REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Slavin was absent.
Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Osika, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Speed.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
Mr. John Willson, 150 Turner Drive, submitted a letter (as on file with insurance claim in the Office of the City Clerk) explaining a sewer backup he recently experienced. He advised members that he has submitted the information to the City Clerk’s Office and that an insurance claim is being filed. He relayed appreciation to the City Clerk’s Office for their assistance regarding this matter.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Council President Williams requested that item #4-A - Presentation, be amended to include Ms. Marcie Roberts of Body, Mind, and Soul.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Slavin absent).
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2007
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 12, 2007 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Carey and bore the written approval of Mayor Speed.
RESOLUTION - WILLIAM P. TRUITT
The City Clerk read a proposed Resolution expressing their condolences for the recent death of William P. Truitt, former City Councilman.
By motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters, Council unanimously adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover have been greatly saddened by the death of William P. Truitt, who passed away on February 19, 2007; and
WHEREAS, William P. Truitt faithfully served as Councilman of the Third District for the City of Dover from May 13, 1996 through May 10, 2004, when he decided not to seek re-election; and
WHEREAS, during his term as Councilman, William P. Truitt served as a member and chairman of the Safety Advisory Committee, and as a member of the Parks and Recreation Committee, Transportation Review Committee, Utility Committee, Legislative and Finance Committee, Code Board of Appeals, Civilian and Police Pension Boards, Downtown Dover Development Corporation, Liaison to the Chamber of Commerce and Greater Dover Committee, and Liaison to Kent County; and was currently serving on the Services to Seniors Committee; and
WHEREAS, although William P. Truitt will be respectfully remembered as having served the community in numerous capacities, he was committed to providing our youth with positive environments and opportunities which was reflected by his support of the City’s effort to develop Schutte Park as a regional sports and recreation facility; and
WHEREAS, our community has sustained a great loss in the death of William P. Truitt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. The Mayor and Council express their regret for the loss of William P. Truitt and extend their deepest sympathy to the members of his family and hope that they will be consoled by the memories of his fine life and achievements.
2. The Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to place this Resolution in the permanent records of the City of Dover in recognition of the many contributions graciously given to the community by William P. Truitt.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 26, 2007
PROCLAMATION - BLACK HISTORY MONTH
The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record:
WHEREAS, the first Negro History Week was established in 1926 by Carter Godwin Woodson, Ph.D., founder of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which is known today as the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History; and
WHEREAS, Carter Godwin Woodson, Ph.D. was the second African-American ever to earn a Ph.D. at Harvard University and is acknowledged as the Father of Black History; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Woodson chose the week in February which encompassed the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas, two significant figures in the history of African Americans, to celebrate Negro History Week; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Woodson believed that publishing scientific history about the Black race would counter racial falsehoods and prove that Africa and its people played a crucial role in the development of civilization, thus helping to put an end to race problems; and
WHEREAS, in February of 1976, fifty years after the first celebration of Negro History Week, the first Black History Month was celebrated; and
WHEREAS, during the month of February the nation proudly celebrates the accomplishments, contributions, and history of African-Americans.
NOW THEREFORE I, STEPHEN R. SPEED, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE this 26th day of February 2007 do hereby proclaim February as BLACK HISTORY MONTH and encourage all citizens to celebrate the contributions of African-Americans to our great society.
PRESENTATION - GIFTS OF EDUCATION, INC. - PROJECT LITERACY GIVE A BOOK PROGRAM PRESENTATION TO COUNCILWOMAN SOPHIA RUSSELL
On behalf of the Gifts of Education, Inc., Ms. Mickey Reed presented Councilwoman Sophia Russell with a token of appreciation in recognition of being the first black female City Council representative. Ms. Reed noted that Ms. Roberts was not available to attend the meeting.
PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - ROBERT J. O’NEILL, JR.
