Thank you, Mr. Schaefer. Uh the Round 93 sewer project is winding down and

[1:04:24] heading towards completion finally. Uh I am happy to report that the easement

[1:04:29] insitue that I touched on last meeting uh tying the new lines to the county

[1:04:33] sewer is very close to being wrapped up. Um, I thank the county, our service

[1:04:39] department, uh, law director Pinchford and everybody else who, including the

[1:04:44] property owners, we've been stressing the the, um, the urgency of the matter.

[1:04:51] Uh, and in doing that, we're still optimistic that the underground work can

[1:04:55] still be completed in time for Northstar to include that small section of Route

[1:05:00] 93 in the resurfacing project. Worst case, we would have had to go back and

[1:05:04] and hit that spot later after it was completed. We're really trying to rush

[1:05:08] that thing through to to capture it all. So, I'll keep you posted on that. Um, I

[1:05:15] want to extend a special thank you to Highway Distributing the Old Manchester

[1:05:18] Tool there for helping out with the parking situation while the work in the

[1:05:23] Eastman is being done. Uh just a great example, small community neighbor

[1:05:27] helping another neighboring business to help keep everyone open during this uh

[1:05:32] short-term inconvenience. Uh we have a pre-construction meeting

[1:05:36] for the repaving of Route 93 next Thursday, I believe, to hopefully get

[1:05:40] that roadway fixed and less less less jittery as soon as possible. Uh, I

[1:05:46] wanted to thank Enbridge Gas Ohio for letting us know New Franklin was

[1:05:51] nominated to receive a grant amount of $10,000 to our fire department. Enbridge

[1:05:56] shared with us that they are focused on supporting municipalities that help

[1:06:00] build safe, vibrant, and sustainable communities across their service areas.

[1:06:05] And our fire department was nominated by their local committee to receive the

[1:06:09] grant. Chief Leslie is handling the submission process and shared with me

[1:06:14] have a significant need for a utility terrain vehicle to better serve the

[1:06:18] public. This will enable us to purchase this valuable piece of equipment which

[1:06:22] will enhance our ability to respond more effectively to the needs of our

[1:06:26] community. Lumos chemo that's been a popular

[1:06:31] subject last few months. They've gotten back to working in limited areas of our

[1:06:36] community with fewer problems that we than we have had at the beginning due to

[1:06:39] better communication and working in the permitted area. Um we have continued to

[1:06:45] uh share and communicate with our residents as their work progresses in

[1:06:49] the different areas they they've gone to. Like at my house they they put out

[1:06:53] the yard darts and things multiple times actually letting us know they were going

[1:06:58] to be there working. Uh we were informed that the water nine

[1:07:02] development plans to break ground sometime next month. Uh they are

[1:07:07] planning on announcing that groundbreaking date. I will continue to

[1:07:10] keep you informed as the plans dates and info are related to us at city hall

[1:07:15] here. Lastly, just want to thank all of you who were able to attend our annual

[1:07:20] lakeside barbecue on August 6th. We had a larger turnout than in the last couple

[1:07:25] years and to appreciate every attendee and sponsor who took the time to attend

[1:07:29] and contribute to one of our biggest fundraising events. Thankfully the rain

[1:07:33] cut off. We were able to kick back and have some fun on a beautiful evening at

[1:07:37] the new conservatory with the lake in the background. I just want to thank Tim

[1:07:42] Kenner and his team at the tutor house. Katie Smith, Chris Liincott, Karen Hood

[1:07:47] Morel. Did I say that right? I get all the names. Okay. uh from our office for

[1:07:52] working in it, setting it up, breaking it down, and also Teddy Ross will

[1:07:57] provide the entertainment. >> Uh the last name,

[1:08:03] » didn't know you're going to be uh uh we have one more he and his lovely

[1:08:08] girlfriend to help me pull that pull the numbers on the raffle tickets. So,

[1:08:11] » are you >> um we have one more music night on

[1:08:14] September 1st and then our side coach fest on October 11th.

[1:08:20] That's all I have. Uh, I see there's farmers market products up there.

[1:08:24] » I did I bought some of the farmer market products now. I did buy them last week,

[1:08:30] but I the produce and earrings. I bought my earrings at the farmer.

[1:08:34] » See, the crowds have been pretty good over there.