The following Certificate of Appreciation was read into the record by Mayor Speed:
WHEREAS, Robert J. O’Neill, Jr. served as the Deputy Attorney General for the State of Delaware, Department of Justice, from August 1995 to January 2007; and
WHEREAS, Robert J. O’Neill, Jr. is well respected among his peers for his professionalism and excellence in leadership; and
WHEREAS, thanks to the dedication and commitment of Robert J. O’Neill, Jr. to the law, his advocacy for victims of crime, and his fight for justice, the City of Dover is a safer place to live, work, and play; and
WHEREAS, Robert J. O’Neill, Jr. deserves commendation and recognition for his outstanding and dedicated service while serving as the Chief Prosecutor for City of Dover.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby award this Certificate of Appreciation to ROBERT J. O’NEILL, JR. on this 26th day of February 2006, and extend best wishes on all future endeavors.
On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Speed presented the Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Robert J. O’Neill, Jr.
On behalf of the men and women of the Dover Police Department, Chief Horvath thanked Mr. O’Neill for a job well done, always providing good advice, strong leadership, proper guidance, and for being a good friend to the Police Department.
As a member of the Bar of Kent County and fellow lawyer, Mr. McGiffin also thanked Mr. O’Neill for his dedication to public service.
PRESENTATION - ENHANCED CITY SEAL
Mrs. Gardner, Public Utilities Department, advised members that several months ago, the City began working on the emergency blue light program. At that time, the City was requested to provide copies of the City Seal in various formats. It was discovered that the Seals could not be used due to their poor quality and that a “vector file” of the Seal was required, which is an electronic graphic photo. She explained that no matter how big or small one makes the vector file, it retains its proportion and never becomes distorted. It was also clear that during the years, due to technology and use of the City Seal, the details included in the seal were barely legible. Mrs. Gardner advised members that the City Seal was adopted by City Council nearly 48 years ago, on January 12, 1959. She introduced Mr. Rick Hill of Hill Design Group who was contacted and requested to perfect the City Seal.
Mr. Hill provided members with “before” and “after” pictures of the Seal. In conducting research, he stated that Dover was named after Dover Kent England and that their seal was designed in 1860; the elements on the bottom of the Seal were taken from artwork from the 1300's from that area. The changes made for the City’s Seal from the Dover England Seal is the top circle which had a shield, representing the five (5) ancient courts around Dover England at that time. In the bottom left circle was a ship, due to Dover England being a shipping port; and in the bottom right was St. Martin.
Mr. Hill stated that the City of Dover Seal resembles the Dover Kent England Seal. The top circle has a seal which was designed by William Penn, who patterned it after his family seal, converted slightly by including 3 ears of corn (maize at the time) on the top. The maize represents the farming in Central Delaware, which at that time was known as small grain farming. The bottom left circle is the State of Delaware Seal, not the Great Seal of Delaware since it does not have the words around it. The bottom right is St. Martin, taken from the original seal of Dover England. He advised members that St. Martin, a Roman Soldier, while leaving the town gates with other soldiers, came across a beggar. It was a cold day and the beggar had hardly any clothing so, as the story goes, St. Martin took his cape, cut it in half with his sword and gave the beggar half of his cape. That night, St. Martin had a dream of Jesus wearing that half of cape - the next morning, he woke up and his cape was full. Mr. Hill stated, for him, the interpretation and use of this image represents the City of Dover being a “giving” town and that if you give, you get back. There are 13 stars, which he believes represents the 13 original colonies. He noted that the date of 1683 on the Seal is the date that William Penn ordered that Dover be laid out as a county seat of the second of the three lower counties. Behind the Seal, he noted that there is a triangle on the top left which is a dogwood flower, representing the City flower, and on the top right is a holly leaf, representing the City tree.
Mr. Hill explained that the preciseness of the graphics on the new Seal is a reflection of the difference of technology, noting that the original seal was done “by hand”. He stated that he enjoyed this project and found the research to be very interesting.
ANNEXATION/REZONING PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1044 AND 1050 SOUTH STATE STREET (OWNED BY 1050 SOUTH STATE, LLC)
An annexation referendum was held on February 15, 2007 for property located at 1044 and 1050 South State Street, containing 0.108+/- acres and 0.158+/- acres, owned by 1050 South State, LLC.
Referendum Results
The City Clerk reported that the referendum was held with one (1) eligible voters. There was one (1) vote cast in favor of the annexation, with no votes cast against annexation.
Mr. Salters moved to accept the referendum results, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Annexation
By motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters, Council adopted the following Resolution by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Slavin absent):
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER.
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City after a special election of the qualified voters and real estate owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover deem it in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described within the limits of the City of Dover, and
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if a majority of the Votes cast in an election held in a territory proposed to be annexed shall be in favor of inclusion of that territory within the limits of the City of Dover, the Council may thereupon adopt a resolution annexing said territory and including same within the limits of the City of Dover.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover:
ED-00-077.17-01-18.00 - 1044 SOUTH STATE STREET (1050 SOUTH STATE, LLC)
All that certain piece, parcel, or tract of land with improvements thereon, situated in the East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, lying on west side of South State Street (County Road 27) being bounded on the north by lands of 1040 Properties, LLC, on the east by South State Street, on the south by other lands of Dover Realty, LLC, and on the west by lands of Center for Neurology Properties, LLC, being more particularly described in a survey entitled "Lands of Dover Realty, LLC 1044/1050 South State Street Survey" as prepared by Becker Morgan Group, Inc, dated November 22, 2006, as follows to wit:
Beginning at a found iron rod and cap in the westerly right-of-way of South State Street, said point being located approximately 301 feet south of the intersection of South State Street and Wyoming Avenue right-of-ways, from said point of beginning running with the westerly right-of-way of South State Street 1) South 10°15'00" West a distance of 54.88 feet to a found iron rod at a corner for these lands and other lands of Dover Realty, LLC; thence turning and running with said other lands of Dover Realty, LLC 2) North 80°00'00" West a distance of 141.87 feet to a found pin at a corner for these lands in line with lands of Center for Neurology Properties, LLC; thence turning and running with said lands of Center for Neurology Properties, LLC 3) North 10°15'00" East a distance of 11.92 feet to a found iron rod and cap at a corner for these lands and lands of 1040 Properties, LLC; thence turning and running with said lands of 1040 Properties, LLC 4) North 83°10'24" East a distance of 148.42 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 4,739 S.F. of land, be the same more or less.
ED-00-077.17-01-19.00 - 1050 SOUTH STATE STREET (1050 SOUTH STATE, LLC)
All that certain piece, parcel, or tract of land with improvements thereon, situated in the East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, lying on west side of South State Street (County Road 27) being bounded on the north by other lands of Dover Realty, LLC, on the east by South State Street, on the south by lands of Douglas A. Moore, and on the west by lands of Center for Neurology Properties, LLC, being more particularly described in a survey entitled “Lands of Dover Realty, LLC 1044/1050 South State Street Survey” as prepared by Becker Morgan Group, Inc, dated November 22, 2006, as follows to wit:
Beginning at a found iron rod in the westerly right-of-way of South State Street, said point being located approximately 356 feet south of the intersection of South State Street and Wyoming Avenue right-of-ways, from said point of beginning running with the westerly right-of-way of South State Street 1) South 10°15’00” West a distance of 48.52 feet to a found iron rod at a corner for these lands and lands of Douglas A. Moore; thence turning and running with said lands of Moore 2) North 80°00’00” West a distance of 141.87 feet to point at a corner for these lands in line with lands of Center for Neurology Properties, LLC; thence turning and running with said lands of Center for Neurology Properties, LLC 3) North 10°15’00” East a distance of 48.52 feet to a found pin at a corner for these lands and other lands of Dover Realty, LLC; thence turning and running with said other lands of Dover Realty, LLC 4) South 80°00’00” East a distance of 141.87 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 6,884 S.F of land, be the same more or less.