[1:08:36] » They have they really have been very good. And the produce is delicious.

[1:08:40] Terry and I will tell you, I think we both are filled with cantaloupe. Am I

[1:08:44] right? The cantaloupe was fabulous. And Rob lets us know how he likes the

[1:08:49] watermelon. Right, Rob? >> Yes.

[1:08:51] » That has his name on it. >> You can't see it. It's pretty tiny down

[1:08:56] here.

[1:09:00] » That's all. >> All right. Thank you. Um I guess uh no

[1:09:05] finance report tonight. Our finance director is off. Um we'll move to new

[1:09:09] business. All right. Excuse me. We'll move to old business.

[1:09:13] Any old business? Um, speaking of the gas lines being replaced, uh, we passed

[1:09:19] a resolution ordinance or something last year, I think, about removing the old

[1:09:24] pipes. When they put new pipes in, they have to remove the old ones. Uh, can we

[1:09:28] make sure that Embridge is aware of that and we'll be so full transparency, we

[1:09:34] led with that to Embridge during the project. Now,

[1:09:40] they didn't say it just they didn't say okay like we would like. So, in fact, I

[1:09:45] just included Marshall and set from his office to how do we ensure that happens?

[1:09:52] Because soon after the Twinsburg home explosion,

[1:09:58] we made the news late that week for a gas strike out here on Manchester Road.

[1:10:02] And the issue there was the line was marked, but it was the old line that had

[1:10:07] been abandoned and the new line was unmarked. So, we're trying to use that

[1:10:12] example to express why it's so important to remove that old infrastructure to

[1:10:17] avoid potentially somebody getting hurt or killed. So, uh we we're working to

[1:10:24] stress that. I know sometimes utilities feel

[1:10:29] they are uh above I don't want to say incorrectly, but uh

[1:10:35] we're just going to continue to keep stressing how important it is to do with

[1:10:38] that infrastructure. Sorry to I should have shut up a little

[1:10:42] bit.

[1:10:46] I apologize but uh but yeah it is important to have it done.

[1:10:51] » Any other business in business?

[1:10:58] Okay. So let's talk data centers. Not just kind of in a way um

[1:11:05] we um typically and um all of our resolutions and ordinance come out as u

[1:11:12] as an emergency and we've had citizens ask about it all the time. Why is

[1:11:16] everything have to be an emergency? Um there was a situation in uh Pickway

[1:11:22] County I believe uh where data centers are are going to be put in and they

[1:11:27] struck a deal with one of the townships there with the officials and uh they

[1:11:32] kind of rushed through the u the process there and um passed an ordinance and

[1:11:37] then called it a an emergency, you know. Um and um uh some citizens said we don't

[1:11:45] like that and they uh put together a petition a referendum about it. Uh the

[1:11:51] fiscal officer who I guess in their community is responsible for it denied

[1:11:56] the petition to go on to the ballot uh because it was passed as an emergency.

[1:12:02] Um they took it to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court said what emergency? And

[1:12:08] really that that means nothing. Um but there is a question of whether it's an

[1:12:13] administrative thing which would not be uh would not be used for uh a

[1:12:20] referendum. You couldn't do a referendum on an administrative thing. Um and so

[1:12:26] the Supreme Court told them uh that they had to accept a petition, send them on

[1:12:30] to the board of elections for that county, and then that county had to

[1:12:35] decide whether it's administrative procedure or not. Um the reason I'm

[1:12:39] bringing this up again, we use it on every every ordinance resolution and

[1:12:48] um u we use it out of habit. We use it a matter of convenience. uh you know there

[1:12:54] are times where it's needed you know basic stuff like when we're uh

[1:12:58] transferring money from the general fund to the police fund it it just makes

[1:13:02] sense to make it you know all right we don't want to you know no need to wait

[1:13:05] uh and again for everybody the uh the emergency declaration only affects when

[1:13:13] it goes into effect uh so if it's um an emergency there's an emergency on it and

[1:13:20] we pass it with enough votes it goes into effect as soon is a maritime exit.

[1:13:24] Um if we don't have the emergency on there or we don't have enough votes for

[1:13:28] the emergency clause, uh then it goes in effect to 30 days. Um

[1:13:33] I think we should probably start looking at u limiting how often we call a

[1:13:40] resolution or ordinance an emergency. um instead of just throwing it out of habit

[1:13:46] or uh convenience. I think if it needs to be an emergency um it needs to be

[1:13:51] stated whyever um is the sponsor of that resolution or

[1:13:57] ordinance um if they feel it needs to be an emergency situation uh it needs to be

[1:14:03] stated within that and you know here's here's the reasons why otherwise it

[1:14:06] should just be an ordinance and take effect in 30 days. Again,

[1:14:11] many things that we do are just, you know, we do it all the time and it makes

[1:14:15] sense to make it an emergency that it takes effect right away. Um, but but my

[1:14:21] thought is that maybe we should look at how we're handling that and maybe we

[1:14:24] should uh uh be a little more careful with that. Uh, also with the um, uh,

[1:14:30] waving the three readings, again, we we do that all the time. And I think we're

[1:14:35] very good about not doing it when we when we really shouldn't because we want

[1:14:41] to get more input from citizens or poss give them the opportunity. Um,

[1:14:46] and again, we have regular things like the uh, again like the uh transferring

[1:14:52] money from general fund to the police fund uh that we can wave the three

[1:14:56] readings on. But I I think I'd like to see us to go at least two readings on

[1:15:01] most things. Um and uh you know, if it's not going to affect anything, go to at

[1:15:06] least a second reading. Um you know, some communities I know as have it,

[1:15:12] their habit is to go to three readings on pretty much everything. Take it three

[1:15:15] readings, take about pretty much everything, three readings. I don't know

[1:15:19] that we need to do that for everything. Uh, again, I think we do a good job of

[1:15:23] deciding when, you know, we should take it to three readings like the ordinance

[1:15:27] we have on on the agenda today. Um, so I think I think I'd like to get your your

[1:15:33] input, y'all's input if um, what do you think? Does your does going to at least

[1:15:39] two readings for a lot of what we do make sense? Um, and does removing the

[1:15:45] resol the emergency part of most resolutions make sense? So, ironically

[1:15:50] enough, over four years ago, when I got on council, I had that same discussion.

[1:15:54] I didn't have much support on that. I pushed back on emergency language

[1:15:58] numerous times. I got away with getting a few resolutions passed about it, but I

[1:16:03] kept being told that this is for the better of the community. I disagree with

[1:16:06] it. I'm glad to see somebody else's fin on the same page with that. Well, I

[1:16:10] thought four year weight would be long enough for me to take

[1:16:16] » and to touch on your waiting reads, there's another community that I may be

[1:16:20] familiar with. They do a consent agenda and that's things that you can pass

[1:16:25] pretty much on one non-confrontational operational emergency type stuff. Not

[1:16:30] necessarily a call emergency, but things that you want to don't need to stretch

[1:16:33] out for the six week period to get the two reads on it. And if there's

[1:16:37] something on that consent agenda that you have concern with, you can pull it

[1:16:40] and actually run it through the three reads. So that maybe a compromise to

[1:16:44] what you're suggesting or it's something like this change where we want to get

[1:16:48] this done so we get the paving done before. That's something we leave on the

[1:16:52] consent agenda. Something about buying a vehicle or something down the road, you

[1:16:57] know, we can go three rates or whatever that. So I I'm supportive of of what

[1:17:01] you're suggesting. >> I agree. I think it's a good idea. I

[1:17:04] thought it was a good idea when you had it, too. But I think it's good.

[1:17:09] » So would it be like change the council rules? Is there a charter?

[1:17:14] » No, it's just how they put stuff together. So when you look at these

[1:17:16] resolutions again, you just wouldn't see that on there. And

[1:17:21] at that time, >> so you're removing that all together.

[1:17:24] » I was told I was told everybody else does it. Well, no, not everybody else

[1:17:28] does it, but the people we were looking at did it and that's what everybody

[1:17:32] » I'm just concerned that we don't have an issue today. No,

[1:17:36] » but down the road if if there if something comes up and u the emergency

[1:17:41] is part of it and you know we don't have a leg to stand on because we do it with

[1:17:46] everything and I think if if u uh that our resolutions should not include the

[1:17:52] emergency clause unless it needs to um and u and if it needs to then there

[1:17:58] needs to be a reason why it needs to. So once again, is this what do we do? Shake

[1:18:02] hands on it or is there is there written rules or

[1:18:06] » we don't you don't see it on the resolution anymore and typically if it's

[1:18:10] something that's going to change across the contract expiring if it you know the

[1:18:14] finance thing that is automatic do those those implement immediately. So it's

[1:18:18] things that are very timesensitive that we may not have control over. Those are

[1:18:22] the things you can do the emergency language on and have a valid way to

[1:18:25] state. >> Just doing it just so you don't have to

[1:18:28] read it three times and clean up the agenda is not an emergency.