2. The above described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs, then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover.
3. That the certified copy of the resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County.
4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 27th day of February 2007 at 12:01 a.m. o'clock.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 26, 2007
Public Hearing - Zoning Classification
Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, City Planner, reviewed the Petition to Annex and Zone property, the Cost/Revenue Analysis, and the Plan of Services Report (Exhibit #2). The Planning Commission recommended that the zoning classification of these properties be approved as C-1A (Limited Commercial) upon annexation.
Council President Williams declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Andrew Riggi, Becker Morgan Group, was present on behalf of the owners of 1040 and 1050 South State Street, if there were any questions of members.
Council President Williams declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved that the property be zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial) as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and by unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Slavin absent), Council adopted the following ordinance: (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 11, 2006).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1044 SOUTH STATE STREET AND 1050 SOUTH STATE STREET.
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from BG - General Business (Kent County zoning classification) to
C-1A - Limited Commercial (City of Dover zoning classification).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from BG - General Business (Kent County zoning classification) to C-1A - Limited Commercial (City of Dover zoning classification) on that property located at 1044 South Stated Street and 1050 South State Street, owned by 1050 South State Street, LLC.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 26, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed land and zoning text amendments that clarifies the requirements for off-street parking of recreational vehicles, boats on trailers, and utility trailers within residential zones. It also modifies the length of time that such vehicles may be parked on public streets in residential areas. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
Members were reminded that a sub-committee was formed specifically for reviewing the current Recreational Vehicle-Parking Ordinances in an effort to make them clear, fair, and enforceable. The recommendations developed were then reviewed by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
Mr. Hogan moved that the Final Reading of the proposed zoning text amendments be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried (the First Reading of these ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 13, 2006).
Council President Williams declared the hearing open.
Mr. Rob Wharton, Woodcrest, stated that the proposed amendment requires the offset for parking of a camper, boat, etc., to be the furthest point back from the road. He advised members that he has an L-shaped ranch home and 95% of the houses in the Dover area have driveways that go up to their garage. Mr. Wharton’s garage is not the furthest point from the road. In order to put the vehicle on the other side of the house, a new driveway would need to be installed. He also stated that a majority of people park their campers, boats, etc. next to their garages where there already is a driveway.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Wharton confirmed that he favors the proposed amendments with the exception of the setback requirement, explaining that it will be difficult to enforce since most of the driveways are on the opposite side of the reset; therefore, it would not be feasible or economic for anyone to park at the furthest point back.
Mr. Tony Hummel, 476 Fiddlers Green, recognized that there have been various committees and sub-committees that have worked on the development of an ordinance that is clear, fair, and enforceable. He commended Mr. Hogan (as Chair of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee) for doing a good job bringing both sides together to resolve the various issues and to the satisfaction of most involved parties. He felt that the goal was to find a balance between the rights of some residents to pursue recreation and the desire of other residents that do not want these types of recreational vehicles in their neighborhoods. Mr. Hummel felt that the ordinance was a reflection of both sides and noted that there are some, from both points of view, that will never be satisfied. He stated that the proposed amendments are clear, fair, and enforceable and urged members to approve the ordinances as presented.
Mr. John Willson, 150 Turner Drive, advised members that his driveway has been expanded from the garage to very close to the property line in order to back his recreational trailer along side of the garage. He is currently in the process of having a curb depression installed, costing approximately $3,000, in order to more accurately back the trailer in along the side of the garage to the rear of the property. However, the trailer will not be five (5) feet from the property line, as required, and, therefore, he would need to obtain a waiver. Otherwise, it would be necessary to maneuver the trailer around behind the house, which would be difficult to accomplish. It is his hope that the ordinance will be passed and the waivers will not be so strict that they would not allow for certain situations when due cause is shown.