[1:18:32] » And I think if I remember correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, not too hard.

[1:18:37] » But didn't we change a couple after you suggested it and then it went right

[1:18:40] back? >> Maybe a little bit the same way with

[1:18:44] Embridge not marking the old pipes. >> Sometimes you try to make a change but

[1:18:49] it's not strong enough and you really don't get it. and someone just has to

[1:18:52] kind of kick you a little bit and say, "Hey, this is really important."

[1:18:56] » Well, let's let's let's keep it straight and not not confuse things. When when

[1:19:00] it's um uh when the emergency word is on the resolution, it doesn't

[1:19:07] affect uh how many readings it goes to. It only affects when the res when

[1:19:12] resolution goes into effect uh after the mayor signs it, whether it's immediately

[1:19:16] or 30 days. So whether it has the the emergency thing on it uh doesn't dictate

[1:19:22] whether it's it's three readings, one reading or two readings,

[1:19:25] » right? And then the second part of that was if we just did like a consent

[1:19:29] agenda, >> right?

[1:19:30] » That could be just perceived that we're just going to read it one time if nobody

[1:19:33] has an issue with it. If somebody has a comment concern, absolutely do three

[1:19:37] reads on it. >> Yeah.

[1:19:40] » So we're good with this group, right? Like you don't you don't Jim you don't

[1:19:44] have a problem with us here but it's for future counsel

[1:19:51] force that future council if you don't >> ask me to take it off when it comes to

[1:19:56] » okay so why why the council person have that

[1:19:59] » power to say take that off >> one one of the examples I can think of

[1:20:03] was it was uh you know Chief Leslie was wanting some sort of a new alert system

[1:20:07] for the fire department and they they wanted to do an emergency and wave

[1:20:12] ingredients on it. What's an emergency, >> right?

[1:20:15] » There really was one because we're buying the software. They've already got

[1:20:17] the system. It's not like the system they have isn't going to work,

[1:20:20] » right? They just want to get it down. They don't want to wait for 30 days,

[1:20:23] » right? Well, and that's and that's it. If it's going to be an emergency, if

[1:20:26] someone wants to put an emergency wordage on it, there needs to be an

[1:20:31] explanation also. >> Okay. So, just not to throw anybody

[1:20:34] under the bus, that particular issue, who decided to put emergency on that?

[1:20:40] Would it be the mayor? Is it council person that came through the mayor?

[1:20:43] » Okay. >> So I mean typically that's what we see.

[1:20:46] We see the resolution sponsored the mayor's office draft.

[1:20:50] » So when we see that when it comes out on Friday when she sends it we say we it's

[1:20:54] unacceptable. >> I think it's just a conversation we have

[1:20:58] to figure out. Well, it's going to be a conversation and also with um uh whoever

[1:21:03] in administrative office actually types up the resolution and stuff and

[1:21:06] remembering not to put that on there unless to do that. Uh what what do you

[1:21:12] two over there think because you're more involved in it than us, you know,

[1:21:15] yapping back and forth to each other. >> I have no issue with it whatsoever. I'm

[1:21:21] uh I'm comfortable with that, you know. I I know that language is always

[1:21:26] offputting a little bit, you know, any community in whether it's S County

[1:21:31] council meetings, they put it on stuff, you know. Um but no, whether it's we

[1:21:37] just have to walk for run on that as far as Kelly or Chris making sure we

[1:21:42] communicate it well and make sure we have it on there and um

[1:21:47] kind of work through them at first, then we'll probably get into routine.

[1:21:50] » Yeah. question.