Mr. James Fogell, 360 Nimitz Road, stated that he has a 29-foot camper that is 8 feet wide, and a 17- foot boat that is 8 feet wide. Currently, there is a concrete slab on his property from the street to approximately 10 feet from the rear of his property fence. The camper is only two (2) feet from the side fence, and the boat is parked along the side of the garage, which is next to the fence. He stated that these vehicles have been parked in these locations for 40 years. It was his feeling that the ordinance is difficult to understand. Since he would not be in compliance with the proposed ordinance and since he could not afford off-site storage, the only alternative would be to sell the boat and camper. Mr. Fogell stated that even if he could afford to do so, he would not want to put an asset with this much value in storage. Also, he stated that it would be difficult to keep them maintained, such as brushing off snow, assuring the battery is charged, tires inflated, etc., when they are in storage.
Mr. Greg Jackson, 132 Crescent Drive, referred to the waivers included in the proposed ordinance and requested consideration for allowing a waiver on the front yard setback, explaining that his situation is very similar to that of Mr. Wharton, who spoke earlier.
Mr. Robert Sheets, 25 Scioto Court, questioned if there is a need for the proposed ordinance, explaining that there are already regulations concerning unsightly situations in the City. Driving around Dover, he stated that he has observed broken fences, rusted cars, piles of tires, etc. Rarely has he seen rusted, rundown, recreational vehicles in neighborhood driveways or front yards. Simply because they are bigger or shaped differently than a car does not make it unsightly. He asked who was in the majority, people complaining or the hundreds of owners of recreational vehicles who are respectful, courteous, and do not bother their neighbors. Mr. Sheets suggested that members positively identify the majority when considering this issue and ask themselves who is being hurt and who is being helped - the majority or minority. If members truly feel that the ordinance is required, he requested that consideration be given to there being two (2) separate groups: those that store recreational vehicles, and those that only temporarily park their recreational vehicle, feeling that there needs to be a distinction made between the two (2) situations. Referring to the three (3) days allowed for temporarily parking recreational vehicles for maintenance, Mr. Sheets felt it was not sufficient, explaining that sometimes it could take up to a week to service a vehicle, depending on the availability of parts, etc. Again, he requested that members consider the majority when voting on the proposed amendments and that those who park and those who store recreational vehicles not be subject to the same requirements since they are two (2) different situations entirely.
Ms. Sandra Kinkus, 365 Fiddlers Green, spoke as a member of the RV Sub-committee and advised members that waivers were not considered because of the administrative nightmare it would impose on those who would be required to enforce the ordinance. There was also discussion during the sub-committee meetings that a recreational vehicle would be acceptable as long as it did not take up 30% coverage of the front side. With the waiver, if you are three (3) feet from the property, that is clearly more than 30%. Ms. Kinkus also indicated that, to her recollection, the sub-committee did not omit the screening requirements. She advised members that there is no opposition to the recreational vehicles that are properly screened and parked. She encouraged members to make the best decision for the City of Dover.
Ms. Ann Rider, Crossgates, stated that she sympathizes with the recreational vehicle owners and respect their rights to store their vehicles on their own property. However, she reminded members that all homeowners have rights. She noted that the current ordinance requires screening of such vehicles and that the proposed amendments eliminates this requirement. She requested that members not only consider the recreational vehicle owners but also consider all the other citizens in Dover because it affects the City as a whole.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Williams declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Hogan moved for adoption of the proposed ordinances, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Mr. Ruane moved to amend the proposed subsection 1.12 of Appendix B, Article 6, Section 1- Permitted Accessory Parking, by renaming subparagraph (g) as (h) and inserting a new subparagraph (g) to read as follows:
"Such vehicles must be parked behind an opaque fence meeting the requirements of Article 5, Section 1.55 or behind site-obscuring, all-season landscaping. If a fence is used for screening vehicles less than six (6) feet in height, the fence must screen the entire height of the vehicle. For vehicles taller than six(6)feet in height, the fence must be six (6) feet tall. If vegetative screening is used, the vegetation must screen the entire height of the vehicle at the time of planting unless the vehicle exceeds six (6) feet in height, in which case the vegetation must be six (6) feet in height at the time of the planting".