[1:21:53] » Any any thoughts? >> No, my only I was aware of that Ohio

[1:21:56] Supreme Court case. It's, you know, right up my alley and uh you were

[1:22:00] talking about it kind of leaned over there and told him what it was. Um I I

[1:22:04] uh it's very the problem that you're raising is very prevalent and it

[1:22:09] happens. I I have this conversation twice a year, right, with my clients. It

[1:22:14] it comes up all the time. Uh that case was very interesting. I I've read it

[1:22:18] several times. uh it's in fact it's impacting legislation that I wrote today

[1:22:22] uh because and we decided not to do an emergency clause because the the case

[1:22:28] reaffirm the principle that you have to specifically and the general rule is you

[1:22:32] have to put it in a separate section and we do that right it's the last section

[1:22:35] typically and you're not allowed to just stop at the boiler plate typically we

[1:22:39] don't um but sometimes if we're for example doing a paving project and we

[1:22:43] need to move forward and we we put in the sentence well due to uh you know

[1:22:47] during good weather Um legally that's okay. Uh we we would actually win that

[1:22:53] challenge uh if we said due to weather because it was July, right? We want to

[1:22:57] get it done before the end of the year. U but it's still a policy question and

[1:23:02] and I don't I don't have a position one way or the other. Um I would uh I would

[1:23:06] throw a flag if I thought it wasn't an emergency. Uh and I haven't seen that

[1:23:11] yet here. But uh it is uh it is a very um it's a very good conversation to have

[1:23:17] and it makes a lot of sense because it it makes you as the representatives of

[1:23:20] the public you know more transparent and more more accountable and it gives

[1:23:24] everybody an opportunity except for when it's you know genuinely uh an emergency

[1:23:28] and frankly that helps me out because there's not a chance then that we're

[1:23:31] going to be hauled into court for that. Uh as to the uh the consent agenda uh

[1:23:38] that was suggested that is a uh one way of handling it. You would say what do we

[1:23:43] have to do? Shake hands. If we're going to do a consent agenda, we would

[1:23:46] actually want to put that in our rules and we would put you just say there's a

[1:23:50] consent agenda and it would be for administrative matters like you recently

[1:23:54] talked about moving money from the general fund to the fire department or

[1:23:57] or whatever. Um that's what consent agendas are for. And you essentially

[1:24:03] what happens is you list all of the legislation that's on the consent agenda

[1:24:06] and then you suspend the rules once, right? So you you still have to read the

[1:24:10] titles, you still have to suspend the rules at least once, but you you don't

[1:24:13] have to do it three times. If there's three, you only have to do it once, but

[1:24:16] there is a most communities, most cities that I know do do have uh consent

[1:24:21] agendas, but I haven't seen a whole lot of legislation here. uh right I mean

[1:24:26] these other communities you act right in know they have long you know uh agendas

[1:24:33] we don't have that so I don't know that we we need a consent agenda it's a good

[1:24:38] idea if we want to do it then we change our rules

[1:24:44] » okay cool

[1:24:53] uh any other is uh well I guess uh I will wish our

[1:24:59] dragon boat team good luck. They are off to France uh on Sunday.

[1:25:05] Most of them be gone for 10 days and uh we'll see how they do when they get

[1:25:09] back. So we wish them well and uh travel safe travels.

[1:25:16] There's no new uh business. We'll move to public question and answers.

[1:25:23] Mr. Feder like to say something? I see him sitting down.

[1:25:27] » Just a quiet observer. >> All right. Uh, seeing none, I'll

[1:25:33] announce our next council meeting is going to be September 2nd of 2026.

[1:25:37] Um, and then our law director gave me some good language for this executive

[1:25:42] session. I move to enter into an executive session pursuant to the

[1:25:46] Franklin Codified Ordinance 30.02F1 02F1 and 5 to consider the appointment of

[1:25:54] employee of employment of a public employee and

[1:26:00] matters that require to be kept confidential by law

[1:26:05] and uh we're going to invite the uh all of council the mayor law director and HR

[1:26:16] » yes if I can have it

[1:26:20] I still have an email. >> Thank you.

[1:26:30] » We have to do >> and then

[1:26:34] second >> Mr. C.

[1:26:37] » Yes. >> Mr. Schaefer.

[1:26:39] » Yes. >> Mr. Jones. Yes.

[1:26:40] » Mr. Pow. Yes. >> Mr. Clusty. Yes.

[1:26:42] » Mr. W. >> Yes.

City Council 8-19-2026

Transcript