The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mr. Ruane explained that the purpose of the amendment is to include screening requirements. He stated that screening provisions have been in the City’s ordinance since 1975. This issue came forward because inspectors indicated that they were unable to enforce the ordinance because they were unable to define the requirements. The amendment not only defines the screening requirements but also gives an option of either installing fencing or landscaping. If screening requirements are not included, the City will not be preserving the appearance of the neighborhood, nor would the intended purpose of the 1962 ordinance (when the ordinance was first adopted) be addressed. It was Mr. Ruane’s opinion that the majority of the residents feel that the neighborhood appearance is compromised by these oversized and “out of scale” vehicles and that property values decline. Without the screening requirements, he stated that the purpose of the proposed ordinance will not be met.
Disagreeing, Mr. McGiffin stated that he has had several conversations with residents and has attended the various committee meetings when this issue has been discussed. He is satisfied that to include a screening or fence requirement would cause more problems than it solves; therefore, it was his opinion that the ordinance amendment is much better without that provision.
Mr. McGlumphy relayed his support for the screening requirement, stating that the removal of the screening provision is discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious. This provision has been in the ordinance since 1975 and if this screening is removed from residential properties, how could it be required for commercial properties. He suggested that properties should be required to be brought into compliance through the enforcement of the present Code.
Mr. Salters felt that if property owners are told that they are not able to store their vehicle on their property, their civil rights will have been violated. If screening is required, he felt that those residents who wish to use plants as screening must be provided enough time to allow the plants to grow in order for them to be in compliance.
Mr. Hogan reminded members and the public that the City has an existing ordinance that requires screening; however, the ordinance does not define screening. Most of the people who spoke during the public hearing are in violation of the current ordinance and if the proposed amendments fail, they will be cited for violation of the current ordinance.
Mrs. Russell expressed her concurrence with Mr. Salters and noted that screenings can create more problems than provide solutions.
Mr. Hogan explained that the committee began reviewing this issue as a result of the problems being encountered with the ability to enforce the current ordinance. There were discrepancies with regards to screening, people were complaining, people were being cited, etc. The goal was to write an ordinance that is enforceable, reasonably fair, and that would make most people happy. If the proposed amendments fail, he reiterated that the City would then have to enforce the current ordinance, which he believes will create concerns.
The motion to amend the proposed subsection 1.12 of Appendix B, Article 6, Section 1- Permitted Accessory Parking, by renaming subparagraph (g) as (h) and inserting a new subparagraph (g) failed by a roll call vote of four (4) no, three (3) yes (Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Ruane, and Mrs. Williams), one (1) abstention (Mrs. Russell), and one (1) absent (Mr. Slavin).
Mr. Ruane moved to amend the proposed Subsection 1.12 (g) by deleting it in its entirety and that a new section be added to read as follows:
"All residential properties in the City of Dover must be in compliance with the requirements of this section by May 31, 2007.”
The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mr. Ruane explained that the purpose of the motion amending Subsection 1.12(g) was to eliminate the administrative nightmare in the waiver sections of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that implementing the waiver would be an administrative burden for the staff in the Inspections Department. Once the ordinance amendment is adopted, she stated that the plan would be to place a public notice in the newspaper providing details of those situations that would qualify for a waiver and that applications for waivers were being accepted within a 120-day period. She stated that an inspector would determine if the applicant qualifies for the waiver. Mrs. Townshend stressed that the waiver requirement is limited in terms of situations that are not necessarily currently out of compliance. She noted that the waivers would be specific to this Section of the Code, explaining that the zoning ordinance requires motor vehicles to be parked on a hard, paved, dust-free surface; however, this would not be a requirement for a trailer since they are not technically motor vehicles. She assured members that there are several issues that will have to be examined when reviewing the requests for waivers. Mrs. Townshend stated that although there is no estimate on the number of waivers that would be received, she anticipates that all of the inspections staff will be quite heavily devoted to handling these matters and that there may be a need to use some of the planning staff’s assistance. For the 120 day waiver period, it was her opinion that there would be several hours devoted to inspecting sites to determine eligibility for the waiver and compliance with the waiver and ordinance. It was her opinion that this matter would not become a long-term issue, explaining that there would be a need to maintain approved waivers in the permit address file and in the computer system so that years later, if a complaint is received, before anyone is cited for a violation, staff could check to be sure that the violation has not already been waived. Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the additional burden on staff will depend upon the number of waiver requests received - if there are only 10, it would not be such a burden, if there are 250, it could be a challenge, explaining that it is the unknown that makes this issue concerning.
It was Mr. Salters’ feeling that there is an issue of fairness that should be provided to those who own such recreational vehicles and that, depending on the number of waivers requested, members should understand that it may take staff time to resolve each issue. He relayed his opposition to taking away the rights of the recreational vehicle owners.
Mrs. Russell expressed concern that there would not be enough staff available to handle the waiver requests and continue to handle the everyday functions. As a result, there may be other matters that will not be handled in a timely manner, which may increase the number of complaints received. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City currently has a proactive code enforcement policy where inspectors are not only responding to complaints but they are also checking for violations. If a lot of time is spent on reviewing waivers, there is the possibility that there would be fewer “pickups” (violations observed by the inspectors), which could increase the number of complaints. However, she assured members that staff will do whatever is necessary to resolve all issues as best as possible.
Mr. McGlumphy noted that the proposed ordinance amendments provide clarity. It was his feeling that the burden will not be about how many applications for waivers are received but with the enforcement of the ordinance, explaining that there are several residents who have not been in compliance for several years. If the City were proactive in assuring that all residents are in compliance with the current ordinance, there would be no need for members to be discussing this matter at this time. Residents should have been in compliance since the time the ordinance was first adopted. Agreeing with Mr. Hogan, Mr. McGlumphy stated that he did not feel that the department would be inundated with waiver requests; however, in order to maintain the integrity of neighborhoods, staff will be required to assure that residents are in compliance with the ordinance.
The motion to amend the proposed Subsection 1.12 (g) by deleting it in its entirety and that a new section be added failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no, two (2) yes (Mr. McGlumphy and Mr. Ruane), and one (1) absent (Mr. Slavin).
Mr. Ruane moved to amend the proposed Subsection 1.12 (g) by deleting it in its entirety and that a new Subsection 1.12 (g) be inserted, to read as follows:
“g)A resident of the City of Dover who is at the time of adoption of this section, in full compliance with the current provisions of Subsection 1.12 of Section 1, Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 – Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities and who is in possession of a trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle at their legal residence may apply with the Office of the City Planner for a waiver allowing the trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle to be placed in a manner that does not conform to 1.12(c), 1.12(d), or 1.12(e) provided that the resident submits with the application proof that:
1) The trailer, boat or personal watercraft or recreational vehicle is parked no closer than three (3) feet from the side and rear property lines.; and,
2) The resident applies for this waiver within 120 days of the first day of the public notice of this waiver option.”
The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mr. Ruane explained that the proposed amendment would allow a waiver for those residents that have already complied with the existing statute, who are the only ones that he felt would qualify for a waiver. Without this amendment, he cautioned members that there could be several recreational vehicles that are not currently stored at a residence that will be after the ordinance is adopted and then could be granted a waiver. Mr. Ruane reminded members that waivers are typically provided to recognize individuals that are faced with a burden because something has been changed when they have already complied with current regulations.
Referring to “current provisions”, Mrs. Townshend stated that if and once the amendment is adopted, it becomes the current provisions; therefore, she suggested that the wording be more specific. She also relayed concern with referencing previous provisions in ordinances, feeling that current ordinances should be specific in the requirements. Mrs. Townshend stated her opinion that administratively, the proposed amendment would be much more burdensome than the other waiver provision since inspectors would need to determine if there was a recreational vehicle on the property as of the date of enactment, which could be extremely difficult to determine.
Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Townshend stated that using the current ordinance, it has been difficult in determining if a resident is in compliance or not.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend further explained that there are some residents that are clearly in compliance and others that are clearly not in compliance with the current ordinance. However, there have been several incidents when this is not the case, particularly with the interpretation of the screening requirements.
The motion to amend the proposed Subsection 1.12 (g) by deleting it in its entirety and that a new Subsection 1.12 (g) be inserted failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no, two (2) yes (Mr. McGlumphy and Mr. Ruane), one (1) abstention (Mrs. Russell), and one (1) absent (Mr. Slavin).
The motion for adoption of the proposed ordinances failed by a roll call vote of four (4) no, four (4) yes (Mr. Carey, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, and Mrs. Williams), and one (1) absent (Mr. Slavin). City Clerk’s Office Note: Originally, Mrs. Russell abstained from voting. On a question raised by Mr. Ruane, the City Solicitor indicated that Mrs. Russell would need to state her reason for abstaining. Mrs. Russell’s reasoning was that she did not feel that the ordinance was clear enough. City Solicitor Rodriguez ruled that the reason provided was not a sufficient reason to abstain and therefore, would require her to vote.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 12, 2007
The Utility Committee met on February 12, 2007 with Chairman Carey presiding.
Public Utilities Director’s Report on Capital Projects Impact on Power Plant and Capital Project Reliability Review
During the January 8, 2007 committee meeting, members requested that staff review the FY07 CIP budget and provide an update on the projects as related to expenses for the operation of the power plant in support of any planned transmission line work. In addition, the City Manager tasked the Public Utilities Director, Mr. Lunt, with reviewing the electric system facilities for major reliability issues.
After reviewing all the projects, Mr. Lunt submitted a summary of each CIP project, inclusive of the financial report of current budget expenses. He advised members that the Governors Avenue Project has been delayed by the State until next year. The Dover Downs 69 Kv Line Relocation was completed during the first week of January, which required the plant to operate for two(2) days in January. The materials for both the Lebanon Transformer and Mayfair 69 Kv conversion have been ordered and will be delivered in the next fiscal year. Mr. Lunt assured members that there are no other projects in the CIP that will impact plant operation. He also noted that any unplanned outages or maintenance on the transmission line may require support from the power plant.
At the request of the City Manager, Mr. Lunt also reviewed the reliability of the electric system and submitted a report on major deficiencies that exist that would severely impact system reliability. He provided members with an overview of three (3) major deficiencies that have been discovered at this time, as follows: 1) College Road Substation; 2) McKee Run Transformer; and 3) Transmission Relay Upgrade.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Lunt confirmed that the funding source for the new reliability projects for FY07 will be from reallocation of funds and that no additional funding is being requested. Mr. DePrima indicated that most of the reallocated funds will be obtained from the Governors Avenue project. He explained that the model that has been used by staff, in conjunction with the rate study, allows for $3M to be programmed each year for CIP expenses. There is also a bond issue being proposed; therefore, in the future, it will be a combination of debt service and the $3M programmed that will be utilized to cover CIP expenses.
If members were to approve the revised CIP recommendations as presented, Mr. Ruane questioned whether or not it would require the costs to be factored into the rate structure, thus creating additional costs for the rate payers. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that when the model was created, there was $3M allocated for CIP projects, regardless of the CIP budget requirements. These reserves are being used to help supplement if needed; however, the reserves are being reduced since the City is not budgeting for the reserves. She stated that there may not be a need to replenish the reserves through rates unless there is concern that the reserves have been compromised.
Mrs. Mi